Subacute Non-specific Low Back Pain Research Articles

For adults with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain, how does McKenzie therapy compare with minimal intervention or manual therapy?

For adults with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain, how does McKenzie therapy compare with minimal intervention or manual therapy?

The Prediction of Chronicity in Patients With Acute and Subacute Nonspecific Low Back Pain and Associated Risk Factors: A Case-Control Study

BackgroundChronic low back pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders in different countries. AimsThis study aimed to predict the chronicity of nonspecific acute and nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and related risk factors among cases referred to physiotherapy clinics. DesignA case-control and cross-sectional study. SettingsTwo physiotherapy centers in Tehran, Iran. ParticipantsThis study included 502 patients with acute, subacute and chronic LBP. MethodThis study included 502 patients with acute, subacute and chronic LBP. Data were obtained using the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophic Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Walker's Health-Promoting Lifestyle Questionnaire, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Data analysis was performed by applying independent sample t test, χ2, and multiple logistic regression in SPSS software version 25. IBM Amos version 22 was used for path analysis. ResultsIt was found that some demographic parameters (i.e., weight, BMI, job, type of occupational task performance, history of low back pain, work shift, underlying diseases and income), some cognitive parameters (i.e., fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, catastrophic pain, and depression), some lifestyle parameters (i.e., health responsibility, physical activity, and interpersonal relationships), sleep quality and pain related disability were among the most critical risk factors in the chronicity of acute and subacute LBP (p < .05). ConclusionsPersonal, psychological, and psychosocial parameters can be among the most critical predictors in the chronicity of acute and subacute nonspecific LBP. Hence, paying attention to all the mentioned factors at the beginning of patients' treatment to create a targeted treatment algorithm and prevent the conversion of acute and subacute into chronic LBP has particular importance.

Effects of core stabilization exercise and strengthening exercise on proprioception, balance, muscle thickness and pain related outcomes in patients with subacute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundTherapeutic exercises are used in clinical practice for patients with low back pain (LBP). Core stabilization exercises can retrain the important function of local trunk muscles and increase the accuracy of the sensory integration process for stability of the spine in individuals with LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different exercise regimes, Core stabilization exercises (CSE) and Strengthening exercise (STE), on proprioception, balance, muscle thickness and pain-related outcomes in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).MethodsThirty-six subacute NSLBP patients, [mean age, 34.78 ± 9.07 years; BMI, 24.03 ± 3.20 Kg/m2; and duration of current pain, 8.22 ± 1.61 weeks], were included in this study. They were randomly allocated into either CSE (n = 18) or STE groups (n = 18). Exercise training was given for 30 min, three times per week, for up to 4 weeks. Proprioception, standing balance, muscle thickness of transversus abdominis (TrA) and lumbar multifidus (LM), and pain-related outcomes, comprising pain, functional disability and fear of movement, were assessed at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention.ResultsThe CSE group demonstrated significantly more improvement than the STE group after 4 weeks of intervention. Improvements were in: proprioception [mean difference (95% CI): − 0.295 (− 0.37 to − 0.2), effect size: 1.38, (p < 0.001)], balance: single leg standing with eyes open and eyes closed on both stable and unstable surfaces (p < 0.05), and percentage change of muscle thickness of TrA and LM (p < 0.01). Although both exercise groups gained relief from pain, the CSE group demonstrated greater reduction of functional disability [effect size: 0.61, (p < 0.05)] and fear of movement [effect size: 0.80, (p < 0.01)]. There were no significant adverse effects in either type of exercise program.ConclusionDespite both core stabilization and strengthening exercises reducing pain, core stabilization exercise is superior to strengthening exercise. It is effective in improving proprioception, balance, and percentage change of muscle thickness of TrA and LM, and reducing functional disability and fear of movement in patients with subacute NSLBP.Trial registrationThai Clinical Trial Registry (TCTR20180822001; August 21, 2018).

Effect of Physiotherapy Treatment in the Autonomic Activation and Pain Perception in Male Patients with Non-Specific Subacute Low Back Pain.

