Health coaching intervention with or without the support of an exercise buddy to increase physical activity of people with chronic low back pain compared to usual care: a feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise buddies (people to exercise together with) might support people with low back pain (LBP) to become active. However, involving buddies in randomised controlled trials (RCT) might challenge recruitment, data collection and follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of the intervention, recruitment and data collection approaches and potential effects of a health coaching intervention (focused on physical activity) with or without exercise buddies' support on physical activity of people with chronic LBP versus usual discharge care. DESIGN: Feasibility and pilot RCT. METHODS: Adults (n = 30) discharged from LBP treatment were randomised to the Buddy-Assisted (health coaching intervention with exercise buddy's support), Individual-Only (health coaching only), or usual care groups. Data were collected at baseline, three and six months. The feasibility of trial's procedures was assessed through recruitment rate (acceptable if >70%), data completion rate (acceptable if ≤ 20% missing data), and follow-up rate (successful if ≥ 85%). The intervention's acceptability was assessed via feedback questionnaires. Preliminary effects on physical activity and other outcomes were also explored. RESULTS: Recruitment and baseline data completion were acceptable. However, data collection and follow-up rates post-randomisation were not. 85% of the Buddy-Assisted Group believed the buddies helped them to increase physical activity and would recommend the intervention. 70% of the Individual-Only and Control groups believed exercise buddies would help them to become further active. CONCLUSION: The data collection and follow-up approaches were not successful and need amending before a large-scale RCT. Nonetheless, the buddy-assisted intervention was well-accepted. A future RCT will focus on differences in clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620001118998).

A randomized clinical trial comparing the McKenzie method and motor control exercises in people with chronic low back pain and a directional preference: 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the long-term (1-year follow-up) effects of the McKenzie method and motor control exercises on trunk muscle thickness in people with chronic low back pain (LBP) and a directional preference. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A secondary public health facility in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy adults with greater than 3-month history of LBP and a directional preference. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive 12 treatments of either the McKenzie method or motor control exercises over 8-weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Muscle thickness of the transversus abdominis, obliquus internus, and obliquus externus measured from ultrasound images. Secondary outcomes included function, perceived recovery, and pain. Outcomes were collected at baseline, post intervention at 8-weeks, and at 1-year follow-up by blinded assessors. The current paper focuses on the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants completed data collection for the primary outcome at 1-year. There were no significant between group differences for changes in trunk muscle thickness for any of the three investigated muscles: transversus abdominis [3%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -5%, 11%], obliquus internus [-4%, 95% CI: -9%, 2%] and obliquus externus [3%, 95% CI: -4%, 11%]. Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups for the secondary outcomes of function, perceived recovery and pain. CONCLUSION: Trunk muscle thickness, function, perceive recovery and pain are similar between patients receiving McKenzie method or motor control exercises at a 1-year follow-up in a population of people with chronic LBP and a directional preference. Clinical Trials Registration number CTRN12611000971932.

Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a treatment-based classification system founded on 3 core principles: classification into diagnostic syndromes, classification-based intervention, and appropriate application of force. Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of MDT for low back pain; however, results have varied. The inconsistent delivery of MDT across trials may explain the different findings. OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment effect sizes for pain or disability between trials that delivered MDT consistent with the core principles of the approach and trials that met some or none of these principles. METHODS: In this systematic review, databases were searched from inception to June 2018 for studies that delivered MDT compared to nonpharmacological, conservative control interventions in patients with low back pain and reported outcomes of pain or disability. Studies were classified as "adherent" (meeting the core principles of MDT) or "nonadherent" (using some or none of the principles of MDT). Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Meta-regression procedures were used to analyze the effect of delivery mode on clinical outcomes, adjusting for covariates of symptom duration (less than or greater than 3 months) and control intervention (minimal or active). RESULTS: Studies classified as adherent to the MDT approach showed greater reductions in pain and disability of 15.0 (95% confidence interval: 7.3, 22.7) and 11.7 (95% confidence interval: 5.4, 18.0) points, respectively, on a 100-point scale compared to nonadherent trials. CONCLUSION: This review provides preliminary evidence that treatment effects of MDT are greater when the core principles are followed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(4):219-229. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8734.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the McKenzie Method to Motor Control Exercises in People With Chronic Low Back Pain and a Directional Preference.

Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Background Motor control exercises are believed to improve coordination of the trunk muscles. It is unclear whether increases in trunk muscle thickness can be facilitated by approaches such as the McKenzie method. Furthermore, it is unclear which approach may have superior clinical outcomes. Objectives The primary aim was to compare the effects of the McKenzie method and motor control exercises on trunk muscle recruitment in people with chronic low back pain classified with a directional preference. The secondary aim was to conduct a between-group comparison of outcomes for pain, function, and global perceived effect. Methods Seventy people with chronic low back pain who demonstrated a directional preference using the McKenzie assessment were randomized to receive 12 treatments over 8 weeks with the McKenzie method or with motor control approaches. All outcomes were collected at baseline and at 8-week follow-up by blinded assessors. Results No significant between-group difference was found for trunk muscle thickness of the transversus abdominis (-5.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -15.2%, 3.7%), obliquus internus (-0.7%; 95% CI: -6.6%, 5.2%), and obliquus externus (1.2%; 95% CI: -4.3%, 6.8%). Perceived recovery was slightly superior in the McKenzie group (-0.8; 95% CI: -1.5, -0.1) on a -5 to +5 scale. No significant between-group differences were found for pain or function (P = .99 and P = .26, respectively). Conclusion We found no significant effect of treatment group for trunk muscle thickness. Participants reported a slightly greater sense of perceived recovery with the McKenzie method than with the motor control approach. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b-. Registered September 7, 2011 at www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12611000971932). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(7):514-522. Epub 12 May 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6379.

A randomized controlled trial comparing McKenzie therapy and motor control exercises on the recruitment of trunk muscles in people with chronic low back pain: a trial protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if McKenzie exercises when applied to a cohort of patients with chronic LBP who have a directional preference demonstrate improved recruitment of the transversus abdominis compared to motor control exercises when measurements were assessed from ultrasound images. DESIGN: A randomized blinded trial with a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: The Physiotherapy department of Concord Hospital a primary health care environment. PARTICIPANTS: 70-adults with greater than three-month history of LBP who have a directional preference. INTERVENTIONS: McKenzie techniques or motor control exercises for 12-sessions over eight weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transversus abdominus thickness measured from real time ultrasound images, pain, global perceived effect and capacity to self-manage. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first to investigate the possible mechanism of action that McKenzie therapy and motor control exercises have on the recruitment of the transversus abdominus in a cohort of low back pain patients sub-classified with a directional preference. Patients receiving matched exercises according to their directional preference are believed to have better outcomes than those receiving unmatched exercises. A better understanding of the mechanism of action that specific treatments such as motor control exercises or McKenzie exercises have on patients classified with a directional preference will allow therapist to make a more informed choice about treatment options.