STUDY DESIGN: Feasibility randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a trial to investigate the effectiveness of a lumbopelvic monitor as a feedback device for modifying postural behavior during daily work-related activities. BACKGROUND: Frequent or sustained flexed postures play a role in the development or maintenance of nonspecific low back pain. The provision of postural feedback could help individuals with or at risk of nonspecific low back pain improve their postural awareness and avoid hazardous or pain-provoking postures. METHODS:Sixty-two participants employed in a health care organization were randomly allocated into 1 of 3 groups: a control group, an intermittent feedback group, and a constant feedback group. Adherence and follow-up rates were assessed. Differences in postural pattern between baseline and follow-up measurements were used to assess the effectiveness of the lumbopelvic monitor as a postural feedback device. RESULTS:Adherence was approximately 75%. With the exception of 1 center, the follow-up overall rates exceeded the a priori desired threshold of 80%. Within-group comparisons revealed no significant differences in postural pattern for the control group and intermittent feedback group. The constant feedback group showed a significant reduction in flexed posture at the follow-up period compared with the baseline period. Differences between groups did not reach statistical significance; however, the constant feedback group, compared with the control group, demonstrated an effect size (d) of 0.60. CONCLUSION: The provision of constant postural feedback seems promising for promoting changes in postural behavior. This feasibility trial identified adherence and follow-up rates and sample-size estimates important to the conduct of a fully powered efficacy trial. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 2b-.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Feasibility randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a trial to investigate the effectiveness of a lumbopelvic monitor as a feedback device for modifying postural behavior during daily work-related activities. BACKGROUND: Frequent or sustained flexed postures play a role in the development or maintenance of nonspecific low back pain. The provision of postural feedback could help individuals with or at risk of nonspecific low back pain improve their postural awareness and avoid hazardous or pain-provoking postures. METHODS: Sixty-two participants employed in a health care organization were randomly allocated into 1 of 3 groups: a control group, an intermittent feedback group, and a constant feedback group. Adherence and follow-up rates were assessed. Differences in postural pattern between baseline and follow-up measurements were used to assess the effectiveness of the lumbopelvic monitor as a postural feedback device. RESULTS: Adherence was approximately 75%. With the exception of 1 center, the follow-up overall rates exceeded the a priori desired threshold of 80%. Within-group comparisons revealed no significant differences in postural pattern for the control group and intermittent feedback group. The constant feedback group showed a significant reduction in flexed posture at the follow-up period compared with the baseline period. Differences between groups did not reach statistical significance; however, the constant feedback group, compared with the control group, demonstrated an effect size (d) of 0.60. CONCLUSION: The provision of constant postural feedback seems promising for promoting changes in postural behavior. This feasibility trial identified adherence and follow-up rates and sample-size estimates important to the conduct of a fully powered efficacy trial. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 2b-.
Entities:
Keywords:
biofeedback; low back pain; lumbar spine; posture
Authors: Wei-Ju Chang; Kim L Bennell; Paul W Hodges; Rana S Hinman; Matthew B Liston; Siobhan M Schabrun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adam Louis Ouellette; Matthew B Liston; Wei-Ju Chang; David M Walton; Benedict Martin Wand; Siobhan M Schabrun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Wei-Ju Chang; Kim L Bennell; Paul W Hodges; Rana S Hinman; Carolyn L Young; Valentina Buscemi; Matthew B Liston; Siobhan M Schabrun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240