Introduction: Physiotherapy treatment is a common intervention for low back pain (LBP) patients. These interventions have been related to physiological effects in the central nervous system. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the effect of physiotherapy treatment in patients with LBP in the autonomic nervous system activation and subjective pain perception of patients. Methods: A total of 30 male subjects diagnosed with non-specific subacute LBP received a 50 min session consisting of (a) a manual therapy based on joint mobilization and soft tissues techniques in the lumbo-pelvic area, (b) a stretching program, and (c) motor control exercises of the core muscles. The autonomic modification of participants was assessed prior to and after the physiotherapy treatment. Results: Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis reported a significant increase in average RR (p = 0.001), RMSSD (p = 0.008), LRMSSD (p = 0.001), SDNN (p = 0.005), and PNN50 (p = 0.024) after the session. Frequency-domain measures showed a significant increase in LF (p = 0.030) and HF (p = 0.014), and a decrease in LF/HF ratio (p = 0.046). A significant decrease was found in minimum HR values (p = 0.001) and average HR (p = 0.001). Moreover, maximal HR decreased its value from 116.7 ± 26.1 to 113.7 ± 40.8 after intervention. In addition, subjective pain perception (VAS scores) was significantly lower (p = 0.001) in the post-session assessment. Conclusions: Physiotherapy treatment produced an increase in parasympathetic nervous system activation and a decrease in subjective pain perception in non-specific subacute LBP patients.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Hausa version of Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in patients with non-specific low back pain.

Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) is widely used in clinical practice and for research purpose to screen the risk of chronicity in patients with Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The questionnaire has been cross-culturally adapted into different languages, but to date, there has not been Hausa version of the questionnaire. This study is important as the Hausa language is widely spoken across sub-Saharan Africa. The study aims to cross-culturally translate the English version of the (OMPSQ) into Hausa language (OMPSQ-H) and to test its psychometric properties in Hausa patients with NSLBP. This observational study involved the use of forward-backwards translation method for the English version of OMPSQ. Thus, 124 male and female participants with subacute NSLBP were recruited using convenient sampling techniques. The psychometric properties statistically tested included reliability, internal-consistency, ceiling and floor effects, acceptability and construct validity. The Hausa version of OMPSQ has demonstrated good reliability (ICC=0.82) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.72) with good acceptability as all questions were answered in 5min. Responsiveness was adequate as OMPSQ-H retest scores demonstrated good correlation with the global rating of change scale scores (r=0.67, p=0.01). Construct validity was evaluated using principal component analysis and it reveals six components structure for the OMPSQ-H. The OMPSQ-H was successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted with no problem of comprehension. Moreover, it has shown adequate psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency, reliability, responsiveness and constructs validity. Consequently, the OMPSQ-H can be considered as a valid tool for identifying and screening both psychosocial risk factors and risk of chronicity of NSLBP in Hausa population.

Balance Control in Patients with Subacute Non-Specific Low Back Pain, with and without Lumbar Instability: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BackgroundPatients with low back pain (LBP) have poorly coordinated neuromuscular control, which may alter the normal postural stability of the spine. Altered movement control may occur at any stage of LBP.Purpose(1) To identify differences in balance control and proprioceptive sense between subacute non-specific LBP (NSLBP) patients with and without lumbar instability (LI) and healthy subjects and (2) to investigate the correlation between factors of motor control deficits and balance.Patients and MethodsThirty-six participants matched by gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) were allocated into three groups of 12: subacute NSLBP patients with LI, subacute NSLBP patients without LI, and healthy subjects. Balance, proprioceptive sense, pain, functional disability, and fear of movement were evaluated.ResultsSubacute NSLBP patients with LI exhibited greater impairments in balance control, proprioceptive sense, and functional ability than patients without LI (p<0.05). Subacute NSLBP patients showed more impairments in balance control, proprioceptive sense, and fear of movement than healthy subjects (p<0.001), with the following effect sizes (partial η2) for static balance on stable and unstable surface: 0.597 and 0.560, anticipatory balance: 0.417, and dynamic balance: 0.536; proprioceptive sense: 0.676; and fear of movement: 0.379. Significant fair correlations were found between (1) static balance and proprioceptive sense, functional disability, and fear of movement; (2) functional reach test (FRT) and pain; and (3) the five times sit to stand test (FTSTS) and functional disability.ConclusionSubacute NSLBP patients with LI showed greater impairment in balance control than patients without LI. Reduced proprioceptive sense, increased pain, functional disability, and fear of movement were fairly related to impaired balance.

