Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Predicting Response to Motor Control Exercises and Graded Activity for Patients With Low Back Pain: Preplanned Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Luciana Gazzi Macedo, Christopher G. Maher, Mark J. Hancock, Steve J. Kamper, James H. McAuley, Tasha R. Stanton, Ryan Stafford, Paul W. Hodges
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140014 Published 1 November 2014
Luciana Gazzi Macedo
L.G. Macedo, PT, PhD, Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, 2-50 Corbett Hall, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G4, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher G. Maher
C.G. Maher, PT, PhD, The George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark J. Hancock
M.J. Hancock, PT, PhD, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steve J. Kamper
S.J. Kamper, PT, PhD, EMGO+ Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and The George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James H. McAuley
J.H. McAuley, PhD, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tasha R. Stanton
T.R. Stanton, PT, PhD, School of Health Sciences, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, and Neuroscience Research Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan Stafford
R. Stafford, PhD, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul W. Hodges
P.W. Hodges, PT, PhD, Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Study flow diagram. IQR=interquartile range.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Function outcomes at baseline and 12-month follow-up to illustrate the main effect of treatment and treatment effect modification. Values represent unadjusted means and 95% confidence intervals. Graph A shows data for all participants. Graph B shows the outcome when the groups were stratified by median score on the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ). Participants with an LSIQ score of 9 or greater (ie, high instability) are described as “positive” (+ve), and those with an LSIQ score of less than 9 are described as “negative” (−ve) on the questionnaire.

Appendix.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix.

Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire

Tables

Table 1.
Table 1.

Description of Candidate Baseline Predictorsa

  • ↵a SWT=Shuttle Walk Test, IPAQ=International Physical Activity Questionnaire, LSIQ=Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire, PSEQ=Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, CSQ=Coping Strategies Questionnaire, PASS-20=Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale (short form).

Table 2.
Table 2.

Baseline Characteristics of Participantsa

  • ↵a Continuous data are mean (SD); categorical data are n (%). CSQ=Coping Strategies Questionnaire (0 [“good coping strategy”]−36 [“worst coping strategy”]), Örebro questionnaire=Örebro Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire (11 [“low risk of pain becoming persistent”]−192 [“high risk of pain becoming persistent”]), PASS-20 total score=Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale total score (0 [“low anxiety”]−100 [“high anxiety”]), PSEQ=Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (0 [“high fear avoidance”]−100 [“no fear avoidance”]), IPAQ=International Physical Activity Questionnaire (metabolic equivalent minutes per week), LSIQ=Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (0 [“no instability”]−15 [“high instability”]), NRS=pain numeric rating scale (0 [“no pain”]−10 [“worst pain imaginable”]), PSFS=Patient-Specific Functional Scale (0 [“unable to perform activity”]−10 [“able to perform activity at preinjury level”]), RMDQ-24=24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0 [“no disability”]−24 [“high disability”]).

Table 3.
Table 3.

Results of Univariate Testing of the Dichotomized Predictor Variables on Function Scoresa

  • ↵a Values are nonstandardized point estimates (95% confidence interval) and associated P value for the effect of the predictor, the main effect of treatment group, and the interaction between predictor and treatment group on function scores. The reference category for the predictor term is a score greater than or equal to the median and for group term is the motor control group. Positive interaction terms for PSFS (function) outcomes and negative interaction terms for pain outcomes indicate a better response to graded activity exercises in participants with lower scores on the predictor variable. LSIQ=Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire, CSQ=Coping Strategies Questionnaire, PASS-20=Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale, Örebro questionnaire=Örebro Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire, IPAQ=International Physical Activity Questionnaire, PSEQ=Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, PSFS=Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Highlighted cells are statistically significant interactions (P<.05).

Table 4.
Table 4.

Adjusted Function (Patient-Specific Functional Scale) Treatment Effects (95% Confidence Interval) in Subgroup Positive and Subgroup Negative Participants for the Statistically Significant Predictors Onlya

  • ↵a LSIQ=Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (0 [“no instability”]−15 [“high instability”]), CSQ=Coping Strategies Questionnaire (0 [“good coping strategy”]−36 [“worst coping strategy”]), PASS-20 total score=Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale total score (0 [“low anxiety”]−100 [“high anxiety”]), Örebro questionnaire=Örebro Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire (11 [“low risk of pain becoming persistent”]−192 [“high risk of pain becoming persistent”]). Highlighted values are statistically significant (P<.05).

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 94 Issue 11 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 94 (11)

Issue highlights

  • Response to Motor Control Exercises and Graded Activity for Patients With Low Back Pain
  • Task-Specific Training in Huntington Disease
  • Rehabilitation Therapies After Botulinum Toxin-A
  • Relationship Between Cumulative Lifting Load and Lumbar Disk Degeneration
  • Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Functional Gait Index
  • Self-efficacy and Mobility With Wheelchair Use
  • KOOS-PS and KOOS Function and Sport Scores
  • Comparison of Ultrasound and Fingerbreadth Palpation Methods
  • Validation of the BESTest in Stroke
  • Valid Test for Manual Dexterity in Multiple Sclerosis
  • Introduction to the GRADE Approach
  • Theoretical Domains Framework
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Predicting Response to Motor Control Exercises and Graded Activity for Patients With Low Back Pain: Preplanned Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
Predicting Response to Motor Control Exercises and Graded Activity for Patients With Low Back Pain: Preplanned Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Luciana Gazzi Macedo, Christopher G. Maher, Mark J. Hancock, Steve J. Kamper, James H. McAuley, Tasha R. Stanton, Ryan Stafford, Paul W. Hodges
Physical Therapy Nov 2014, 94 (11) 1543-1554; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Download Powerpoint
Save to my folders

Share
Predicting Response to Motor Control Exercises and Graded Activity for Patients With Low Back Pain: Preplanned Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Luciana Gazzi Macedo, Christopher G. Maher, Mark J. Hancock, Steve J. Kamper, James H. McAuley, Tasha R. Stanton, Ryan Stafford, Paul W. Hodges
Physical Therapy Nov 2014, 94 (11) 1543-1554; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140014
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Appendix.
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Reliability and Validity of Force Platform Measures of Balance Impairment in Individuals With Parkinson Disease
  • Predictors of Reduced Frequency of Physical Activity 3 Months After Injury: Findings From the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study
  • Effects of Locomotor Exercise Intensity on Gait Performance in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Show more Research Reports

Subjects

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top