Comparing physical therapy students' attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis: an international multi-institutional comparison between 2013 and 2020 academic years.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, physical therapy students demonstrated low guideline-adherent recommendations regarding chronic low back pain (CLBP) for spinal pathology, activity, and work. OBJECTIVES: To assess the differences in physical therapy students' attitudes, beliefs, and adherence to guideline recommendations regarding CLBP and knee osteoarthritis between 2013 and 2020. METHODS: In 2013 and 2020, second and fourth-year physical therapy students were recruited from 6 Belgian and 2 Dutch institutions. Attitudes and beliefs regarding CLBP and knee OA were evaluated using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), and a questionnaire regarding therapeutic exercise and knee osteoarthritis. A clinical vignette was used to measure guideline-adherent recommendations regarding spinal pathology, activity, and work. RESULTS: In 2013, 927 second-year and 695 fourth-year students; in 2020, 695 second-year and 489 fourth-year students; were recruited to participate in the study. Compared to 2013, students had less biomedical and stronger biopsychosocial attitudes and beliefs regarding CLBP, more guideline-adherent recommendations for activity, and more biopsychosocial beliefs regarding the benefits of exercise for patients with knee osteoarthritis in both the second and fourth year. Only fourth-year students in 2020 scored significantly better on HC-PAIRS and guideline-adherent recommendation relating to spinal pathology. No differences were found regarding work recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2020, physical therapy students made a positive shift towards a more biopsychosocial approach to CLBP and knee osteoarthritis management. Guideline-adherent recommendations for CLBP concerning activity improved, however, concerning work and spinal pathology, it remained low.

Physiotherapists Using the Biopsychosocial Model for Chronic Pain: Barriers and Facilitators-A Scoping Review.

The use of the biopsychosocial model in primary care physiotherapy for chronic pain is far from the recommendations given in research and current guidelines. To understand why physiotherapists have difficulty implementing a biopsychosocial approach, more insight is needed on the barriers and facilitators. This scoping review aimed to investigate and map these barriers and facilitators that physiotherapists working in primary care reportedly face when treating patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC) and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they investigated the experiences of physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic pain from a biopsychosocial perspective in primary care. Extracted data were discussed and sub grouped in themes following a qualitative content analysis approach. To align with current use of theories on behavior change, the resulting themes were compared to the Theoretical Domains Framework. After screening, twenty-four studies were included. Eight groups of barriers and facilitators were identified, thematically clustered in six themes: knowledge, skills, and attitudes; environmental context and resources; role clarity; confidence; therapeutic alliance; and patient expectations. The results of this review can be used to inform the development of implementation programs.

Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: What are the lessons learned?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Integration of care is lacking for chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg, a transmural health care network, has been designed to provide integrated rehabilitation care from a biopsychosocial perspective to improve patients' levels of functioning. This feasibility study aims to provide insight into barriers and facilitators for the development, implementation, and transferability. METHODS: This study was conducted with a three-phase iterative and incremental design from October 2017 to October 2018. The network comprises two rehabilitation practices, and three local primary care networks, with a general practitioner together with, a mental health practice nurse, and a physiotherapist or exercise therapist. These stakeholders with a random sample of participating patients took part in evaluations, consisting of interviews, focus groups, and observations. Field notes and observations were recorded during meetings. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis. Results were used to refine the next phase. RESULTS: According to health care professionals, guidelines and treatment protocols facilitate consistency and transparency in collaboration, biopsychosocial language, and treatment. One mentioned barrier is the stigmatization of chronic pain by the general population. In regular care, approaches are often more biomedical than biopsychosocial, causing patients to resist participating. The current organization of health care acts as a barrier, complicating implementation between and within practices. Health care professionals were enthusiastic about the iterative, bottom-up development. A critical mass of participating organizations is needed for proper implementation. CONCLUSION: Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg is feasible in daily practice if barriers are overcome and facilitators of development, implementation, and transferability are promoted. These findings will be used to refine Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg. A large-scale process and effect evaluation will be performed. Our implementation strategies and results may assist other health care organizations aspiring to implement a transmural network using a similar model. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Registration number: NTR6654 or https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR6654.

