| Literature DB >> 28144457 |
Tahereh Kamalikhah1, Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad1, Farid Rezaei-Moghaddam2, Mohammad Ghasemi3, Mohammad Gholami-Fesharaki4, Salma Goklani5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals suffering from chronic low back pain (CLBP) experience major physical, social, and occupational disruptions. Strong evidence confirms the effectiveness of Alexander technique (AT) training for CLBP.Entities:
Keywords: Alexander Technique; Educational Model; Low Back Pain
Year: 2016 PMID: 28144457 PMCID: PMC5253206 DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.31218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran Red Crescent Med J ISSN: 2074-1804 Impact factor: 0.611
CVR, CVI, Cronbach’s Α, Sample IM Construct Questions, and Attributed Range
| IM Constructs and Sample Questions | CVR | CVI | Cronbach’s Α | Attribute Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0.88 | 4 - 28 |
|
| 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.81 | (-3.63) - 11 |
|
| 1 | 0.98 | 0.88 | 8 - 56 |
|
| 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.79 | 7 - 49 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 6 - 42 |
|
| 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.67 | 5 - 35 |
|
| 0.91 | 0.96 | 0.80 |
Demographic Characteristics of Attendees[a]
| Matching Variables | Group A | Group B | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 42.59 ± 5.85 | 41.62 ± 6.62 | 0.49 |
|
| 19.30 ± 6.61 | 18.82 ± 6.49 | 0.75 |
|
| 27.79 ± 3.97 | 27.94 ± 3.71 | 0.87 |
|
| 5.66 ± 4.1 | 7.06 ± 4.44 | 0.157 |
|
| 5.25 ± 1.53 | 5.06 ± 1.53 | 0.57 |
|
| 3.21 ± 3.6 | 4.6 ± 4.8 | 0.16 |
|
| 0.88 | ||
| Married, No. (%) | 34 (75.6) | 28 (82.4) | |
| Single, No. (%) | 11 (24.4) | 6 (17.6) | |
|
| 0.48 | ||
| AA degree, No. (%) | 24 (54.5) | 14 (43.8) | |
| High school diploma, No. (%) | 16 (36.4) | 16 (50.0) | |
| MS degree, No. (%) | 4 (9.1) | 2 (6.3) |
aValues are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.
Matching Variables[a]
| Matching Variables | Group A | Group B | P Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | ||
|
| 18 (42.9) | 23 (54.8) | 20 (57.1) | 13 (37.1) | 0.11 |
|
| 7 (16.7) | 35 (83.3) | 9 (25.7) | 26 (74.3) | 0.224 |
|
| 4 (9.5) | 38 (90.5) | 3 (8.6) | 32 (91.4) | 0.634 |
|
| 0 (0) | 42 (100) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.203 |
|
| 0 (0) | 42 (100) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.203 |
|
| 5 (11.9) | 37 (88.1) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.298 |
|
| 3 (7.1) | 39 (92.9) | 3 (8.6) | 32 (91.4) | 0.571 |
|
| 1 (2.4) | 41 (97.6) | 3 (8.6) | 32 (91.4) | 0.224 |
|
| 2 (4.8) | 40 (95.2) | 0 (0) | 35 (100) | 0.294 |
|
| 1 (2.4) | 41 (97.6) | 1 (2.9) | 34 (97.1) | 0.706 |
|
| 7 (16.7) | 35 (83.3) | 6 (17.1) | 29 (82.9) | 0.596 |
|
| 5 (11.9) | 37 (88.1) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.29 |
|
| 1 (2.4) | 41 (97.6) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.431 |
|
| 3 (7.1) | 39 (92.9) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.587 |
|
| 2 (4.8) | 40 (95.2) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.620 |
|
| 2 (4.8) | 40 (95.2) | 2 (5.7) | 33 (94.3) | 0.620 |
|
| 3 (7.1) | 39 (92.9) | 0 (0) | 35 (100) | 0.157 |
aValues are presented as No. (%).