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL intervention for non-specific SUBACUTE low back pain in a working population: a cluster randomized clinical trial

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial condition with individual and societal impact that affects populations globally. Current guidelines for the treatment of LBP recommend pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. The aim of this study was to compare usual clinical practice with the effectiveness of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in reducing disability, severity of pain and improving quality of life in a working population of patients with subacute (2–12 weeks), non-specific LBP.MethodsLongitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 39 Primary Health Care Centres (PHCC) of Barcelona, with patients aged 18–65 years (n = 501; control group = 239; 26 PHCC, intervention group = 262; 13 PHCC). The control group received usual clinical care. The intervention group received usual clinical care plus a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention, which consisted of physiotherapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy and medication. The main outcomes were changes in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the minimal clinically important differences. Secondary outcomes were changes in the McGill Pain (MGPQ) and Quality of Life (SF-12) questionnaires. Assessment was conducted at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat and analyst-blinded. Multiple imputations were used.ResultsOf the 501 enrolled patients, 421 (84%) provided data at 3 months, and 387 (77.2%) at 12 months. Mean age was 46.8 years (SD: 11.5) and 64.7% were women. In the adjusted analysis of the RMDQ outcome, only the intervention group showed significant changes at 3 months (− 1.33 points, p = 0.005) and at 12 months (− 1.11 points, p = 0.027), but minimal clinically important difference were detected in both groups. In the adjusted analysis of the RMDQ outcome, the intervention group improvement more than the control group at 3 months (− 1.33 points, p = 0.005) and at 12 months (− 1.11 points, p = 0.027). The intervention group presented a significant difference. Both groups presented a minimal clinically important difference, but more difference in the intervention group. The intervention group presented significant differences in the MGPQ scales of current pain intensity and VAS scores at 3 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the physical and mental domains of the SF-12.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention in a working population with non-specific subacute LBP has a small positive impact on disability, and on the level of pain, mainly at short-term, but no difference on quality of life.Trial registrationISRCTN21392091 (17 oct 2018) (Prospectively registred).

The effect of core stabilization exercise on lumbar joint position sense in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

[Purpose] This study aimed to examine the effect of core stabilization exercise (CSE) on joint position sense, pain intensity, and functional disability in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). [Participants and Methods] Thirty-eight participants with subacute nonspecific low back pain of 6–12 weeks duration, aged 18–60 years, were included in this study. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: a core stabilization exercise group (n=19) or a control group (n=19). Outcomes measures included lumbar joint repositioning error (LJRE), numeric pain rating scale (11-NRS), and the Roland-Morris disability questionnaires (RMDQ). Measures were taken at baseline, 4 weeks, 7 weeks of intervention, and at 4 weeks after the last intervention. [Results] All outcomes measures were significantly improved in the core stabilization exercise group, compared with the control group. [Conclusion] Core stabilization exercise can improve acuity of joint position sense, reduce pain, and functional disability compared with thermal therapy. The finding demonstrated that core stabilization exercises are more suitable for patients with subacute NSLBP than thermal therapy and this should be useful to clinicians.

Lumbar Spine X-Ray as a Standard Investigation for all Low back Pain in Ghana: Is It Evidence Based?

Low back pain (LBP) has a prevalence of 84% in Africa. The commonest form of imaging is plain lumbar spine x-ray. It gives a radiation dose equivalent to 65 times a chest x-ray dose and sends one of the highest doses to the human reproductive organs. The commonest cause of LBP in Africa is degenerative disease. X-ray findings do not change mode of treatment yet most physicians still routinely request for x-rays. This is a systematic review of databases including The Cochrane, CINAHL plus, AMED, and MEDLINE. Key evidence was clinical guidelines on x-ray use for low back pain. Key search terms included low back pain, x-rays, guidelines, Ghana. Four clinical guidelines on LBP emerged from two Systematic Reviews rated excellent and four good Randomized Controlled Trials: The European guidelines for acute and sub-acute non-specific Low Back Pain, The American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society guideline for diagnostic imaging for Low Back Pain, The NICE guidelines for persistent non-specific Low Back Pain and the Ghana Standard Treatment Guidelines (GSTG). All the guidelines agree that a good history and clinical examination for all LBP patients helps in diagnosing. Only GSTG recommends routine plain spinal x-rays. There is strong evidence indicating very little benefit from routine lumbar spine x-rays for all LBP. The GSTG needs to be revised considering the increased risks of radiation exposure and the x-ray costs. None declared.