The responsiveness and interpretability of psychosocial patient-reported outcome measures in chronic musculoskeletal pain rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: For several widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) rehabilitation, it is still not known whether they are responsive to change, and what the smallest detectable change (SDC) and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) are. Knowledge of these values can be used to accurately interpret change scores in research and clinical practice. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, the responsiveness, the SDC and the MCIC of the mental components of the Research and Development 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) were investigated in CMSP patients. Responsiveness, the SDC and MCIC were determined by using both anchor and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: For all outcome measures, there was a progression from smallest to largest mean change scores between participants who did not perceive change and those who reported change after treatment. However, correlations of the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) with the change scores on the outcome measures were low. For all outcome measures, the SDC was larger than the MCIC. CONCLUSIONS: For this population, the questionnaires were shown not to be responsive. Furthermore, the questionnaires appeared not to be able to distinguish clinically important change from measurement error in individual patients. The finding of large measurement errors of PROMs is in line with previous research in pain rehabilitation. Using generic PROMs only, to examine changes in psychosocial status due to a pain rehabilitation programme, is therefore questionable. SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that widely used generic psychosocial PROMs might not be responsive and not able to distinguish clinically important change from measurement error in individual chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. It therefore seems reasonable to reconsider the (compulsory) use of these PROMs for assessing the quality of pain rehabilitation programmes, and necessary to consider other, more objective, outcome measures for this purpose in this population.

Improving patient-practitioner interaction in chronic pain rehabilitation.

Stimulating patients to approach their pain from a biopsychosocial perspective is central to chronic pain rehabilitation. However, conversations between patients and their healthcare professionals about the social and psychological factors that may contribute to the continuation of pain and disability can be challenging. The current scientific literature does not sufficiently pinpoint the difficulties in patient-practitioner interaction on chronic pain, and it falls short of answering the question of how a joint exploration of the social and psychological factors that might be involved in the patient's pain and evolving disability can be enhanced. In this theoretical article, we introduce discursive psychology as a potentially valuable research perspective to gain a better understanding of the difficulties in patient-practitioner interaction in the context of chronic pain rehabilitation. Discursive psychology focuses on features of people's talk (e.g. that of patients and practitioners) and is concerned with the social practices that people perform as part of a specific interactional context. In this paper, we provide an introduction to the main theoretical notions of discursive psychology. We illustrate how discursive psychological analyses can inform our understanding of the specific sensitivities in conversations between patients with chronic pain and their practitioners. Finally, we address how a better understanding of these sensitivities offers a gateway towards improving these conversations.

EULAR recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis.

Pain is the predominant symptom for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA) mandating the development of evidence-based recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management. A multidisciplinary task force including professionals and patient representatives conducted a systematic literature review of systematic reviews to evaluate evidence regarding effects on pain of multiple treatment modalities. Overarching principles and recommendations regarding assessment and pain treatment were specified on the basis of reviewed evidence and expert opinion. From 2914 review studies initially identified, 186 met inclusion criteria. The task force emphasised the importance for the health professional to adopt a patient-centred framework within a biopsychosocial perspective, to have sufficient knowledge of IA and OA pathogenesis, and to be able to differentiate localised and generalised pain. Treatment is guided by scientific evidence and the assessment of patient needs, preferences and priorities; pain characteristics; previous and ongoing pain treatments; inflammation and joint damage; and psychological and other pain-related factors. Pain treatment options typically include education complemented by physical activity and exercise, orthotics, psychological and social interventions, sleep hygiene education, weight management, pharmacological and joint-specific treatment options, or interdisciplinary pain management. Effects on pain were most uniformly positive for physical activity and exercise interventions, and for psychological interventions. Effects on pain for educational interventions, orthotics, weight management and multidisciplinary treatment were shown for particular disease groups. Underpinned by available systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these recommendations enable health professionals to provide knowledgeable pain-management support for people with IA and OA.

Cut-Off Points for Mild, Moderate, and Severe Pain on the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Variability and Influence of Sex and Catastrophizing.

