A Comparison of Two Self-management Programmes for Patients With Back Pain
NCT ID: NCT03791164
Last Updated: 2019-05-07
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
UNKNOWN
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
200 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2019-01-24
Study Completion Date
2021-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This investigation is a mixed methods research proposal to answer the question: 'Does Using the Pain Toolkit Improve Outcomes for Patients accessing the North of England Regional Back Pain Pathway?'. The study is part of a 5 year professional doctorate programme at Teesside University. The aim of the study is to test whether with a double blind randomised controlled trial patients accessing the North of England Regional Back Pain Pathway experience reduced Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) when using the pain toolkit compared to a control group of patients offered the standard treatment. The study also contains a nested qualitative element which aims to explore the participants' experiences of using the Pain Toolkit.
According to the British Pain Society (2017), chronic pain management is a significant burden to the National Health Service NHS. Back pain alone accounts for a significant disease burden and loss in productivity among working people (Al Mazroa 2013 and TUC 2008). Commissioners must justify their expenditure on health services to the local population and therefore for an area such as pain management where there is significant disease prevalence (WHO 2013) and significant costs, potential service developments should be considered. The development of the pain toolkit (Pain Toolkit 2017a) as a straightforward, easy to use self-management option offers a potentially cost effective support mechanism for patients but as yet there is no evidence to support its use in clinical practice. This study aims to fill that knowledge gap.
According to the British Pain Society (2017), chronic pain management is a significant burden to the National Health Service NHS. Back pain alone accounts for a significant disease burden and loss in productivity among working people (Al Mazroa 2013 and TUC 2008). Commissioners must justify their expenditure on health services to the local population and therefore for an area such as pain management where there is significant disease prevalence (WHO 2013) and significant costs, potential service developments should be considered. The development of the pain toolkit (Pain Toolkit 2017a) as a straightforward, easy to use self-management option offers a potentially cost effective support mechanism for patients but as yet there is no evidence to support its use in clinical practice. This study aims to fill that knowledge gap.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The "Free From Pain Exercise Book" Versus "The Back Book".
NCT05359107
Sarcopenia
Back Pain
Arthritis
UNKNOWN
NA
Predictors of Self-management in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain
NCT02636777
Low Back Pain
COMPLETED
Returning to Work. Efficacy of "Tailored Physical Activity or" "Chronic Pain Self-management Program" in Sicklisted Citizens With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
NCT01356784
Musculoskeletal Pain
COMPLETED
PHASE1/PHASE2
Graded Activity Versus Supervised Exercises in Patients With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain
NCT01719276
Low Back Pain
UNKNOWN
NA
Walking Away From Back Pain, One Step at a Time
NCT02284958
Low Back Pain
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Research Questions The overarching aim of this mixed methods study is to investigate whether the use of a structured self-management programme (the Pain Toolkit) results in better outcomes for patients with chronic back pain compared to usual care. There will be a quantitative and qualitative component to the work. In the quantitative component patients will complete outcome measure scores at baseline and then 6 and 12 months after receiving the Pain Toolkit or the standard programme for self-management. In the qualitative component a group of patients will be invited to participate in semi-structured interviews after using the Pain Toolkit. The interviews will explore their experience of using of the toolkit, its acceptability and ease of use.
The principle research question is:
1. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured advice/information on function for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway.
The secondary research question is:
2. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured self-management advice/information on pain for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway.
3. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured self-management advice/information on quality of life for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway
4. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured self-management advice/information on healthcare utilisation for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway
5. To explore patients' experiences of using the Pain Toolkit for self-management of pain
Background There is a wealth of literature outlining the disease burden of chronic pain and in particular back pain, which forms the basis of the background to this study. Pain is widespread in the UK with almost 10 million people affected almost every day (British Pain Society 2015). More locally, for Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield Clinical Commissioning Group (DDES CCG) where the student researcher works, the highest cost prescribed drug is Pregabalin which is primarily used as a pain relieving medication. The CCG spends in excess of £2m per year on this one drug alone (DDES 2016). Focussing on the literature relating to back pain, the World Health Organisation state that: 'back pain is not a disease but a constellation of symptoms. In most cases, the origins remain unknown' (WHO 2013). In 2010 the Global Burden of Disease Study estimated that low back pain was among the top 10 diseases and injuries that account for the highest number of Disability Adjusted Life Years worldwide (Al Mazroa 2013). The impact of this is demonstrated in the UK, by the Trades Union Congress (TUC 2008) who reported that British businesses lose an estimated 4.9 million days per year to work related back pain, with the North East of England suffering more than most. Other authors concur that most people will experience low pain at some point in their lives (Hoy, Brooks et al 2010 p769; Yang et al 2016 p459).
