From prototype to exploitation : mobile services for patients with chronic lower back pain

Many research and development projects that are carried out by firms and research institutes are technology-oriented. There is a large gap between research results, for instance in the form of prototypes, and the actual service offerings to customers. This becomes problematic when an organization wants to bring the results from such a project to the market, which will be particularly troublesome when the research results do not readily fit traditional offerings, roles and capabilities in the industry, nor the financial arrangements. In this chapter, we discuss the design of a business model for a mobile health service, starting with a research prototype that was developed for patients with chronic lower back pain, using the STOF model and method. In a number of design sessions, an initial business model was developed that identifies critical design issues that play a role in moving from prototype toward market deployment. The business model serves as a starting-point to identify and commit relevant stakeholders, and to draw up a business plan and case. This chapter is structured as follows. We begin by discussing the need for mobile health business models. Next, the research and development project on mobile health and the prototype for chronic lower back pain patients are introduced, after which the approach used to develop the business model is described, followed by a discussion of the developed mobile health business model for each of the STOF domains. We conclude with a discussion regarding the lessons that were learned with respect to the development of a business model on the basis of a prototype.

The effect of hip muscle strengthening on pain and disability for individuals with non-specific low back pain : a randomized controlled trial

Introduction Clinical guidelines for the treatment of chronic low back pain suggest the use of supervised exercise. Motor control (MC) based exercise is widely used within clinical practice but its efficacy is equivalent to general exercise therapy. MC exercise targets the trunk musculature. Considering the mechanical links between the hip, pelvis, and lumbar spine, surprisingly little focus has been on investigating the contribution of the hip musculature to lumbopelvic support. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of two exercise programs for the treatment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods Eighty individuals aged 18-65 years of age were randomized into two groups to participate in this trial. The primary outcome measures included self-reported pain intensity (0-100mm VAS) and percent disability (Oswestry Disability Index V2). Bilateral measures of hip strength (N/kg) and two dimensional frontal plane mechanics (º) were the secondary outcomes. Outcomes were measured at baseline and following a six-week home based exercise program including weekly sessions of real-time ultrasound imaging. Results Within group comparisons revealed clinically meaningful reductions in pain for both groups. The MC exercise only (N= 40, xˉ =-20.9mm, 95%CI -25.7, -16.1) and the combined MC and hip exercise (N= 40, xˉ = -24.9mm, 95%CI -30.8, -19.0). There was no statistical difference in the change of pain (xˉ =-4.0mm, t= -1.07, p=0.29, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) or disability (xˉ =-0.3%, t=-0.19, p=0.85, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) between groups. Conclusion Both exercise programs had similar and positive effects on NSLBP which support the use of the home based exercise programs with weekly supervised visits. However, the addition of specific hip strengthening exercises to a MC based exercise program did not result in significantly greater reductions in pain or disability. Trial Registration NCTO1567566 Funding: Worker’s Compensation Board Alberta Research Grant.

The effect of the addition of hip strengthening exercises to a lumbopelvic exercise programme for the treatment of non-specific low back pain : a randomized controlled trial

Objectives To compare the efficacy of two exercise programs in reducing pain and disability for individuals with non-specific low back pain and to examine the underlying mechanical factors related to pain and disability for individuals with NSLBP. Design A single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Methods: Eighty participants were recruited from eleven community-based general medical practices and randomized into two groups completing either a lumbopelvic motor control or a combined lumbopelvic motor control and progressive hip strengthening exercise therapy program. All participants received an education session, 6 rehabilitation sessions including real time ultrasound training, and a home based exercise program manual and log book. The primary outcomes were pain (0-100mm visual analogue scale), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index V2). The secondary outcomes were hip strength (N/kg) and two-dimensional frontal plane biomechanics (°) measure during the static Trendelenburg test and while walking. All outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6-week follow up. Results There was no statistical difference in the change in pain (xˉ = -4.0mm, t= -1.07, p =0.29, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) or disability (xˉ = -0.3%, t= -0.19, p =0.85, 95%CI -3.5, 2.8) between groups. Within group comparisons revealed clinically meaningful reductions in pain for both Group One (xˉ =-20.9mm, 95%CI -25.7, -16.1) and Group Two (xˉ =-24.9, 95%CI -30.8, -19.0). Conclusion Both exercise programs had similar efficacy in reducing pain. The addition of hip strengthening exercises to a motor control exercise program does not appear to result in improved clinical outcome for pain for individuals with non-specific low back pain.

