Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on January 17, 2006
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kei254
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/6/751    most recent
kei254v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Underwood, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Underwood, M. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received August 15, 2005
Accepted November 11, 2005

Original Article

Patient perceptions of physical therapy within a trial for back pain treatments (UK BEAM) [ISRCTN32683578]

M. R. Underwood 1 *, G. Harding 2, J. Klaber Moffett 3, and in collaboration with the UK BEAM trial team

1 Centre for Health Sciences, Barts and The London
2 Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Peninsular Medical School, UK
3 Institute of Rehabilitation, University of Hull, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
M. R. Underwood, E-mail: m.underwood{at}qmul.ac.uk


  Abstract

Objectives. To explore the views of participants in a randomized controlled trial of physical treatments for low back pain about the treatment packages they received in the trial.

Methods. Within a randomized controlled trial that found small to moderate benefits from adding a manipulation package or an exercise programme to general practice care, we elicited participants’ views on the treatment using an open question in participant questionnaires. These data were analysed using an adapted framework approach.

Results. We received a total of 1259 comments from 1334 participants. Participants randomized to usual general practice care reported dissatisfaction with receiving only ‘usual care’, which consisted of providing analgesic medication without providing an explanation for their pain. Those randomized to a manipulation package felt the intervention was appropriate to their needs and commonly reported striking benefits. Participants assigned to the exercise programme developed a sense of self-reliance in managing back pain, although some failed to be sufficiently motivated to continue their exercise regimen outside the classes.

Conclusions. This qualitative analysis has found much clearer differences between the groups than the main quantitative analysis. This suggests that some of the added value from being allocated to additional physical treatment for low back pain is not being captured by existing methods of measurement. Improved methods of assessment that consider a wider range of domains may be needed when interpreting the added value of such treatments to individual patients.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.