Treatment preference changes after exposure to treatment in adults with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Patients' pretreatment preferences can influence outcomes of nonpharmacologic treatments for musculoskeletal pain. Less is known about how patients' treatment preferences change following exposure to treatment. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of exposure to treatment and change in disability and pain on treatment preference ratings of two exercise-based treatments for people with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a subsample of participants from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Academic research setting. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with chronic LBP (n = 83). INTERVENTIONS: 6 weekly sessions of motor skill training (MST) or strength and flexibility exercise (SFE). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prior to treatment, participants completed a treatment preference assessment measure (TPA) describing MST and SFE. Participants rated four attributes (effectiveness, acceptability/logicality, suitability/appropriateness, convenience) of each treatment on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4) with higher scores indicating higher ratings. An overall preference rating was calculated as the mean of the attribute ratings. The TPA was administered 12 months post treatment to reassess participants' ratings of the treatment they received. RESULTS: Participants who received MST rated their preference for MST higher 12 months post treatment and participants who received SFE rated their preference for SFE lower. Smaller improvements (to worsening) in pain were associated with a reduction in preference ratings in the SFE group, whereas the MST group generally increased their ratings regardless of pain. Changes in disability were not related to changes in preference ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Participants changed their preference ratings of two exercise-based treatments for LBP after exposure to the treatment. Participants who received the less familiar MST viewed this treatment more favorably 12 months post treatment, and this change was less contingent on changes in disability/pain than for participants in the SFE group. Assessing preference ratings at various times during treatment is crucial to understand a person's preference for and perceptions of a treatment.

Motor skill training versus strength and flexibility exercise in people with chronic low back pain: Preplanned analysis of effects on kinematics during a functional activity.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic low back pain display the altered movement pattern where the lumbar spine moves more readily into its available range of motion relative to other joints. A logical approach to treatment, therefore, would be to improve this pattern during functional activities. METHODS: 154 participants were randomized to receive 6 weeks of motor skill training or strength and flexibility exercise. Participants in the motor skill training group received person-specific training to modify their altered movement pattern during functional activities. Participants in the strength and flexibility group received exercises for trunk strength and trunk and lower-limb flexibility. At baseline, post-treatment and 6-months after treatment participants performed a test of picking up an object using their preferred pattern. Three-dimensional marker co-ordinate data were collected. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine the treatment group and time effects. FINDINGS: Motor skill training: Baseline early excursion values [mean (confidence interval)] were as follows: knee = 11.1°(8.0,4.1), hip = 21.2°(19.2,23.1), lumbar = 11.3°(10.4,12.3). From baseline to post-treatment significant improvements in early excursion included: knee = +18.6°(15.4,21.8), hip = +10.8°(8.8,12.8), and lumbar = -2.0°(-0.1,-4.0). There were no significant changes from post-treatment to 6-month follow-up. Strength and flexibility exercise: Baseline early excursion values were as follows: knee = 8.9°(5.8,11.9), hip = 20.8°(18.9,22.8), and lumbar = 11.2°(10.3,12.2) early excursion. There were no significant changes for knee, hip, and lumbar early excursion. INTERPRETATION: Motor skill training was more effective than strength and flexibility exercise at changing and maintaining change to the altered movement pattern during a functional activity test of picking up an object.

Consistent differences in lumbar spine alignment between low back pain subgroups and genders during clinical and functional activity sitting tests.

BACKGROUND: Subgroups of people with low back pain display differences in their lumbar alignment during tests from a clinical examination. However, it is unknown if subgroups display the same patterns during a functional activity test and if gender influences subgroup-related differences. OBJECTIVES: Test if differences in lumbar alignment between two LBP subgroups are 1) present during a functional activity test of preferred sitting and 2) independent of gender. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHOD: 154 participants with chronic low back pain were classified based on the Movement System Impairment Classification System by a physical therapist. Participants performed a functional activity test of preferred sitting and clinical tests of maximum flexed and extended sitting. 3D marker co-ordinate data were collected. Sagittal plane lumbar alignment, indexed by lumbar curvature angle, was calculated. A three-way mixed effect analysis of variance was used to examine effects of test, subgroup, gender, subgroup × test, gender × test and subgroup × gender. RESULTS/FINDINGS: The lumbar rotation with extension subgroup [LCA = -8.0° (-9.5,-6.5)] displayed a more extended lumbar alignment than lumbar rotation [LCA = -5.9° (-7.4,-4.4)]. Women [LCA = -10.7° (-12.3,-9.2)] displayed a more extended lumbar alignment than men [LCA = -3.2° (-4.7,-1.7)]. There was a significant gender × test interaction (p = 0.01). The subgroup × test (p = 0.99) and subgroup × gender (p = 0.76) interactions were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: LBP subgroup differences in lumbar alignment are present during preferred sitting. Gender-related differences in lumbar alignment are not driving subgroup differences. These findings highlight the need to use patient-specific clinical characteristics to guide treatment of a functional activity of preferred sitting limited due to low back pain.

MODIFYING STANCE ALTERS THE PEAK KNEE ADDUCTION MOMENT DURING A GOLF SWING.

BACKGROUND: The knee joint is one of the most frequently injured regions in the game of golf, and the loads experienced by the knee during the golf swing are typically greater than during other activities of daily living. Altering movement patterns is a common strategy that can be used to reduce loading on the knee joint but has received little attention during studies of the golf swing. The primary aim of this study was to examine the effect altering golf stance has on the lead limb peak external knee adduction moment. STUDY DESIGN: Laboratory based, quasi-experimental. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants were recruited for a 3-dimensional biomechanical analysis wherein participants hit three golf shots with a driver using the following stance conditions: self-selected, bilateral 0 º foot angle, bilateral 30 º foot angle, wide stance width, and narrow stance width. RESULTS: Both the 30 º foot angle (0.80 ± 0.51 Nm) and wide stance width (0.89 ± 0.49 Nm) conditions significantly decreased (p < 0.001) the lead limb peak external knee adduction moment compared to the self-selected (1.15 ± 0.58 Nm) golf stance. No significant differences (p = 0.109) in swing speed were found between any of the stance conditions. CONCLUSION: The externally rotated foot position and wider stance width decreased the lead limb peak external knee adduction moment without hindering swing speed. Modifying stance could be a viable option for golfers who wish to continue playing the sport at a high level, while reducing potentially detrimental loads at the knee joint.Levels of Evidence: 2b-Individual cohort study.