Back schools for acute and subacute non-specific low-back pain.

Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating people with low-back pain (LBP). However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. In this review we defined back school as a therapeutic programme given to groups of people, which includes both education and exercise. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1999, and updated in 2004. For this review update, we split the review into two distinct reviews which separated acute from chronic LBP. To assess the effectiveness of back schools on pain and disability for people with acute or subacute non-specific LBP. We also examined the effect on work status and adverse events. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and two clinical trials registers up to 4 August 2015. We also checked the reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field of research on LBP. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that reported on back school for acute or subacute non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. The secondary outcomes were work status and adverse events. Back school had to be compared with another treatment, a placebo (or sham or attention control) or no treatment. We used the 2009 updated method guidelines for this Cochrane review. Two review authors independently screened the references, assessed the quality of the trials and extracted the data. We set the threshold for low risk of bias, a priori, as six or more of 13 internal validity criteria and no serious flaws (e.g. large drop-out rate). We classified the quality of the evidence into one of four levels (high, moderate, low or very low) using the adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. The search update identified 273 new references, of which none fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We included four studies (643 participants) in this updated review, which were all included in the previous (2004) update. The quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. As data were too clinically heterogeneous to be pooled, we described individual trial results. The results indicate that there is very low quality evidence that back schools are no more effective than a placebo (or sham or attention control) or another treatment (physical therapies, myofascial therapy, joint manipulations, advice) on pain, disability, work status and adverse events at short-term, intermediate-term and long-term follow-up. There is very low quality evidence that shows a statistically significant difference between back schools and a placebo (or sham or attention control) for return to work at short-term follow-up in favour of back school. Very low quality evidence suggests that back school added to a back care programme is more effective than a back care programme alone for disability at short-term follow-up. Very low quality evidence also indicates that there is no difference in terms of adverse events between back school and myofascial therapy, joint manipulation and combined myofascial therapy and joint manipulation. It is uncertain if back schools are effective for acute and subacute non-specific LBP as there is only very low quality evidence available. While large well-conducted studies will likely provide more conclusive findings, back schools are not widely used interventions for acute and subacute LBP and further research into this area may not be a priority.

Örebro Questionnaire: short and long forms of the Brazilian-Portuguese version

To translate, cross-culturally adapt and test the measurement properties of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) short and long versions in Brazilian-Portuguese. The ÖMPSQ versions were translated, cross-culturally adapted and pretested in 30 patients with acute and subacute non-specific low back pain. Internal consistency, reproducibility (reliability and agreement), construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects were tested in 100 patients. Construct validity was assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Internal consistency was adequate (ÖMPSQ: Cronbach's alpha = 0.83; ÖMPSQ-short: Cronbach's alpha = 0.72). Reliability was substantial (ÖMPSQ: ICC2,1 0.76; ÖMPSQ-short: 0.78). Standard error of measurement was very good for the ÖMPSQ (5 %) and good for the ÖMPSQ-short (6.7 %); limits of agreement were 13.07 for the ÖMPSQ and 1.37 for the ÖMPSQ-short; and the minimum detectable change was 25.12 for the ÖMPSQ and 15.51 for the ÖMPSQ-short. The ÖMPSQ total score showed a good correlation with the RMDQ (r = 0.73) and the TSK (r = 0.64) and a moderate correlation with pain intensity (current pain: r = 0.36; last 2 weeks: r = 0.37; last episode: r = 0.46). Moreover, ÖMPSQ-short showed a good correlation with RMDQ (r = 0.69) and a moderate correlation with TSK (r = 0.57) and pain (current pain: r = 0.34; last 2 weeks: r = 0.36; last episode: r = 0.54). No ceiling or floor effects were detected in both versions. The Brazilian-Portuguese ÖMPSQ and ÖMPSQ-short showed acceptable measurement properties and provide evidence that the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of ÖMPSQ and ÖMPSQ-short are similar to the original versions.

