Population
207 patients 18-60 years (52% female) with LBP for at least 4 out of the last 12 months with the last 14 days =/>4/10 on a VAS. If they had leg pain, the back pain had to be a worse complaint. All subjects made it through the study with no drop out in either group (impressive!)
Treatment Groups
Group 1 (EDUC): 105 Subjects received an educational approach designed to improve confidence in the robustness of the spine and two movements: Seated flexion and rotation
Group 2: 102 Subjects received Symptom Classification Based Treatment – MDT (by certified MDT) Directional preference, Stabilization, or intensive dynamic exercise. IN ADDITION: group 2’s physical therapists could at their own discretion referred for pharmacology, manual therapy, or physician for injection to complement their symptom-based plan
Outcome Measures
Pain, Activity Limitation, FABQ, Back Beliefs, physical activity, work ability, quality of life
Results
Primary Outcomes: Non-significant trend towards activity limitation being reduced mostly in the educational group although this could not be determined as clinically relevant.
Secondary outcomes: Improvement in fear-avoidance beliefs was better in the educational group. All other variables were about equally influenced by the two treatments.
The median number of treatment sessions was 3 for the educational group and 6 for the physical training group.
Conclusion:
“We have demonstrated that, among patients with cLBP, the educational/cognitive intervention with few consultations was at least as effective as an individualized, multidisciplinary physical-training approach. ‘At least’ refers to the observed overall trend of more improvement in activity-limitation with EDUC.”
“There was a statistically significant difference at 2 months in favor of EDUC in the proportion of people improving by a Minimal Important Change (MIC) in activity-limitation (5 or more points on the LBP Rating Scale).
“Post-hoc regression analysis showed a relationship between improved activity limitation and improvement in FABQ, and FABQ was more improved in the EDUC group at all three follow-ups, on balance these data appear to favor the EDUC approach.”
Full article Available Here.
President, Founder
Functional Contextualism: A Philosophy for Making Sense (and Making Progress) Why worldview matters in healthcare, education, and systems of change In healthcare, clarity is rare — and coherence, rarer still. In the often chaotic world of healthcare and human development, we are constantly faced with competing ideas, approaches, and “truths.”…
Complex Adaptive Systems in Health – Part 4 From the Inside Out: Building Regenerative Systems Through Purpose, Process, and Collective Intelligence Intro: From Critique to Construction In the first three parts of this series, we explored how complexity shapes everything—from the inner workings of the body to the structures that…
Complex Adaptive Systems in Health – Part 3 Systemic Burnout: What Happens When Healthcare Stops Listening to Itself Intro & Recap (Bridging from Part 1 & Part 2) In Part 1 of this series, we explored the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)—systems made up of many interacting parts…
The Institute of Contextual Health (IOCH) is a 501(c)(3) science and technology research and development organization. IOCH envisions a world where personalized, scientific care transcends traditional healthcare boundaries, driven by innovation, equity, and compassion. We aim to transform health and well-being, setting new benchmarks in personalized care and ensuring accessible, world-class services for all.
Unlock your path to better health by becoming a client at IOCH, where personalized care meets your unique health needs.
Stay updated with all the latest news, events, and updates about IOCH by signing up for our newsletter!