Objectives: The 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is often used in pain management. The aims of our study were to determine the cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, to measure the variability of the optimal cut-off points, and to determine the influence of patients' catastrophizing and their sex on these cut-off points. Methods: 2854 patients were included. Pain was assessed by the NRS, functioning by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and catastrophizing by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Cut-off point schemes were tested using ANOVAs with and without using the PSC scores or sex as co-variates and with the interaction between CP scheme and PCS score and sex, respectively. The variability of the optimal cut-off point schemes was quantified using bootstrapping procedure. Results and conclusion: The study showed that NRS scores ≤ 5 correspond to mild, scores of 6-7 to moderate and scores ≥8 to severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning. Bootstrapping analysis identified this optimal NRS cut-off point scheme in 90% of the bootstrapping samples. The interpretation of the NRS is independent of sex, but seems to depend on catastrophizing. In patients with high catastrophizing tendency, the optimal cut-off point scheme equals that for the total study sample, but in patients with a low catastrophizing tendency, NRS scores ≤ 3 correspond to mild, scores of 4-6 to moderate and scores ≥7 to severe pain in terms of interference with functioning. In these optimal cut-off schemes, NRS scores of 4 and 5 correspond to moderate interference with functioning for patients with low catastrophizing tendency and to mild interference for patients with high catastrophizing tendency. Theoretically one would therefore expect that among the patients with NRS scores 4 and 5 there would be a higher average PDI score for those with low catastrophizing than for those with high catastrophizing. However, we found the opposite. The fact that we did not find the same optimal CP scheme in the subgroups with lower and higher catastrophizing tendency may be due to chance variability.

Reference Values of the Pain Disability Index in Patients With Painful Musculoskeletal and Spinal Disorders: A Cross-national Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To examine reference data for the Pain Disability Index (PDI) in Dutch and Canadian patient samples with a variety of musculoskeletal pain disorders and to test which potential factors are independently associated with the PDI score. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The PDI is a widely used generic instrument for measuring disability related to pain. It is unknown whether patients with spinal and other musculoskeletal diagnoses have different levels of disability when scored on the PDI. METHODS: Patients were referred to secondary and tertiary care centers in the Netherlands and Alberta, Canada, between 2009 and 2013. All patients filled out a baseline questionnaire including demographics and the PDI. After first consultation with a medical doctor, diagnoses were set by the medical specialist. Univariate general linear models were used to examine correlations between PDI scores and age, sex, country of residence, diagnosis, and work status. RESULTS: In total 6997 patients were included in this study: 1302 Canadian and 5695 Dutch patients. Mean PDI score of the total group was 37.8 ± 14.2. Reference values are presented and clustered into the following diagnostic groups: spinal nerve and intervertebral disc disorders; nonspecific back pain; rheumatic soft-tissue pain (widespread pain or fibromyalgia); spinal stenosis; and whiplash-associated disorder. The PDI score was significantly and relevantly associated with pain intensity (η explained variance from 20% to 25%), but not relevantly associated with age, sex, country of residence, and diagnostic group (η<3%). In the working subgroup, adding "current sick leave" as covariate increased the explained variance to 34%. CONCLUSION: Reference values of the PDI are presented. Patient ratings of disability on the PDI are relevantly associated with pain intensity and work status, but not with nationality or diagnostic group. Only minimal differences were identified between the various musculoskeletal diagnoses included. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Can we "predict" long-term outcome for ambulatory transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic pain?

BACKGROUND: Evidence for effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is still inconclusive. As heterogeneity of chronic pain patients might be an important factor for this lack of efficacy, identifying factors for a successful long-term outcome is of great importance. METHODS: A prospective study was performed to identify variables with potential predictive value for 2 outcome measures on long term (6 months); (1) continuation of TENS, and (2) a minimally clinical important pain reduction of ≥ 33%. At baseline, a set of risk factors including pain-related variables, psychological factors, and disability was measured. RESULTS: In a multiple logistic regression analysis, higher patient's expectations, neuropathic pain, no severe pain (< 80 mm visual analogue scale [VAS]) were independently related to long-term continuation of TENS. For the outcome "minimally clinical important pain reduction," the multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that no multisited pain (> 2 pain locations) and intermittent pain were positively and independently associated with a minimally clinical important pain reduction of ≥ 33%. CONCLUSION: The results showed that factors associated with a successful outcome in the long term are dependent on definition of successful outcome.