The Mean Scores of the IM Constructs
| Evaluated IM Constructs | Before, Mean± SD | After, Mean± SD | P Value | Between Groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.03 | |||
| Group A | 34.37 ± 1.105 | 51.31 ± 1.05 | < 0.001 | |
| Group B | 32.771 ± 0.547 | 47.87 ± 1.21 | < 0.001 | |
| P value | 0.20 | 0.001 | ||
|
| 0.03 | |||
| Group A | 30.13 ± 4.83 | 44.67 ± 0.81 | < 0.001 | |
| Group B | 28.55 ± 2.27 | 41.89 ± 0.94 | < 0.001 | |
| P value | 0.59 | < 0.001 | ||
|
| 0.41 | |||
| Group A | 17.666 ± 0.587 | 23.10 ± 0.35 | < 0.001 | |
| Group B | 16.857 ± 0.487 | 22.65 ± 0.40 | < 0.001 | |
| P value | 0.11 | 0.49 | ||
|
| 0.48 | |||
| Group A | 1.320 ± 0.260 | 8.87 ± 0.339 | < 0.001 | |
| Group B | 0.850 ± 0.213 | 8.50 ± 0.391 | < 0.001 | |
| P value | 0.31 | 0.18 | ||
|
| 0.09 | |||
| Group A | 29.13 ± 1.198 | 36.82 ± 0.906 | < 0.001 | |
| Group B | 28.50 ± 1.450 | 34.47 ± 1.042 | < 0.001 | |
| P value | 0.92 | 0.49 | ||
|
| 0.86 | |||
| Group A | 26.166 ± 0.911 | 26.52 ± 0.91 | 0.90 | |
| Group B | 26.000 ± 1.004 | 26.25 ± 1.11 | 0.85 | |
| P value | 0.90 | 0.85 |
Absolute and Relative Frequency of Environmental Constraints[a]
| Environmental Constraints | Completely Disagree | Disagree | Disagree to Some Extent | No Idea | Agree to Some Extent | Agree | Completely Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) | 10 (13) | 1 (1.3) | 4 (5.2) | 59 (76.6) |
|
| 35 (44.5) | 2 (2.6) | 4 (5.1) | 8 (10.4) | 7 (9.1) | 1 (1.3) | 20 (26) |
|
| 51 (66.2) | 2 (2.6) | 7 (9.1) | 3 (3.9) | 3 (3.9) | 2 (2.6) | 12 (15.6) |
|
| 38 (46.8) | 8 (10.4) | 1 (1.3) | 13 (16.9) | 4 (5.2) | 4 (5.2) | 11 (14.3) |
|
| 30 (39.0) | 7 (9.1) | 7 (9.1) | 9 (11.7) | 3 (3.9) | 6 (7.8) | 15 (19.5) |
aValues are presented as No. (%).
Intervention Plan for Group A
| Techniques |
|---|
|
|
| Teaching methods: lectures. Equipment: photos, video projector. Fear arousal, anticipated regret, scenario-based risk information. |
|
|
| Teaching methods: lectures, demonstrations, questions and answers (Q and A).Equipment: photos, video projector, chair, desk, mirror, pillow, bed, model of the spine, book. Chunking (example): head forward and up, torso lengthened and widened, legs release away, shoulder out to the side, advance organizer, elaboration, create cues. |
|
|
| Teaching methods: lecture, Q and A, group discussion, role playing. Equipment: photos, video projector, SMS. Direct experience: self-reevaluation. Persuasive communication: verbal encouragement, persuasive SMS, social comparison and modeling, repeated exposure (reminder SMS every week, installation of posters in the classroom and corridor of the institute, two reminders to install in the home), anticipated regret, one-sided messages (up to the third session), two-sided messages (after the third session). |
|
|
| Teaching methods: lecture, Q and A. Equipment: photos, video projector. Advocacy, change system, training in problem solving. |
|
|
| Teaching methods: lecture, Q and A. Equipment: photos, video projector, posters, SMS. Implementation intentions, early commitment, modeling, stimulus control, environmental clues, attribution. |