Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Embedded motivational interviewing combined with a smartphone application to increase physical activity in people with sub-acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary] |
Holden J, O'Halloran P, Davidson M, Breckon J, Rahayu W, Monfries M, Taylor NF |
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2024 Jul-Aug;28(4):101091 |
clinical trial |
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
BACKGROUND: Moderately vigorous physical activity (PA) may be beneficial for people with sub-acute low back pain (LBP), but may initially be painful for patients and challenging for physical therapists to facilitate. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated motivational interviewing (MI) delivered by physical therapists and a smartphone app for increasing PA in people with LBP. METHODS: A mixed methods cluster randomised controlled trial involving 46 adults with LBP in Melbourne, Australia. Participants attended weekly 30-min physical therapy consultations for 6 weeks. Experimental group physical therapists were taught to embed MI into consultations and patients were provided with a self-directed app. The primary outcome was accelerometer-derived moderately vigorous PA. Secondary outcomes were LBP disability (Oswestry Disability Index), functional capacity (Patient Specific Functional Scale), and self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire). Between-group differences were analysed by ANCOVA post-intervention. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and control group for PA. Between-group differences in LBP disability (MD 19.4 units, 95% CI 8.5 to 30.3), functional capacity (primary MD -4.1 units, 95% CI -6.9 to -1.3; average MD -3.1, 95% CI -4.9 to -1.2) and self-efficacy (MD -11.3 units, 95% CI -20.2 to -2.5) favoured the control group with small to moderate effect sizes. There were low levels of overall engagement with the app. CONCLUSION: The embedded MI intervention was no more beneficial than physical therapy alone for PA and was associated with poorer LBP disability, function, and self-efficacy. The effectiveness of embedding MI and a smartphone app into usual care for LBP was not supported.
|