The full cost to the NHS of chronic pain and its management is not known (BPS 2017). For the specific area of low back pain the World Health Organisation report back pain is one of 'seven high-burden conditions….for which the currently available treatment is inadequate in reversing or halting the progression of disease '(WHO 2013 page x). The evidence above shows that back pain is therefore such a widespread concern to patients and commissioners that it is important to look for an evidence-based approach to manage it.
Using the research question: 'Does using the pain toolkit improve outcomes for patients accessing the north of England regional back pain pathway?' the student researcher consulted the following databases and found no results referencing the Pain Toolkit: AMED, EMBASE, OVID on line, EBM, HMIC and CINAHL. This would indicate that the Pain Toolkit as a method for self-management of pain has not been well studied. The search terms were widened to include programmes of self-management of chronic pain. The same databases were searched using the extended terms. 135 articles were returned from the search which was then narrowed by removing duplicates and articles that were described as study protocols or descriptive studies. 2 papers describing randomised control trials or RCTs were removed because they related to a physical activity programme rather than self-management. One article found during the literature review reported a review of RCTs which gave advice within self-management programmes (Liddle, Gracey and Baxter 2007). This paper undertook a systematic review of 39 randomised control trials exploring various aspects of advice on self-management for patients with back pain. The authors concluded that 'No conclusions could be drawn as to the frequency and content of advice that is most effective for LBP \[lower back pain\] due to the limited number and poor quality of RCTs in this area' (Liddle, Gracey and Baxter 2007 p310). They conclude that 'more investigation is needed into the role of follow-up advice for chronic LBP patients' (Liddle, Gracey and Baxter p 327). They also found that a wide variety of outcome measures were used in the various studies making meaningful comparisons between the studies difficult.
As has been argued above, although back pain is a significant burden to patients and the NHS, the area of self-management has not been well studied and there is no clear guidance as to appropriate content for self-management programmes. The studies related to self-management programmes are hampered by use of diverse outcome measures and lack of rigor. Consequently an appropriately powered randomised control trial, using a validated outcome measure to assess the effectiveness of a specific intervention, such as the pain toolkit, is required to address these inadequacies in the literature.
To test the effectiveness of the pain toolkit the following experimental hypothesis has been developed: Patients using the Pain Toolkit will report an outcome of a 10 point reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index compared with patients using standard support.
Methods In the proposed study, the intervention of the Pain Toolkit is to be tested to see whether its use in a specific cohort of patients with back pain at the point of discharge to self-management, will improve health outcomes. In order to test this there will be 2 groups of patients who are randomly allocated to receive either the pain toolkit or defined standard treatment. Other study designs such as case control and cohort studies were considered, however, because the study is prospective, involves the use of a specific intervention and is time limited a randomised control trial was judged to be the most appropriate design. For the qualitative aspect of the study a smaller cohort of 8-12 patients will be selected from the group that receive the Pain Toolkit to participate in semi-structured interviews, loosely based around the readiness to change theory (Kerns et al., 1997, Lorig and Stewart 1996). This aspect of the study will explore participants' experiences of using the Pain Toolkit. A flowchart showing the process for recruitment is shown at appendix 11. The questions within the semi-structured interviews are designed to explore whether the participant had tried any other self-management programmes prior to starting to use the intervention for the study. This deductive approach had led to a conceptual framework that attitudes towards self-management may be enhanced by structured literature to support the participant. This concept will be explore during the qualitative aspect of the study and will give context to the findings of the quantitative study.
Sample - Quantitative Study The study group will be a convenience sample of patients accessing the back pain pathway at the point of discharge to self-management. Inclusion criteria are: patients with back pain who have been referred to the North of England regional back pain service who consent to take part in the study. Exclusion criteria are patients with red flag indicators where immediate referral to secondary is indicated (NICE 2016). In addition children less than 18 years and, people who do not speak English and people with reduced mental capacity will be excluded. Although easy read versions of the toolkit are available (Pain toolkit 2017b), the Back Book that will be used for the control group is only available in English.
