Individuals with low back pain: how do they view physical activity?

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines for those with acute low back pain have advocated early resumption of normal activity and increased physical activity. Little is known about the relationship between low back pain and physical activity, and on the impact of that relationship on the promotion of increased levels of physical activity within a general practice population. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore associations between factors that influence changes in physical activity and the way individuals perceive and behave with their low back pain, and the impact of those perceptions and behaviour on physical activity. METHODS: Twenty-seven informants were chosen using a purposive sample from a larger group of individuals who, because of their low back trouble, had been referred by their GPs to a community-based, single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) at the University of York, which is evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme. Fifty-four interviews were conducted with this subgroup of the RCT; four informants were interviewed once, 19 twice and four of them three times. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using manual and computer-aided approaches. RESULTS: Physical activity was perceived as (i) activities of daily living, (ii) activities causing breathlessness that they went out of the way to do and (iii) more competitive-type activity. The avoidance of physical activity and fear of pain returning were the two main factors directly associated with informants' backs and changes in physical activity. These two factors hindered increases in physical activity, even though the majority of informants believed strongly that being physically active helped ease their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: When advocating that individuals with acute low back pain return to or increase physical activity, it is important that clinicians identify avoidance of physical activity and/or fear of pain at the earliest stage in order to tailor advice and reassurance appropriately. If avoidance of activity and fear of pain is identified and clinicians want to encourage patients to take up and sustain increased physical activity, they should explore issues of fear of pain, and avoidance of and confidence to do physical activities, in addition to other factors influencing physical activity.     

A randomized trial comparing a group exercise programme for back pain patients with individual physiotherapy in a severely deprived area

Purpose. To compare a group exercise programme known as the Back to Fitness programme with individual physiotherapy for patients with non-specific low back pain from a materially deprived area.

Method. This was a randomized controlled trial including 237 physiotherapy patients with back pain lasting more than six weeks. Participants were allocated to either the Back to Fitness programme or to individual physiotherapy, and followed up at three months and 12 months after randomization. The main outcome measure was the Roland Disability Questionnaire. Secondary measures were: SF12, EQ5D, Pain Self-Efficacy Scale. Health care diaries recording patients' use of health care resources were also collected over a 12-month period.

Results. There were no statistically significant differences in change scores between groups on the primary outcome measure at three months (CI - 2.24 to 0.49) and at 12 months (CI - 1.68 to 1.39). Only minor improvements in disability scores were observed in the Back to Fitness group at three months and 12 months respectively (mean change scores; - 0.89, - 0.77) and in the individual physiotherapy arm (mean change scores; - 0.02, - 0.63). Further analysis showed that patients from the most severely deprived areas were marginally worse at three month follow-up whereas those from more affluent areas tended to improve (CI 0.43 to 3.15).     

Responsiveness of generic and specific measures of health outcome in low back pain

STUDY DESIGN: A longitudinal study using patient questionnaires was performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the discriminatory power and responsiveness of the Aberdeen Back Pain Scale (ABPS), the Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and the EuroQol in patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A number instruments specific to low back pain have not been compared for measurement properties. The EuroQol is a widely used generic instrument that has not been compared with specific instruments in patients with back pain. METHODS: A questionnaire incorporating the Aberdeen Back Pain Scale, the Roland Disability Questionnaire, and the EuroQol was completed by patients taking part in a clinical trial of exercise treatments for back pain. Patients completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. The discriminatory power of these instruments was assessed against variables relating to activity limitations, medication, and comorbidity. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response means. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 187 patients taking part in the clinical trial. The Aberdeen instrument was found to be the most powerful at discriminating between different groups of patients on variables relating to activity limitations, medication, and comorbidity. The specific instruments demonstrated good levels of responsiveness, with the Aberdeen instrument producing the largest standardized response means. The Aberdeen instrument was more responsive to the smaller changes experienced by the control group, but was less powerful than the Roland at measuring differences in the levels of change between the two groups of patients at two of the three follow-up assessments in the trial. The EuroQol demonstrated a moderate level of responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The two specific instruments are capable of greater levels of discrimination between groups of patients, and are more responsive over time than the generic EuroQol. The Aberdeen instrument performed most satisfactorily in relation to these criteria, but the Roland instrument was more sensitive to differences between the two groups in the clinical trial. The measurement properties of these two instruments reflect their origin: The Aberdeen instrument is based on clinical questions, whereas the Roland instrument is based on the generic Sickness Impact Profile. Instrument content should be carefullyconsidered when selecting instruments for applications, including clinical trials.     

A controlled, prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school in the relief of chronic low back pain

Ninety-two chronic low back pain patients were randomly allocated to two groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school compared with an exercise-only regimen according to specified outcome variables. The data from 78 patients with 7 years mean duration of symptoms was analyzed. Three assessments were made: before treatment and 6 and 16 weeks after treatment. Changes in patients' levels of pain, functional disability, and other related variables were compared in the two groups. Almost all variables showed an improvement at 6 weeks. At 16 weeks, functional disability and pain levels showed a significant difference. Back school patients continued to make an improvement. This method of managing low back pain makes maximal use of limited resources and appears to be effective, especially in the longer term.