Back schools for acute and sub-acute non-specific low-back pain: update of a Cochrane review

Back schools for acute and sub-acute non-specific low-back pain: update of a Cochrane review

Reliability and validity of lumbar and abdominal trunk muscle endurance tests in office workers with nonspecific subacute low back pain

Despite the widespread use of trunk endurance tests, the reliability and validity of these tests in office workers with subacute nonspecific low back pain are unknown. This cross-sectional study involved 190 subjects: 30 men and 42 women without low back pain and 47 men and 71 women with low back pain. All subjects underwent timed prone and supine isometric lumbar and abdominal trunk endurance tests that were performed until subjective fatigue occurred. All subjects also completed the Roland Morris and Oswestry self-reported disability questionnaires. A test-retest study (7 days) was conducted with 31 participants with low back pain from the study. For the abdominal trunk endurance test, males and females with low back pain had mean (SD) values of 62.06 (36.87) and 46.06 (29.28) seconds, respectively, both significantly lower than the asymptomatic workers. For the lumbar test, males and females with low back pain had mean (SD) values of 79.57 (30.66) and 75.49 (28.97) seconds, respectively, again, both significantly lower than the asymptomatic workers. The intraclass correlation coefficients of both tests exceeded 0.90 and the Kappa indices were excellent for both men and women. Receiver-operating curve analyses revealed areas under the curve very close to or exceeding 0.70 for both men and women for both tests. The lumbar and abdominal trunk muscle endurance tests appeared to be reliable and valid measures in office workers with subacute low back pain.

THU0344 The AGE Influence on Therapeutic Outcome in Patients with Subacute Low Back Pain

BackgroundIt is assumed that subacute low back pain treatment will be longer in older patients due to comorbidityObjectivesto determine the influence of age on therapeutic outcome in patients with subacute...

FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) affects up to 84% of people in industrialized countries [1]. In 2005 the total direct costs of LBP in Switzerland amounted €2.6 billion [2]. Several studies...

Physical therapists’ treatment choices for non-specific low back pain in Florida: an electronic survey

Objectives:No study has described low back pain (LBP) treatment choices among physical therapists (PTs) in the United States (US) in the new millennium. Intervention for LBP in the new millennium is largely based on evidence-based practice (EBP) recommendations. The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to describe PTs' preferences for treating acute and subacute non-specific LBP in Florida and to compare these preferences to EBP guideline recommendations and (b) to compare outpatient musculoskeletal therapist (MSPT) choices for management of acute and subacute LBP to non-outpatient musculoskeletal therapist (NMSPT) choices.Methods:The data were collected with an electronic survey. Study participants selected treatment choices for acute and subacute LBP clinical vignettes.Results:A total of 327 PTs participated in the study, of which 128 worked in outpatient musculoskeletal settings. The most common treatment choices for acute and subacute LBP were home exercise program, exercise in the clinic, back care education, joint mobilization, ice/heat, and interferential current. The EBP adherence rate for acute LBP was 30% for MSPTs and 15% for NMSPTs. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of MSPTs and 30% of NMSPTs adhered to EBP guidelines for subacute LBP.Discussion:The EBP adherence rate for management of acute and subacute LBP was low. Spinal manipulation was underutilized for management of acute LBP, and passive therapeutic procedures were overutilized for subacute LBP. Physical Therapy schools and professional associations should reemphasize the benefits of spinal manipulation to manage non-specific acute LBP and active interventional procedures to manage subacute LBP.