Using the NQUERY software, we estimate that a sample size of 70 in each group will have 90% power to detect a difference in mean change of 10 points (this is considered by NICE to be a clinically relevant change) between the intervention and comparator groups assuming that the common standard deviation (SD) of change is 18 points using a two group t-test with a 0.050 two-sided significance level. The estimate of SD of change scores was obtained from some previously collected data involving 967 participants. Ultimately, the data will be analysed with a similar between-subjects model for comparison of change scores, but with covariate adjustment for baseline measurements, age and sex. Similar studies show a 30% drop out rate. Therefore to ensure that the study is appropriately powered, 100 participants will be recruited for each group, giving a total of 200 participants overall.
The study will also consider refusals, drop outs and loses to follow up. This may include patients who do not use the pain toolkit during the study period or who do not complete the outcomes measures. It would potentially impact on the interpretation of the study results if either of these groups were large in number, it will therefore be important to determine how their results will be reported at the end of the study. An anticipated dropout rate of 30% will be included in the power calculation.
Instruments and analysis are described elsewhere in the registration application.
Conclusion As shown previously the impact of reducing pain in patients will have significant personal and economic benefits for patients and the whole health economy. The pain toolkit is perceived as an easy to use, widely available self-management tool that could be given to patients at any point in their pathway. There is however little evidence to back its use and so research is needed in this area. Should the study prove that patients using the pain toolkit experience a reduction in their ODI score this may indicate that it would be cost effective to offer the pain toolkit more widely to patients. Conversely if the study shows that there is little or no benefit in the use of the pain toolkit then alternative self-management tools can be explored.
The principle research question is:
1. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured advice/information on function for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway.
The secondary research question is:
2. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured self-management advice/information on pain for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway.
3. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured self-management advice/information on quality of life for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway
4. To investigate the effectiveness of structured self-management (the Pain Toolkit) compared to unstructured self-management advice/information on healthcare utilisation for patients discharged to self-management from an evidence based back pain pathway
5. To explore patients' experiences of using the Pain Toolkit for self-management of pain
Background There is a wealth of literature outlining the disease burden of chronic pain and in particular back pain, which forms the basis of the background to this study. Pain is widespread in the UK with almost 10 million people affected almost every day (British Pain Society 2015). More locally, for Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield Clinical Commissioning Group (DDES CCG) where the student researcher works, the highest cost prescribed drug is Pregabalin which is primarily used as a pain relieving medication. The CCG spends in excess of £2m per year on this one drug alone (DDES 2016). Focussing on the literature relating to back pain, the World Health Organisation state that: 'back pain is not a disease but a constellation of symptoms. In most cases, the origins remain unknown' (WHO 2013). In 2010 the Global Burden of Disease Study estimated that low back pain was among the top 10 diseases and injuries that account for the highest number of Disability Adjusted Life Years worldwide (Al Mazroa 2013). The impact of this is demonstrated in the UK, by the Trades Union Congress (TUC 2008) who reported that British businesses lose an estimated 4.9 million days per year to work related back pain, with the North East of England suffering more than most. Other authors concur that most people will experience low pain at some point in their lives (Hoy, Brooks et al 2010 p769; Yang et al 2016 p459).
The full cost to the NHS of chronic pain and its management is not known (BPS 2017). For the specific area of low back pain the World Health Organisation report back pain is one of 'seven high-burden conditions….for which the currently available treatment is inadequate in reversing or halting the progression of disease '(WHO 2013 page x). The evidence above shows that back pain is therefore such a widespread concern to patients and commissioners that it is important to look for an evidence-based approach to manage it.
Using the research question: 'Does using the pain toolkit improve outcomes for patients accessing the north of England regional back pain pathway?' the student researcher consulted the following databases and found no results referencing the Pain Toolkit: AMED, EMBASE, OVID on line, EBM, HMIC and CINAHL. This would indicate that the Pain Toolkit as a method for self-management of pain has not been well studied. The search terms were widened to include programmes of self-management of chronic pain. The same databases were searched using the extended terms. 135 articles were returned from the search which was then narrowed by removing duplicates and articles that were described as study protocols or descriptive studies. 2 papers describing randomised control trials or RCTs were removed because they related to a physical activity programme rather than self-management. One article found during the literature review reported a review of RCTs which gave advice within self-management programmes (Liddle, Gracey and Baxter 2007). This paper undertook a systematic review of 39 randomised control trials exploring various aspects of advice on self-management for patients with back pain. The authors concluded that 'No conclusions could be drawn as to the frequency and content of advice that is most effective for LBP \[lower back pain\] due to the limited number and poor quality of RCTs in this area' (Liddle, Gracey and Baxter 2007 p310). They conclude that 'more investigation is needed into the role of follow-up advice for chronic LBP patients' (Liddle, Gracey and Baxter p 327). They also found that a wide variety of outcome measures were used in the various studies making meaningful comparisons between the studies difficult.
