Literature DB >> 29186635

Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain.

Gemma Mansell1, Kjersti Storheim2, Ida Løchting3, Erik L Werner4, Margreth Grotle5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many interventions for the treatment of low back pain exist, but the mechanisms through which such treatments work are not always clear. This situation is especially true for biopsychosocial interventions that incorporate several different components and methods of delivery.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to examine the indirect effects of the Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) intervention via illness perceptions, back pain myths, and pain catastrophizing on disability outcome.
DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of the COPE randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Mediation analysis techniques were employed to examine the indirect effects of the COPE intervention via residualized change (baseline - posttreatment) in the 3 variables hypothesized to be targeted by the COPE intervention on posttreatment disability outcome. Pain intensity at baseline, pain duration, clinician type, and a treatment-mediator interaction term were controlled for in the analysis.
RESULTS: Preliminary analyses confirmed that changes in pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions (not back pain myths) were related to both allocation to the intervention arm and posttreatment disability score. The treatment exerted statistically significant indirect effects via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability score (illness perceptions standardized indirect effect = 0.09 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.16]; pain catastrophizing standardized indirect effect = 0.05 [95% CI = 0.01 to 0.12]). However, the inclusion of an interaction term led to the indirect effects being significantly reduced, with the effects no longer being statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: This study presents a secondary analysis of variables not identified a priori as being potentially important treatment targets; other, unmeasured factors could also be important in explaining treatment effects.
CONCLUSIONS: The finding that small indirect effects of the COPE intervention via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability could be estimated indicates that these variables may be viable treatment targets for biopsychosocial interventions; however, this finding must be viewed in light of the adjusted analyses, which showed that the indirect effects were significantly reduced through the inclusion of a treatment-mediator interaction term. © Crown copyright 2015

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29186635      PMCID: PMC5803786          DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzx091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  25 in total

Review 1.  Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Helena Chmura Kraemer; G Terence Wilson; Christopher G Fairburn; W Stewart Agras
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2002-10

2.  The brief illness perception questionnaire.

Authors:  Elizabeth Broadbent; Keith J Petrie; Jodie Main; John Weinman
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 3.  Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research.

Authors:  Alan E Kazdin
Journal:  Annu Rev Clin Psychol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 18.561

Review 4.  Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions.

Authors:  Richard Emsley; Graham Dunn; Ian R White
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Cognitive Patient Education for Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Erik L Werner; Kjersti Storheim; Ida Løchting; Torbjørn Wisløff; Margreth Grotle
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain.

Authors:  G Lorimer Moseley; Michael K Nicholas; Paul W Hodges
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.442

8.  A randomized trial of behavioral physical therapy interventions for acute and sub-acute low back pain (NCT00373867).

Authors:  Steven Z George; Giorgio Zeppieri; Anthony L Cere; Melissa R Cere; Michael S Borut; Michael J Hodges; Dalton M Reed; Carolina Valencia; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 9.  Why and how back pain interventions work: what can we do to find out?

Authors:  Gemma Mansell; Steven J Kamper; Peter Kent
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 4.098

Review 10.  Ten ways to improve the use of statistical mediation analysis in the practice of child and adolescent treatment research.

Authors:  Marija Maric; Reinout W Wiers; Pier J M Prins
Journal:  Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-09
View more
  6 in total

1.  Changes in Pain Catastrophizing and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs as Mediators of Early Physical Therapy on Disability and Pain in Acute Low-Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Brittany L Sisco-Taylor; John S Magel; Molly McFadden; Tom Greene; Jincheng Shen; Julie M Fritz
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.637

2.  Pain-related beliefs, cognitive processes, and electroencephalography band power as predictors and mediators of the effects of psychological chronic pain interventions.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Shahin Hakimian; Dawn M Ehde; Melissa A Day; Mark W Pettet; Atsuo Yoshino; Marcia A Ciol
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 7.926

3.  GLA:D® Back group-based patient education integrated with exercises to support self-management of back pain - development, theories and scientific evidence.

Authors:  Per Kjaer; Alice Kongsted; Inge Ris; Allan Abbott; Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen; Ewa M Roos; Søren T Skou; Tonny Elmose Andersen; Jan Hartvigsen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 4.  Knowledge of psychosocial factors associated with low back pain amongst health science students: a scoping review.

Authors:  Kelsey L Lewis; Patrick J Battaglia
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2019-11-15

5.  Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Improving Pain, Fear Avoidance, and Self-Efficacy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jiajia Yang; Wai Leung Ambrose Lo; Fuming Zheng; Xue Cheng; Qiuhua Yu; Chuhuai Wang
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 3.037

6.  Psychometric examination of short forms from the University of Washington pain-related self-efficacy and concerns about pain item banks in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Julie M Fritz; Faris Alodaibi; Alyssa M Bamer; Dagmar Amtmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 3.440

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.