Differences in physical functioning between relatively active and passive patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: According to the Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) protocol for patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), therapists are advised to categorize patients in relatively active and passive patients. However, evidence to support the differences in physical functioning between these subgroups is limited. Using the baseline data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial (FatiGo), the differences in actual and perceived physical functioning between active and passive patients with CFS were evaluated. METHODS: Sixty patients, who received CBT during the FatiGo trial were included. Based on the expert opinion and using the definitions of subgroups defined in the CBT protocols, the therapist categorized the patient. Data from an activity monitor was used to calculate actual physical functioning, physical activity, daily uptime, activity fluctuations and duration of rest during daily life. Perceived physical functioning was assessed by measuring physical activity, physical functioning and functional impairment with the Checklist Individual Strength, Short Form-36 and Sickness-Impact Profile 8. RESULTS: Relatively active patients have a significantly higher daily uptime and show significantly less fluctuations in activities between days. Passive patients experience a significantly lower level of physical functioning and feel more functionally impaired in their mobility. However, no significant differences were found in the other actual or perceived physical functioning indices. CONCLUSIONS: A clear difference in actual and perceived physical functioning between relatively active and passive patients with CFS as judged by their therapists could not be found. Future research is needed to form a consensus on how to categorize subgroups of patients with CFS.

Effects of nurse-led motivational interviewing of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in preparation of rehabilitation treatment (PREPARE) on societal participation, attendance level, and cost-effectiveness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence and drop-out are major problems in pain rehabilitation. For patients with various health problems, motivational interviewing (MI) has shown promising effects to tackle these problems. In chronic pain patients, the effectiveness of MI is however unknown. Therefore, a MI-based pre-pain rehabilitation intervention (MIP) addressing motivation, expectations, and beliefs has been developed to prepare eligible patients for rehabilitation treatment. STUDY DESIGN: A parallel randomized controlled trial including two interventions: a motivational interviewing pre-pain rehabilitation intervention (MIP) and a usual care (UC) control arm. Follow-up will be 6 months after completion of rehabilitation treatment. STUDY POPULATION: One hundred and sixty (n = 80 per arm) patients with chronic non-specific musculoskeletal pain visiting an outpatient rehabilitation department, who are eligible to participate in an outpatient cognitive behavioral pain rehabilitation program. INTERVENTION: MIP consists of two sessions to prepare and motivate the patient for pain rehabilitation treatment and its bio psychosocial approach. UC consists of information and education about the etiology and the general rehabilitation approach of chronic pain. Both the MIP and UC contain two sessions of 45 to 60 minutes each. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MIP compared to UC in terms of an increase in the long-term level of societal participation and decrease of drop-out during rehabilitation treatment.Main study endpoints: Primary outcome is the change in level of participation (according to the ICF-definition: 'involvement in a life situation') 6 months after completion of rehabilitation treatment. Secondary outcomes are adherence and treatment drop-out, disability, pain intensity, self-reported main complaints, (pain-specific) self-efficacy, motivation, and quality of life. Costs are calculated including the costs of the pre-treatment intervention, productivity losses, and healthcare utilization. Potential moderators and active ingredients of MI are explored. For the process evaluation, parameters such as MI fidelity, feasibility, and experiences are explored. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of this MI-based pre-treatment in pain rehabilitation. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis and exploration of moderating and working mechanisms of MI and an extensive process evaluation takes place. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands trial register NTR3065.

Extensive validation of the pain disability index in 3 groups of patients with musculoskeletal pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design was performed. OBJECTIVE: To validate the pain disability index (PDI) extensively in 3 groups of patients with musculoskeletal pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The PDI is a widely used and studied instrument for disability related to various pain syndromes, although there is conflicting evidence concerning factor structure, test-retest reliability, and missing items. Additionally, an official translation of the Dutch language version has never been performed. METHODS: For reliability, internal consistency, factor structure, test-retest reliability and measurement error were calculated. Validity was tested with hypothesized correlations with pain intensity, kinesiophobia, Rand-36 subscales, Depression, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Quality of Life, and Work Status. Structural validity was tested with independent backward translation and approval from the original authors. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-eight patients with acute back pain, 425 patients with chronic low back pain and 365 with widespread pain were included. Internal consistency of the PDI was good. One factor was identified with factor analyses. Test-retest reliability was good for the PDI (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76). Standard error of measurement was 6.5 points and smallest detectable change was 17.9 points. Little correlations between the PDI were observed with kinesiophobia and depression, fair correlations with pain intensity, work status, and vitality and moderate correlations with the Rand-36 subscales and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The PDI-Dutch language version is internally consistent as a 1-factor structure, and test-retest reliable. Missing items seem high in sexual and professional items. Using the PDI as a 2-factor questionnaire has no additional value and is unreliable.

Cognitive behavioural therapy versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (FatiGo).

