Results of a feasibility randomised clinical trial on pain education for low back pain in Nepal: the Pain Education in Nepal-Low Back Pain (PEN-LBP) feasibility trial

Autor: Sharma, Saurab; Jensen, Mark P; Moseley, G Lorimer; Abbott, J Haxby
Sprache: Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2019
Quelle: PubMed Central (PMC)
Online Zugang: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6475174/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30918037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026874
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6475174/
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026874
Erfassungsnummer: ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:6475174

Zusammenfassung

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal. DESIGN: A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT. SETTING: A rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. PARTICIPANTS: Forty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women). INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation. RESULTS: Forty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION: We ...