Non-specific Mechanisms in Orthodox and CAM management of low back pain (MOCAM). Theoretical framework and protocol for a prospective cohort study

Katherine Bradbury, Miznah Al-Abbadey, Laura Joanne Parry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction Components other than the active ingredients of treatment can have substantial effects on pain and disability. Such ‘non-specific’ components include: the therapeutic relationship, the healthcare environment, incidental treatment characteristics, patients’ beliefs and practitioners’ beliefs. This study aims to: identify the most powerful non-specific treatment components for low back pain (LBP), compare their effects on patient outcomes across orthodox (physiotherapy) and complementary (osteopathy, acupuncture) therapies, test which theoretically derived mechanistic pathways explain the effects of non-specific components and identify similarities and differences between the therapies on patient–practitioner interactions.

Methods and analysis This research comprises a prospective questionnaire-based cohort study with a nested mixed-methods study. A minimum of 144 practitioners will be recruited from public and private sector settings (48 physiotherapists, 48 osteopaths and 48 acupuncturists). Practitioners are asked to recruit 10–30 patients each, by handing out invitation packs to adult patients presenting with a new episode of LBP. The planned multilevel analysis requires a final sample size of 690 patients to detect correlations between predictors, hypothesised mediators and the primary outcome (self-reported back-related disability on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Practitioners and patients complete questionnaires measuring non-specific treatment components, mediators and outcomes at: baseline (time 1: after the first consultation for a new episode of LBP), during treatment (time 2: 2 weeks post-baseline) and short-term outcome (time 3: 3 months post-baseline). A randomly selected subsample of participants in the questionnaire study will be invited to take part in a nested mixed-methods study of patient–practitioner interactions. In the nested study, 63 consultations (21/therapy) will be audio-recorded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, to identify communication practices associated with patient outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the host institution's ethics committee and the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences and a stakeholder workshop.

Publisher Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere012209
Number of pages13
JournalBMJ Open
Volume6
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 May 2016

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Licensure
Therapeutics
Referral and Consultation
Osteopathic Physicians
Acupuncture Therapy
Multilevel Analysis
Ethics Committees
Private Sector
Public Sector
Physical Therapists
Research Ethics Committees
Research
Ethics
Sample Size
Communication
Delivery of Health Care
Education

Cite this

Non-specific Mechanisms in Orthodox and CAM management of low back pain (MOCAM). Theoretical framework and protocol for a prospective cohort study. / Bradbury, Katherine; Al-Abbadey, Miznah; Parry, Laura Joanne.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 6, No. 5, e012209, 27.05.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{373c104c3b414e81a1877b1b9105656d,
title = "Non-specific Mechanisms in Orthodox and CAM management of low back pain (MOCAM). Theoretical framework and protocol for a prospective cohort study",
abstract = "Introduction Components other than the active ingredients of treatment can have substantial effects on pain and disability. Such ‘non-specific’ components include: the therapeutic relationship, the healthcare environment, incidental treatment characteristics, patients’ beliefs and practitioners’ beliefs. This study aims to: identify the most powerful non-specific treatment components for low back pain (LBP), compare their effects on patient outcomes across orthodox (physiotherapy) and complementary (osteopathy, acupuncture) therapies, test which theoretically derived mechanistic pathways explain the effects of non-specific components and identify similarities and differences between the therapies on patient–practitioner interactions.Methods and analysis This research comprises a prospective questionnaire-based cohort study with a nested mixed-methods study. A minimum of 144 practitioners will be recruited from public and private sector settings (48 physiotherapists, 48 osteopaths and 48 acupuncturists). Practitioners are asked to recruit 10–30 patients each, by handing out invitation packs to adult patients presenting with a new episode of LBP. The planned multilevel analysis requires a final sample size of 690 patients to detect correlations between predictors, hypothesised mediators and the primary outcome (self-reported back-related disability on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Practitioners and patients complete questionnaires measuring non-specific treatment components, mediators and outcomes at: baseline (time 1: after the first consultation for a new episode of LBP), during treatment (time 2: 2 weeks post-baseline) and short-term outcome (time 3: 3 months post-baseline). A randomly selected subsample of participants in the questionnaire study will be invited to take part in a nested mixed-methods study of patient–practitioner interactions. In the nested study, 63 consultations (21/therapy) will be audio-recorded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, to identify communication practices associated with patient outcomes.Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the host institution's ethics committee and the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences and a stakeholder workshop.Publisher Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
author = "Katherine Bradbury and Miznah Al-Abbadey and Parry, {Laura Joanne}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012209",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "BMJ (Clinical research ed.)",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Non-specific Mechanisms in Orthodox and CAM management of low back pain (MOCAM). Theoretical framework and protocol for a prospective cohort study

