Does having an external focus in immersive virtual reality increase range of motion in people with neck pain?

BACKGROUND: When instructing exercises to improve Range of Motion (ROM), clinicians often create an internal focus of attention, while motor performance may improve more when using an external focus. OBJECTIVES: Using Virtual Reality (VR), we investigated the effect of tasks with an internal and external focus on maximal ROM in people with neck pain and explored whether this effect was associated with fear of movement. METHOD: In this cross-over experimental design study, the cervical ROM of 54 participants was measured while performing a target-seeking exercise in a VR-environment (external focus task) and during three maximal rotation and flexion-extension movements with the VR-headset on, without signal (internal focus task). The main statistical analysis included two dependent T-tests. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to investigate whether the differences in ROM in both conditions were correlated to fear of movement. RESULTS: Maximal neck rotation was larger in the external focus condition than in the internal focus condition (mean difference: 26.4°, 95% CI [20.6, 32.3]; p < 0.001, d = 1.24). However, there was a difference favouring the internal focus condition for flexion-extension (mean difference: 8.2°, 95% CI [-14.9, -1.5]; p = 0.018, d = 0.33). The variability in ROM was not explained by variability in fear of movement (for all correlations p ≥ 0.197). CONCLUSION: An external focus resulted in a larger range of rotation, but our flexion-extension findings suggest that the task has to be specific to elicit such an effect. Further research, using a task that sufficiently elicits movement in all directions, is needed to determine the value of an external focus during exercise.

Illness perceptions in people with chronic and disabling non-specific neck pain seeking primary healthcare: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Illness perceptions can affect the way people with musculoskeletal pain emotionally and behaviorally cope with their health condition. Understanding patients illness perceptions may help facilitate patient-centered care. The purpose of this study was to explore illness perceptions and the origin of those perceptions in people with chronic disabling non-specific neck pain seeking primary care. METHODS: A qualitative study using a deductive and inductive analytical approach was conducted in 20 people with persistent (> 3 months) and disabling (i.e., Neck Disability Index ≥ 15) neck pain. Using a semi-structured format, participants were interviewed about their illness perceptions according to Leventhal's Common Sense Model. Purposive sampling and member checking were used to secure validity of study results. RESULTS: Participants reported multiple symptoms, thoughts and emotions related to their neck pain, which continuously required attention and action. They felt trapped within a complex multifactorial problem. Although some participants had a broader biopsychosocial perspective to understand their symptoms, a biomedical perspective was dominant in the labelling of their condition and their way of coping (e.g., limiting load, building strength and resilience, regaining mobility, keep moving and being meaningful). Their perceptions were strongly influenced by information from clinicians. Several participants indicated that they felt uncertain, because the information they received was contradictory or did not match their own experiences. CONCLUSION: Most participants reported that understanding their pain was important to them and influenced how they coped with pain. Addressing this 'sense making process' is a prerequisite for providing patient-centered care.

Visual feedback manipulation in virtual reality to influence pain-free range of motion. Are people with non-specific neck pain who are fearful of movement more susceptible?

BACKGROUND: Movement-evoked pain may have a protective or learned component, influenced by visual cues which suggest that the person is moving towards a position that may be perceived as threatening. We investigated whether visual feedback manipulation in virtual reality (VR) had a different effect on cervical pain-free range of motion (ROM) in people with fear of movement. METHOD: In this cross-sectional study, seventy-five people with non-specific neck pain (i.e., neck pain without a specific underlying pathology) rotated their head until the onset of pain, while wearing a VR-headset. Visual feedback about the amount of movement was equal, 30% smaller or 30% larger than their actual rotation. ROM was measured using the VR-headset sensors. The effect of VR manipulation in fearful (N = 19 using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) and N = 18 using the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity (FABQpa)) and non-fearful (N = 46; non-fearful on both scales) people was compared using mixed-design ANOVAs. RESULTS: Fear of movement, influenced the effect of visual feedback manipulation on cervical pain-free ROM (TSK: p = 0.036, Õ²p2 = 0.060; FABQpa: p = 0.020, Õ²p2 = 0.077); a greater amplitude of pain-free movement was found when visual feedback reduced the perceived rotation angle compared to the control condition (TSK: p = 0.090, Õ²p2 = 0.104; FABQpa: p = 0.030, Õ²p2 = 0.073). Independent of the presence of fear, visual feedback manipulation reduced the cervical pain-free ROM in the overstated condition (TSK: p< 0.001, Õ²p2 = 0.195; FABQpa: p<0.001, Õ²p2 = 0.329). DISCUSSION: Cervical pain-free ROM can be influenced by visual perception of the amount of rotation and people with fear of movement seem to be more susceptible to this effect. Further research in people with moderate/severe fear is needed to determine whether manipulating visual feedback may have clinical applicability to make patients aware that ROM may be influenced more by fear than tissue pathology.

Using Visual Feedback Manipulation in Virtual Reality to Influence Pain-Free Range of Motion in People with Nonspecific Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Based on associative learning theories it is hypothesized that pain might be a conditioned response. In people with musculoskeletal pain, the occurrence of movement-induced pain might be a protective response, influenced by visual cues suggesting that the person is approaching a painful position. This study aimed to determine (1) whether the pain-free range of motion (ROM) increased and decreased when visual feedback understated or overstated true rotation in people with neck pain and (2) whether this effect was more pronounced if pain was chronic. METHOD: People with subacute and chronic nonspecific neck pain wore a VR-headset and rotated their head to the left and right until the onset of pain. Visual feedback about the amount of movement was either equal, 20% less, or 20% greater than their actual rotation. Maximal pain-free ROM was measured using the VR-headset sensors. Data were analyzed using a mixed-design ANOVA. RESULTS: There was no effect of visual feedback manipulation on pain-free ROM (P = 0.13) and no interaction effect between the visual feedback condition and duration of pain (P = 0.86). DISCUSSION: The inability to influence pain-free ROM by manipulating visual feedback in people with subacute or chronic neck pain does not support associative learning theories for the perception of neck pain.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Dutch language version of the Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale - Cervical.

BACKGROUND: The Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale-Cervical (PFActS-C) is a reliable and valid instrument to assess fear of movement in people with whiplash associated disorders. It is not available in Dutch and has not been evaluated in other neck pain populations. This study aimed to systematically translate the PFActS-C into Dutch and evaluate the psychometric properties of this Dutch Language Version (DLV) in people with non-specific neck pain. METHODS: The PFActS-C was translated according to international guidelines. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, face validity and construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity by hypotheses testing and structural validity by confirmatory and exploratory factor-analyses) of the PFActS-C-DLV were tested in 125 people with non-specific neck pain. RESULTS: The PFActS-C-DLV showed good to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.98) and stability over time (ICC: 0.90 [95%CI: 0.82-0.93). Four out of five a priori formulated hypotheses regarding related (convergent validity) and unrelated (discriminant validity) constructs were confirmed. However, the confirmatory factor analysis could not confirm the expected 1-factor solution. Furthermore, the exploratory factor analyses revealed that also a higher factor solution would not lead to a good fit of the model. CONCLUSIONS: The PFActS-C-DLV is a reliable region-specific instrument for people with non-specific neck pain. The construct validity was supported, based on hypotheses testing. However, factor analyses could not confirm a 1-factor solution, so the underlying construct of the PFActS-C-DLV remains unclear. Given the PFActS-C's photographic format, we believe these findings also have relevance for the original English version.