Intertester Agreement and Validity of Identifying Lumbar Pain Provocative Movement Patterns Using Active and Passive Accessory Movement Tests

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the interexaminer agreement and validity of active and passive pain provocation tests in the lumbar spine. MethodsTwo blinded raters examined 36 participants, 18 of whom were asymptomatic and 18 reported subacute nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Two types of pain provocation tests were performed: (1) physiological movements in single (flexion/extension) and, when necessary, combined planes and (2) passive accessory intervertebral movement tests of each lumbar vertebra in prone with the lumbar spine in neutral, flexion, and extension position. ResultsThe interobserver agreement in both groups was good to excellent for the identification of flexion (κ = 0.87-1) or extension (κ = 0.65-0.74) as the most painful pattern of spinal movement. In healthy participants, 0% was identified as having a flexion provocative pattern and 8.8% were identified as having an extension provocative pattern. In the LBP group, 20% were identified as having a flexion provocative pattern vs 60% with an extension provocative pattern. The average interexaminer agreement for passive accessory intervertebral movement tests in both groups was moderate to excellent (κ = 0.42-0.83). The examiners showed good sensitivity (0.67-0.87) and specificity (0.82-0.85) to distinguish participants with LBP using this combined examination procedure. ConclusionThe use of a combination of pain provocative tests was found to have acceptable interexaminer reliability and good validity in identifying the main pain provocative movement pattern and the lumbar segmental level of involvement. These pain provocation tests were able to distinguish participants with LBP from asymptomatic participants and may help clinicians in directing manual therapy treatment.

THU0553 Influence of Obesity on Therapeutic Outcome in Patients with Non-Specific Subacute Low Back Pain

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to assess the influence of obesity on the effect of treatment in patients with non-specific subacute low back pain.MethodsProspective study included 100 out-patients (40...

Reanalysis of a tailored web-based exercise programme for office workers with sub-acute low back pain: Assessing the stage of change in behaviour

Objective: To reanalyse a web-based intervention for physically untrained office workers with sub-acute non-specific low back pain in low back pain-related exercise behaviour terms. Design: Reanalysis of a randomized controlled trial. Setting: Occupational Preventive Medicine of University. Methods: Participants were randomized to an intervention group (proposed intervention plus standard care) or a control group (usual care only). The intervention exercise and education materials were developed as an online resource, and included video demonstrations recorded in a laboratory. Resources were loaded onto a dedicated section of the University Preventive Medicine Service website. All sessions included stretching, and exercises to improve postural stability (abdominal, lumbar, hip and thigh muscles) strength, flexibility and mobility. Outcome measures were self-reported health status (visual analogue scale (VAS) of the Euroquol-5D questionnaire); functional health status (Oswestry disability questionnaire); and the stage of change questionnaire. At nine months, outcomes in the intervention group were analysed and compared with baseline and outcomes in controls. Results: In the intervention group, significant positive effects were observed at nine-month follow up for stage of change in the behavioural domain as related with low back pain for all phases except for the contemplation phase. The positive change in the stage of change questionnaire correlated with the improvement observed in Oswestry (r = .388) and VAS (r = −.612). Conclusions: The reanalysis of the trial suggests that exercise behaviour related to low back pain improve after the intervention period. This improvement correlates with changes in clinical low back pain-related outcomes.

The Predictive Validity of OMPQ on the Rehabilitation Outcomes for Patients with Acute and Subacute Non-Specific LBP in a Chinese Population

Early screening of physical and psychosocial risk factors has been advocated as a way to identify low back pain (LBP) patients who may develop chronic disability. This study evaluated the predictive validity of a Chinese version of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (OMPQ) in identifying LBP patients at risk of developing poor return-to-work (RTW) outcomes. Altogether 241 patients with acute or subacute non-specific LBP agreed to participate, and they were screened at baseline with OMPQ, and evaluated after discharge from physiotherapy (n = 173) with outcome measures including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), numerical pain score (0-10) and global recovery (0-10). At 1-year follow-up, information on RTW status as well as sick leave duration were obtained. At baseline the OMPQ had a mean score of 112.0 (SD = 26.5). The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of OMPQ scores at 1-year follow-up recorded values of area under the curve of 0.693 for RTW and 0.714 for sick leave duration, which are comparable to those reported in European studies. OMPQ was the only factor that could significantly predict the RTW outcomes, compared to other variables such as the RMDQ scores. The results confirmed the predictive validity of the Chinese version of OMPQ in screening LBP patients at risk of developing poor occupational outcomes, and appropriate interventions can be arranged for these high-risk individuals in the rehabilitation process.