AU - Bradbury, Katherine

AU - Al-Abbadey, Miznah

AU - Parry, Laura Joanne

PY - 2016/5/27

Y1 - 2016/5/27

N2 - Introduction Components other than the active ingredients of treatment can have substantial effects on pain and disability. Such ‘non-specific’ components include: the therapeutic relationship, the healthcare environment, incidental treatment characteristics, patients’ beliefs and practitioners’ beliefs. This study aims to: identify the most powerful non-specific treatment components for low back pain (LBP), compare their effects on patient outcomes across orthodox (physiotherapy) and complementary (osteopathy, acupuncture) therapies, test which theoretically derived mechanistic pathways explain the effects of non-specific components and identify similarities and differences between the therapies on patient–practitioner interactions.Methods and analysis This research comprises a prospective questionnaire-based cohort study with a nested mixed-methods study. A minimum of 144 practitioners will be recruited from public and private sector settings (48 physiotherapists, 48 osteopaths and 48 acupuncturists). Practitioners are asked to recruit 10–30 patients each, by handing out invitation packs to adult patients presenting with a new episode of LBP. The planned multilevel analysis requires a final sample size of 690 patients to detect correlations between predictors, hypothesised mediators and the primary outcome (self-reported back-related disability on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Practitioners and patients complete questionnaires measuring non-specific treatment components, mediators and outcomes at: baseline (time 1: after the first consultation for a new episode of LBP), during treatment (time 2: 2 weeks post-baseline) and short-term outcome (time 3: 3 months post-baseline). A randomly selected subsample of participants in the questionnaire study will be invited to take part in a nested mixed-methods study of patient–practitioner interactions. In the nested study, 63 consultations (21/therapy) will be audio-recorded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, to identify communication practices associated with patient outcomes.Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the host institution's ethics committee and the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences and a stakeholder workshop.Publisher Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

AB - Introduction Components other than the active ingredients of treatment can have substantial effects on pain and disability. Such ‘non-specific’ components include: the therapeutic relationship, the healthcare environment, incidental treatment characteristics, patients’ beliefs and practitioners’ beliefs. This study aims to: identify the most powerful non-specific treatment components for low back pain (LBP), compare their effects on patient outcomes across orthodox (physiotherapy) and complementary (osteopathy, acupuncture) therapies, test which theoretically derived mechanistic pathways explain the effects of non-specific components and identify similarities and differences between the therapies on patient–practitioner interactions.Methods and analysis This research comprises a prospective questionnaire-based cohort study with a nested mixed-methods study. A minimum of 144 practitioners will be recruited from public and private sector settings (48 physiotherapists, 48 osteopaths and 48 acupuncturists). Practitioners are asked to recruit 10–30 patients each, by handing out invitation packs to adult patients presenting with a new episode of LBP. The planned multilevel analysis requires a final sample size of 690 patients to detect correlations between predictors, hypothesised mediators and the primary outcome (self-reported back-related disability on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Practitioners and patients complete questionnaires measuring non-specific treatment components, mediators and outcomes at: baseline (time 1: after the first consultation for a new episode of LBP), during treatment (time 2: 2 weeks post-baseline) and short-term outcome (time 3: 3 months post-baseline). A randomly selected subsample of participants in the questionnaire study will be invited to take part in a nested mixed-methods study of patient–practitioner interactions. In the nested study, 63 consultations (21/therapy) will be audio-recorded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, to identify communication practices associated with patient outcomes.Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the host institution's ethics committee and the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences and a stakeholder workshop.Publisher Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012209

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012209

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

JF - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 5

M1 - e012209

ER -