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome experience extreme fatigue, which often leads to substantial limitations of occupational, educational, social and personal activities. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the treatment. Patients try many different therapies to overcome their fatigue. Although there is no consensus, cognitive behavioural therapy is seen as one of the most effective treatments. Little is known about multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment, a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy with principles of mindfulness, gradual increase of activities, body awareness therapy and pacing. The difference in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness between multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behavioural therapy is as yet unknown. The FatiGo (Fatigue-Go) trial aims to compare the effects of both treatment approaches in outpatient rehabilitation on fatigue severity and quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who meet the criteria of chronic fatigue syndrome, fulfil the inclusion criteria and sign the informed consent form will be recruited. Both treatments take 6 months to complete. The outcome will be assessed at 6 and 12 months after the start of treatment. Two weeks after the start of treatment, expectancy and credibility will be measured, and patients will be asked to write down their personal goals and score their current performance on these goals on a visual analogue scale. At 6 and 14 weeks after the start of treatment, the primary outcome and three potential mediators-self-efficacy, causal attributions and present-centred attention-awareness-will be measured. Primary outcomes are fatigue severity and quality of life. Secondary outcomes are physical activity, psychological symptoms, self-efficacy, causal attributions, impact of disease on emotional and physical functioning, present-centred attention-awareness, life satisfaction, patient personal goals, self-rated improvement and economic costs. The primary analysis will be based on intention to treat, and longitudinal analysis of covariance will be used to compare treatments. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide information on the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment at 6 and 12 months follow-up, mediators of the outcome, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and the influence of treatment expectancy and credibility on the effectiveness of both treatments in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77567702.

Effectiveness of a behaviour graded activity program versus conventional exercise for chronic neck pain patients.

Chronic neck pain is a common complaint in the Netherlands with a point prevalence of 14.3%. Patients with chronic neck pain are often referred to physiotherapy and, nowadays, are mostly treated with exercise therapy. It is, however, unclear which type of exercise therapy is to be preferred. Therefore, this study evaluates the effectiveness of behaviour graded activity (BGA) compared with conventional exercise (CE) for patients with chronic neck pain. Eligible patients with non-specific chronic neck were randomly allocated to either BGA or CE. Primary treatment outcome is the patient's global perceived effect concerning recovery from complaint and daily functioning. Outcome assessment was performed at baseline, and at 4, 9, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. Effectiveness was examined with general estimating equations analyses. Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. Mean age was 45.7 (SD 12.4) years and the median duration of complaints was 60 months. The mean number of treatments was 6.6 (SD 3.0) in BGA and 11.2 (SD 4.1) in CE. No significant differences between treatments were found in their effectiveness of managing patients with chronic neck pain. In both BGA and CE some patients reported recovery from complaints and daily function but the proportion of recovered patients did not exceed 50% during the 12-month follow-up period. Both groups showed clinically relevant improvements in physical secondary outcomes. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN88733332.

Graded activity for workers with low back pain: who benefits most and how does it work?

OBJECTIVE: To identify subgroups of workers absent from work due to low back pain who are more or less likely to return to work earlier as a result of a graded activity intervention, and to investigate whether this intervention is effective in reducing pain-related fears and if so, whether these reductions in pain-related fears mediate return to work. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was conducted on data from a previous randomized controlled trial of 134 Dutch airline workers, which found that a behaviorally-oriented graded activity intervention was more effective than usual care in stimulating return to work. The subgroup analyses added interaction terms to a Cox regression model that described the relationship between treatment allocation and return to work over 12 months of followup. Furthermore, we studied the effects of graded activity on pain-related fears and added variables indicating a reduction in pain-related fears to the model in order to investigate their influence on return to work. RESULTS: Statistically significant interactions were found for disability, fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity, and fear-avoidance beliefs about work. No indication was found that the reduction in pain-related fears in the graded activity group mediated more favorable return-to-work results in this group. CONCLUSION: Workers who perceive their disability to be moderate and workers with moderate scores for fear-avoidance beliefs return to work more rapidly as a result of the graded activity intervention than workers with higher scores. The return to work of workers receiving the graded activity intervention is possibly independent from the reductions in pain-related fears caused by this intervention.

