A systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain-protocol

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is highly prevalent, affecting around one in five people across Europe. Osteoarthritis, low back pain, neck pain and other musculoskeletal disorders are leading causes of disability
worldwide and the most common source of chronic pain. Exercise and/or physical activity interventions have the potential to address not only the pain and disability associated with chronic pain but also the increased risk of morbidity and mortality seen in this population. Although exercise and/or physical activity is widely recommended, there is currently a paucity of research that offers an evidence base upon which the development or optimisation of interventions can be based. This systematic review will investigate the components of interventions associated with changes in physical activity levels in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Methods/Design: This systematic review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain will be included. Articles will be identified through a comprehensive search of the following databases: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED. Two review authors will independently screen articles retrieved from the search for eligibility, extract relevant data on methodological issues and code interventions according to the behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques. As complex healthcare interventions can be modified by a wide variety of factors, data will be summarised statistically when the data are available, are sufficiently similar and are of sufficient quality. A narrative synthesis will be completed if there is insufficient data to permit a formal meta-analysis.

Discussion: This review will be of value to clinicians working in chronic pain services and to researchers involved in designing and evaluating interventions.

Islands of pain in a sea of change: Behaviour analysis and bereavement,

The paper Bereavement: A behavioural process (Dillenburger & Keenan, 1994) was first published within a vacuum of behaviour analytic thinking or research in this field. The paper was meant to be a first step in stimulating others to contribute to the understanding of one of the most complex, yet most universal, human behavioural processes. The only behaviour analyst addressing the issues directly was Calkin (1990). Recently, after reading our original 1994 paper, Beth Sulzer-Azaroff suggested that we should solicit comments directly from the behaviour analytic community. This we did with the help of Erik Arntzen and now the reprint and the commentaries in this edition of the European Journal of Behaviour Analysis (EJBA) fully embrace and extend the contribution of behaviour analysis to the understanding of the behavioural process that is bereavement.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.