UNLABELLED: Studies regarding self-management of persistent neck pain are infrequent. OBJECTIVE: to compare treatment effects of (a) a multi-component pain and stress self-management group intervention (PASS) and (b) individually administered physical therapy (IAPT) for patients with persistent musculoskeletal tension-type neck pain. METHODS:Persons seeking physical therapy treatment due to persistent tension-type neck pain at nine primary health care centers in Sweden were randomly assigned to either PASS or IAPT. Before treatment (baseline) and at 10- and 20-weeks the participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire comprising: the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Neck Disability Index, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and questions regarding neck pain, analgesics and utilization of health care. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed using repeated measures analysis of variance between baseline, 10-week and 20-week follow-up. RESULTS:One hundred and fifty six participants were included (PASS n=77, IAPT n=79). On average participants receiving PASS attended seven treatment sessions and participants receiving IAPT 11 sessions over the 20-week follow-up period. Repeated measures ANCOVA showed significant time x group interaction effects for ability to control pain (p<0.001), self-efficacy regarding pain-interfering activities (p=0.005), disability due to neck pain (p=0.001) and levels of catastrophic thinking (p<0.001) in favour of PASS. CONCLUSION: PASS had a better effect than IAPT in the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal tension-type neck pain regarding coping with pain, in terms of patients' self-reported pain control, self-efficacy, disability and catastrophizing, over the 20-week follow-up. Copyright (c) 2009 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Studies regarding self-management of persistent neck pain are infrequent. OBJECTIVE: to compare treatment effects of (a) a multi-component pain and stress self-management group intervention (PASS) and (b) individually administered physical therapy (IAPT) for patients with persistent musculoskeletal tension-type neck pain. METHODS:Persons seeking physical therapy treatment due to persistent tension-type neck pain at nine primary health care centers in Sweden were randomly assigned to either PASS or IAPT. Before treatment (baseline) and at 10- and 20-weeks the participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire comprising: the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Neck Disability Index, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and questions regarding neck pain, analgesics and utilization of health care. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed using repeated measures analysis of variance between baseline, 10-week and 20-week follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty six participants were included (PASS n=77, IAPT n=79). On average participants receiving PASS attended seven treatment sessions and participants receiving IAPT 11 sessions over the 20-week follow-up period. Repeated measures ANCOVA showed significant time x group interaction effects for ability to control pain (p<0.001), self-efficacy regarding pain-interfering activities (p=0.005), disability due to neck pain (p=0.001) and levels of catastrophic thinking (p<0.001) in favour of PASS. CONCLUSION: PASS had a better effect than IAPT in the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal tension-type neck pain regarding coping with pain, in terms of patients' self-reported pain control, self-efficacy, disability and catastrophizing, over the 20-week follow-up. Copyright (c) 2009 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Cindy Crawford; Howard Vernon; Eric L Hurwitz; Raheleh Khorsan; Marika Suttorp Booth; Patricia M Herman Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Pierre Côté; Jessica J Wong; Deborah Sutton; Heather M Shearer; Silvano Mior; Kristi Randhawa; Arthur Ameis; Linda J Carroll; Margareta Nordin; Hainan Yu; Gail M Lindsay; Danielle Southerst; Sharanya Varatharajan; Craig Jacobs; Maja Stupar; Anne Taylor-Vaisey; Gabrielle van der Velde; Douglas P Gross; Robert J Brison; Mike Paulden; Carlo Ammendolia; J David Cassidy; Patrick Loisel; Shawn Marshall; Richard N Bohay; John Stapleton; Michel Lacerte; Murray Krahn; Roger Salhany Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Nathan Hutting; J Bart Staal; Yvonne F Heerkens; Josephine A Engels; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Trials Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mary O'Keeffe; Helen Purtill; Norelee Kennedy; Peter O'Sullivan; Wim Dankaerts; Aidan Tighe; Lars Allworthy; Louise Dolan; Norma Bargary; Kieran O'Sullivan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hugh MacPherson; Helen E Tilbrook; Stewart J Richmond; Karl Atkin; Kathleen Ballard; Martin Bland; Janet Eldred; Holly N Essex; Ann Hopton; Harriet Lansdown; Usman Muhammad; Steve Parrott; David Torgerson; Aniela Wenham; Julia Woodman; Ian Watt Journal: Trials Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Nathan Hutting; Yvonne F Heerkens; Josephine A Engels; J Bart Staal; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 2.362