BACKGROUND: Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.
BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- to long-term effects of therapeutic patient education (TPE) strategies on pain, function, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, knowledge transfer, or behaviour change in adults with neck pain associated with whiplash or non-specific and specific mechanical neck pain with or without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched computerised bibliographic databases (inception to 11 July 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of TPE for acute to chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Paired independent review authors conducted selection, data abstraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD). Heterogeneity was assessed; no studies were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS: Of the 15 selected trials, three were rated low risk of bias. Three TPE themes emerged.
Advice focusing on activation: There is moderate quality evidence (one trial, 348 participants) that an educational video of advice focusing on activation was more beneficial for acute whiplash-related pain when compared with no treatment at intermediate-term [RR 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.06)] but not long-term follow-up [0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)]. There is low quality evidence (one trial, 102 participants) that a whiplash pamphlet on advice focusing on activation is less beneficial for pain reduction, or no different in improving function and global perceived improvement from generic information given out in emergency care (control) for acute whiplash at short- or intermediate-term follow-up. Low to very low quality evidence (nine trials using diverse educational approaches) showed either no evidence of benefit or difference for varied outcomes. 
Advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills and workplace ergonomics: Very low quality evidence (three trials, 243 participants) favoured other treatment or showed no difference spanning numerous follow-up periods and disorder subtypes.  Low quality evidence (one trial, 192 participants) favoured specific exercise training for chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.
Self-care strategies: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 58 participants) indicated that self-care strategies did not relieve pain for acute to chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one trial, this review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions, including advice to activate, advice on stress-coping skills, workplace ergonomics and self-care strategies. Future research should be founded on sound adult learning theory and learning skill acquisition.
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs for neck and shoulder pain require substantial staff and financial resources. Despite questionable scientific evidence of their effectiveness, they are widely used.
Neck and shoulder complaints are common among working age adults and they are often associated with physical work load and stress. Pain in the neck and shoulder area cause biopsychosocial difficulties for the patient, especially if disability due to pain is prolonged. To help patients with biopsychosocial problems, or to prevent their development, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial programs are used for rehabilitation for patients with neck and shoulder pain. Nevertheless, multidisciplinary treatment programmes are often laborious and rather long processes and require good collaboration between the patient, the rehabilitation team and the work place.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewed studies for this review were electronically identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, Medic, the Science Citation Index, reference checking and consulting experts in the rehabilitation field. The original search was planned and performed for more broad area of musculoskeletal disorders. Trials on neck and shoulder pain were separated afterwards. The literature search was updated in November 2002 by electronically searching MEDLINE and EMBASE.
SELECTION CRITERIA: From all references identified in our original search, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Trials had to assess the effectiveness of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for working age adults suffering from neck and shoulder pain. The rehabilitation program was required to be multidisciplinary, i.e., it had to consist of a physician's consultation plus either a psychological, social or vocational intervention, or a combination of these.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors blinded to journal and author selected the trials that met the specified inclusion criteria. Two experts in the field of rehabilitation evaluated the clinical relevance and applicability of the findings of the selected studies for actual clinical use. Two other authors blinded to journal and author extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies, using standardized forms. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation.
MAIN RESULTS: After screening 1808 abstracts, and the references of 65 reviews, we found only two relevant studies that satisfied our criteria. No more studies were found for this update. One of the studies was considered to be a methodologically low quality RCT and the other one was a methodologically low quality CCT. The clinical relevance of included studies was satisfactory. There was limited scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there appears to be little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation compared with other rehabilitation facilities for neck and shoulder pain. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is a commonly used intervention for chronic neck and shoulder complaints, therefore we see an urgent need for high quality trials in this field.
Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
