PM&R
Volume 1, Issue 9 , Pages 798-808, September 2009

The Comparative Effectiveness of a Multimodal Program Versus Exercise Alone for the Secondary Prevention of Chronic Low Back Pain and Disability

  • Thomas Ewert, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Heribert Limm, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Tina Wessels, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany§
  • ,
  • Berid Rackwitz, PT

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Katharina von Garnier, B OTR

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Robert Freumuth, MA

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany#
  • ,
  • Gerold Stucki, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany; ICF Research Branch, WHO FIC Collaborating Center (DIMDI), Institute for Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany; and Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland⁎⁎
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to G.S.; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany

Received 29 August 2008; accepted 14 July 2009.

Objective

The objective of this study was to examine whether a multimodal, secondary prevention program (MP) is superior to a general physical exercise program (EP) in influencing the process leading to chronic low back pain (LBP) in nurses with a history of back pain.

Design

The study was conducted as a randomized controlled parallel-group trial.

Setting

The interventions were performed in a single center at the Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Munich in Germany.

Participants

A total of 235 nurses from 14 nearby hospitals and nursing homes who experienced at least one episode of back pain during the previous 2 years were invited into the study. Of these, 183 nurses were enrolled and 169 (83 in the MP and 86 in the EP) qualified for the intent-to-treat analysis.

Interventions

The EP consisted of 11 group sessions, each lasting 1 hour. After introductory sessions, subsequent sessions included general physical strengthening and stretching exercises as well as instructions for a home-training program. The MP consisted of 17 group sessions of 1.75 hours and one individual session of 45 minutes. In addition to the full EP, the MP included 5 psychological units, 7 segmental stabilization exercises units, and 8 ergonomic and workplace-specific units.

Main Outcome Measurements

The primary study end-point variable was pain interference, and the secondary study end-point variables were pain intensity and functioning as measured with the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory and the Short Form-36, respectively. These study end-point variables were defined a priori.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Small-to-moderate effects were observed in both intervention programs across all study end-point variables. For pain interference, the effect size at 12 months after intervention was 0.58 in the MP and 0.47 in the EP.

Conclusions

A multimodal program is not superior to a general exercise program in influencing the process leading to chronic LBP in a population of nurses with a history of pain. The most likely explanation is a common psychological mechanism leading to improved pain interference that is irrespective of the program used. Considering the lower resources of the general exercise program, the expense for a multimodal program is not justified for the secondary prevention of LBP and disability.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 
  •  Disclosure: nothing to disclose
  •  Disclosure: nothing to disclose
  • § Disclosure: nothing to disclose
  •  Disclosure: nothing to disclose
  •  Disclosure: nothing to disclose
  • # Disclosure: nothing to disclose
  • ⁎⁎ Disclosure: nothing to disclose

 This CME activity is designated for 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ and can be completed online at me.aapmr.org. Log on to www.me.aapmr.org, go to Lifelong Learning (CME) and select Journal-based CME from the drop down menu. At $10 per activity for AAPM&R members, journal CME is a cost-effective option for obtaining Category 1 CME credit!

 Funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security (Grant No. 124-43164-1/527).

 Disclosure Key can be found on the Table of Contents and at www.pmrjournal.org

PII: S1934-1482(09)00716-3

doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.07.006

PM&R
Volume 1, Issue 9 , Pages 798-808, September 2009