The mechanical and inflammatory low back pain (MIL) index: development and validation

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was the development of a valid and reliable “Mechanical and Inflammatory Low Back Pain Index” (MIL) for assessment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). This 7-item tool assists practitioners in determining whether symptoms are predominantly mechanical or inflammatory. Methods Participants (n = 170, 96 females, age = 38 ± 14 years-old) with NSLP were referred to two Spanish physiotherapy clinics and completed the MIL and the following measures: the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), SF-12 and “Backache Index” (BAI) physical assessment test. For test-retest reliability, 37 consecutive patients were assessed at baseline and three days later during a non-treatment period. Face and content validity, practical characteristics, factor analysis, internal consistency, discriminant validity and convergent validity were assessed from the full sample. Results A total of 27 potential items that had been identified for inclusion were subsequently reduced to 11 by an expert panel. Four items were then removed due to cross-loading under confirmatory factor analysis where a two-factor model yielded a good fit to the data (χ2 = 14.80, df = 13, p = 0.37, CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.029). The internal consistency was moderate (α = 0.68 for MLBP; 0.72 for ILBP), test-retest reliability high (ICC = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.88-0.93) and discriminant validity good for either MLBP (AUC = 0.74) and ILBP (AUC = 0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated through similar but weak correlations between the ILBP and both the RMQ and BAI (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and the MLBP and BAI (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). Conclusions The MIL is a valid and reliable clinical tool for patients with NSLBP that discriminates between mechanical and inflammatory LBP. Keywords: Low back pain; Psychometrics properties; Pain measurement; Screening tool; Inflammatory; Mechanical

Ability to discriminate between healthy and low back pain sufferers using ultrasound during maximum lumbar extension

Objective To analyze the ability to discriminate between healthy individuals and individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) by measuring the relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures of the erector spinae (ES) muscles using an ultrasound during maximal isometric lumbar extension. Design Cross-sectional study with screening and diagnostic tests with no blinded comparison. Setting University laboratory. Participants Healthy individuals (n=33) and individuals with CNLBP (n=33). Interventions Each subject performed an isometric lumbar extension. With the variables measured, a discriminate analysis was performed using a value ≥6 in the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) as the grouping variable. Then, a logistic regression with the functional and architectural variables was performed. A new index was obtained from each subject value input in the discriminate multivariate analysis. Main Outcome Measures Morphologic muscle variables of the ES muscle were measured through ultrasound images. The reliability of the measures was calculated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures was analyzed using a discriminate function from standardized values of the variables and an analysis of the reliability of the ultrasound measurement. Results The reliability tests show an ICC value >.95 for morphologic and functional variables. The independent variables included in the analysis explained 42% (P=.003) of the dependent variable variance. Conclusions The relation between objective variables (electromyography, thickness, pennation angle) and a subjective variable (RMDQ ≥6) and the capacity of this relation to identify CNLBP within a group of healthy subjects is moderate. These results should be considered by clinicians when treating this type of patient in clinical practice.

Predictors of clinical improvement in children with recurrent abdominal pain

Forty-three children with recurrent abdominal pain who had received treatment from a paediatric gastroenterology clinic were reassessed 6 and 12 months after initial presentation. Measures of children's pain included a pain diary (PD) which measured pain intensity, a parent observation record (POR) which assessed pain behaviour and a structured interview to assess the degree to which pain interferes with the child's activities. Pretreatment measures of the child's history of pain, coping strategies in dealing with pain, and their mother's caregiving strategies were examined as predictors of two indices of clinical improvement: the extent of change in pain on the child's pain diary from pre-test to 6 months follow-up, and the degree of interference to the child's activities. All children had shown significant improvement in the level of pain at follow up, with 74.4% being pain free at 12 month follow-up on the PD and 83.7% being pain free on the POR. The amount of change they showed varied, with some showing residual impairment even though they were significantly improved. Regression analyses showed that children with greatest reductions on the child's pain diary at the 6 month follow-up were those with a stress-related mode of onset, whose mothers used more adaptive caregiving strategies, and who received cognitive behavioural family intervention. There was also a non significant trend for younger children to fare better. These data suggest the importance of early diagnosis and routinely assessing parental caregiving behaviour and beliefs about the origins of pain in planning treatment for children with RAP.

The treatment of recurrent abdominal pain in children : a controlled comparison of cognitive-behavioral family intervention and standard pediatric care

This study describes the results of a controlled clinical trial involving 44 7- to 14-year-old children with recurrent abdominal pain who were randomly allocated to either cognitive-behavioral family intervention (CBFI) or standard pediatric care (SPC). Both treatment conditions resulted in significant improvements on measures of pain intensity and pain behavior. However, the children receiving CBFI had a higher rate of complete elimination of pain, lower levels of relapse at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and lower levels of interference with their activities as a result of pain and parents reported a higher level of satisfaction with the treatment than children receiving SPC. After controlling for pretreatment levels of pain, children's active self-coping and mothers' caregiving strategies were significant independent predictors of pain behavior at posttreatment.

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). RESULTS: Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.

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.