Exposure in vivo versus operant graded activity in chronic low back pain patients: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Since pain-related fear may contribute to the development and maintenance of chronic low back pain (CLBP), an exposure in vivo treatment (EXP) was developed for CLBP patients. We examined the effectiveness as well as specific mediating mechanisms of EXP versus operant graded activity (GA) directly and 6 months post-treatment in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. In total, 85 patients suffering from disabling non-specific CLBP reporting at least moderate pain-related fear were randomly allocated to EXP or GA. It was demonstrated that EXP, despite excelling in diminishing pain catastrophizing and perceived harmfulness of activities, was equally effective as GA in improving functional disability and main complaints, although the group difference almost reached statistical significance favouring EXP. Both treatment conditions did not differ in pain intensity and daily activity levels either. Nor was EXP superior to GA in the subgroup of highly fearful patients. Irrespective of treatment, approximately half the patients reported clinically relevant improvements in main complaints and functional disability, although for the latter outcome the group difference was almost significant favouring EXP. Furthermore, the effect of EXP relative to GA on functional disability and main complaints was mediated by decreases in catastrophizing and perceived harmfulness of activities. In sum, this study demonstrates that up to 6 months after treatment EXP is an effective treatment, but not more effective than GA, in moderately to highly fearful CLBP patients, although its superiority in altering pain catastrophizing and perceived harmfulness of activities is clearly established. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

Which patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee benefit most from behavioral graded activity?

Our objective was to investigate whether behavioral graded activity (BGA) has particular benefit in specific subgroups of osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Two hundred participants with OA of hip or knee, or both (clinical American College of Rheumatology, ACR, criteria) participated in a randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of BGA compared to treatment according to the Dutch physiotherapy guideline (usual care; UC). Changes in pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), physical functioning (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, WOMAC, and McMaster Toronto Arthritis Questionnaire, MACTAR), and patient global assessment were compared for specific subgroups. Subgroups were assigned by the median split method and were analyzed using analysis of covariance. Beneficial effects of BGA were found for patients with a relatively low level of physical functioning (p?0.03). Furthermore, beneficial effects of BGA in patients with a low level of internal locus of control were marginally significant (p = .05). Patients with a relatively low level of physical functioning benefit more from BGA compared to UC. Compared to UC, BGA is the preferred treatment option in patients with a low level of physical functioning.

Effectiveness of behavioral graded activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a behavioral graded activity program (BGA) compared with usual care (UC; exercise therapy and advice) according to the Dutch guidelines for physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee. The BGA intervention is intended to increase activity in the long term and consists of an exercise program with booster sessions, using operant treatment principles. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial involving 200 patients with hip and/or knee OA. Primary outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale [VAS] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), physical function (WOMAC), and patient global assessment, assessed at weeks 0, 13, 39, and 65. Secondary outcome measures comprised tiredness (VAS), patient-oriented physical function (McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire [MACTAR]), 5-meter walking time, muscle strength, and range of motion. Data were analyzed according to intent-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Both treatments showed short-term and long-term beneficial within-group effects. The mean differences between the 2 groups for pain and functional status were not statistically significant. Significant differences in favor of BGA were found for the MACTAR functional scale and 5-meter walking test at week 65. CONCLUSION: Because both interventions resulted in beneficial long-term effects, the superiority of BGA over UC has not been demonstrated. Therefore, BGA seems to be an acceptable method to treat patients with hip and/or knee OA, with equivalent results compared with UC.

Active involvement and long-term goals influence long-term adherence to behavioural graded activity in patients with osteoarthritis: a qualitative study.

QUESTION: Why do some patients who have received a behavioural graded activity program successfully integrate the activities into their daily lives and others do not? DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients were selected according to the model of deliberate sampling for heterogeneity, based on their success with the intervention as assessed on the Patient Global Assessment. INTERVENTION: Behavioural graded activity. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data from 12 interviews were coded and analysed using the methods developed in grounded theory. The interviews covered three main themes: aspects related to the content of behavioural graded activity, aspects related to experience with the physiotherapist, and aspects related to characteristics of the participant. RESULTS: Interview responses suggest that two factors influence long-term adherence to exercise and activity.First, initial long-term goals rather than short-term goals seem to relate to greater adherence to performing activities in the long term. Second, active involvement by participants in the intervention process seems to relate to greater adherence to performing activities in the long term. CONCLUSION: Although involvement of patients in the intervention process is already part of behavioural graded activity, it would be beneficial to emphasise the importance of active involvement by patients right from the start of the intervention. Furthermore, to increase the success of behavioural graded activity, physiotherapists should gain a clear understanding of the patient's initial motives in undergoing intervention.