Primary studies included in this systematic review

loading
6 articles (6 References) loading Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Efficacy of a patient-educational booklet for neck-pain patients with workers' compensation: A randomized controlled trial

Journal Spine
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN. A randomized controlled trial of an educational booklet for patients with first-time neck pain. OBJECTIVE. To assess the clinical impact of a novel educational book on patients' functional outcomes and beliefs about neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Previous research has shown that a novel education booklet (The Back Book) had a positive impact on patients with low back pain' beliefs and clinical outcomes. The current study sought to evaluate the efficacy of a similar education booklet (The Neck Book) for neck-pain patients. METHODS. Workers' compensation patients were given either the experimental booklet, a traditional booklet or no booklet. The primary outcome measures, collected at 2-weeks, 3-months, and 6-months after baseline, were The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and The Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Health-related functional measures were also collected at these intervals. RESULTS. Only 34% (N = 187) of an original cohort of patients (N = 522) had data for all of the follow-up periods. For these 187 patients, repeated-measures analyses of covariance, using the baseline measure as the covariate, revealed no significant differences among the 3 groups on any of the outcome measures at any of the follow-up periods. For example, at 6-months, the experimental booklet, traditional booklet, and no-booklet groups reported The Neck Pain and Disability Scale mean scores (SDs) of 31.3 (15.5), 35.3 (17.0), and 31.8 (15.6), respectively. Similarly, there were no significant effects for The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire scores-35.9 (21.5), 40.3 (22.1), and 38.0 (23.4), respectively. CONCLUSION. This study demonstrates that the educational booklets studied were not associated with improved outcomes in patients with neck pain receiving workers' compensation. Whether these results would apply to a nonworkers' compensation population requires further study. The loss of many patients to follow-up also makes any other firm conclusions more difficult to determine. © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Primary study

Unclassified

Effectiveness of a behaviour graded activity program versus conventional exercise for chronic neck pain patients

blocked
Journal European journal of pain (London, England)
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference) 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
Chronic neck pain is a common complaint in the Netherlands with a point prevalence of 14.3%. Patients with chronic neck pain are often referred to physiotherapy and, nowadays, are mostly treated with exercise therapy. It is, however, unclear which type of exercise therapy is to be preferred. Therefore, this study evaluates the effectiveness of behaviour graded activity (BGA) compared with conventional exercise (CE) for patients with chronic neck pain. Eligible patients with non-specific chronic neck were randomly allocated to either BGA or CE. Primary treatment outcome is the patient's global perceived effect concerning recovery from complaint and daily functioning. Outcome assessment was performed at baseline, and at 4, 9, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. Effectiveness was examined with general estimating equations analyses. Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. Mean age was 45.7 (SD 12.4) years and the median duration of complaints was 60 months. The mean number of treatments was 6.6 (SD 3.0) in BGA and 11.2 (SD 4.1) in CE. No significant differences between treatments were found in their effectiveness of managing patients with chronic neck pain. In both BGA and CE some patients reported recovery from complaints and daily function but the proportion of recovered patients did not exceed 50% during the 12-month follow-up period. Both groups showed clinically relevant improvements in physical secondary outcomes. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN88733332. © 2008 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Primary study

Unclassified

Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care back and neck pain patients: cost effectiveness analysis.

blocked
Journal Rheumatology (Oxford, England)
Year 2007
Links Pubmed Health Technology Assessment (HTA) DOI crd.york.ac.uk

This article is included in 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy pain management approach using cognitive-behavioural principles (Solution-Finding Approach) when compared with a commonly used traditional method of physical therapy (McKenzie Approach). METHODS: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomized trial. The study related incremental differences in costs and benefits associated with the Solution Finding and McKenzie approaches over 12 months. Costs were measured in UK pounds sterling. Benefit was measured as health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D, which was used to estimate patient-specific quality adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The McKenzie treatment required, on average, one extra physiotherapist visit (4.15 vs 3.10). Over a 12-month period, Solution Finding was associated with a lower per patient cost of pound-24.4 (95% CI pound-49.6 to 0.789 pounds). The mean difference in QALYs between the two groups was -0.020 (95% CI -0.057 to 0.017); favouring those receiving McKenzie. Relating incremental mean costs and QALYs gave an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 1220 pounds (-24.4/-0.020) suggesting the McKenzie treatment is cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the additional cost associated with the McKenzie treatment when compared with the Solution Finding Approach may be worth paying, given the additional benefit the approach seems more likely to provide. Further research is needed to assess the extent to which the difference in physiotherapy visits between the two strategies is generalizable to other treatment settings.

Primary study

Unclassified

Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients' preference.

Journal BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
Year 2005
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references) 2 Broad syntheses Broad syntheses (2 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with "usual" physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome. DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation. SETTING: Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. PARTICIPANTS: 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P = 0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.

Primary study

Unclassified

The role of the psychologist in multidisciplinary treatments for chronic neck and shoulder pain: a controlled cost-effectiveness study.

Journal Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine
Year 1995
Links Pubmed

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
This study was designed to determine a cost-effective use of psychologist resources in multimodal cognitive-behavioural treatments (MMCBT) for chronic neck/shoulder pain. A randomised controlled trial was conducted with 66 patients divided in two groups. The first group (A) was treated following the approach of MMCBT with the clinical psychologist only functioning as a "coach" to the other health professionals. In this group, the psychologist had on average 5 hours of input per patients. The second group (B) was treated with the same inpatient MMCBT but with the behavioural component administered by the clinical psychologist directly to the patients. In this second group the psychologist had on average 17 hours of input per patient in the entire intervention. The outcome variables included physical, emotional and social factors, and sick-leave. Both groups showed significant improvements over time. The improvements were evident only in sub-groups, specifically in women. The only significant difference between the groups was in "perceived helplessness" favouring the "psychologist contact" setting. It is concluded that in terms of input of clinical psychology, the treatment setting with the "coaching" technique proved to be the most cost-effective use of the psychologist in the two treatment settings investigated.

Primary study

Unclassified

Controlled two year follow up of rehabilitation for disorders in the neck and shoulders.

Journal Occupational and environmental medicine
Year 1995
Links Pubmed PubMed Central

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an early, active, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for neck and shoulder disorders. METHODS: Primary health care and industrial health care of a nonrandomised, controlled, cohort was followed up over two years in a geographically defined area. The cohort consisted of working people who consulted a physician about disorders of the neck or shoulders from 1 August 1988 to 31 October 1989. Criteria for acceptance; not chronic symptoms, patients had sick leave of no more than four weeks. Disorders were not caused by trauma, infections, malignancy, rheumatic diseases, abuse, or pregnancy. 107 people qualified for the study, 87% were followed up for two years. They were divided into two groups. One group obtained active, multidisciplinary rehabilitation for eight weeks that comprised physical training, information, education, social interaction, and work place visits. Controls were given traditional treatment; physiotherapy, medication, rest, and sick leave. The main outcome measures were: average number of days of sick leave for the two years after rehabilitation, subjective pain on a visual analogue scale, and ratings on seven subscales of the sickness impact profile. RESULTS: At 12 and 24 months of follow up effects of the active rehabilitation programme did not differ from traditional treatment in any of the outcome measures. New work task (P < 0.05) or changed work place (P < 0.001) during the follow up period were associated with decreased sick leave, independent of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Active, multidisciplinary rehabilitation of neck and shoulder disorders was not more effective than traditional treatment. Changed work conditions were associated with decreased sick leave, independent of type of treatment provided.