As has been argued above, although back pain is a significant burden to patients and the NHS, the area of self-management has not been well studied and there is no clear guidance as to appropriate content for self-management programmes. The studies related to self-management programmes are hampered by use of diverse outcome measures and lack of rigor. Consequently an appropriately powered randomised control trial, using a validated outcome measure to assess the effectiveness of a specific intervention, such as the pain toolkit, is required to address these inadequacies in the literature.
To test the effectiveness of the pain toolkit the following experimental hypothesis has been developed: Patients using the Pain Toolkit will report an outcome of a 10 point reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index compared with patients using standard support.
Methods In the proposed study, the intervention of the Pain Toolkit is to be tested to see whether its use in a specific cohort of patients with back pain at the point of discharge to self-management, will improve health outcomes. In order to test this there will be 2 groups of patients who are randomly allocated to receive either the pain toolkit or defined standard treatment. Other study designs such as case control and cohort studies were considered, however, because the study is prospective, involves the use of a specific intervention and is time limited a randomised control trial was judged to be the most appropriate design. For the qualitative aspect of the study a smaller cohort of 8-12 patients will be selected from the group that receive the Pain Toolkit to participate in semi-structured interviews, loosely based around the readiness to change theory (Kerns et al., 1997, Lorig and Stewart 1996). This aspect of the study will explore participants' experiences of using the Pain Toolkit. A flowchart showing the process for recruitment is shown at appendix 11. The questions within the semi-structured interviews are designed to explore whether the participant had tried any other self-management programmes prior to starting to use the intervention for the study. This deductive approach had led to a conceptual framework that attitudes towards self-management may be enhanced by structured literature to support the participant. This concept will be explore during the qualitative aspect of the study and will give context to the findings of the quantitative study.
Sample - Quantitative Study The study group will be a convenience sample of patients accessing the back pain pathway at the point of discharge to self-management. Inclusion criteria are: patients with back pain who have been referred to the North of England regional back pain service who consent to take part in the study. Exclusion criteria are patients with red flag indicators where immediate referral to secondary is indicated (NICE 2016). In addition children less than 18 years and, people who do not speak English and people with reduced mental capacity will be excluded. Although easy read versions of the toolkit are available (Pain toolkit 2017b), the Back Book that will be used for the control group is only available in English.
Using the NQUERY software, we estimate that a sample size of 70 in each group will have 90% power to detect a difference in mean change of 10 points (this is considered by NICE to be a clinically relevant change) between the intervention and comparator groups assuming that the common standard deviation (SD) of change is 18 points using a two group t-test with a 0.050 two-sided significance level. The estimate of SD of change scores was obtained from some previously collected data involving 967 participants. Ultimately, the data will be analysed with a similar between-subjects model for comparison of change scores, but with covariate adjustment for baseline measurements, age and sex. Similar studies show a 30% drop out rate. Therefore to ensure that the study is appropriately powered, 100 participants will be recruited for each group, giving a total of 200 participants overall.
The study will also consider refusals, drop outs and loses to follow up. This may include patients who do not use the pain toolkit during the study period or who do not complete the outcomes measures. It would potentially impact on the interpretation of the study results if either of these groups were large in number, it will therefore be important to determine how their results will be reported at the end of the study. An anticipated dropout rate of 30% will be included in the power calculation.
Instruments and analysis are described elsewhere in the registration application.
Conclusion As shown previously the impact of reducing pain in patients will have significant personal and economic benefits for patients and the whole health economy. The pain toolkit is perceived as an easy to use, widely available self-management tool that could be given to patients at any point in their pathway. There is however little evidence to back its use and so research is needed in this area. Should the study prove that patients using the pain toolkit experience a reduction in their ODI score this may indicate that it would be cost effective to offer the pain toolkit more widely to patients. Conversely if the study shows that there is little or no benefit in the use of the pain toolkit then alternative self-management tools can be explored.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Lower Back Pain Chronic
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
This is a randomised controlled trial, with a nested qualitative element
Primary Study Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Investigators
Outcome Assessors
The investigator and the outcome assessor are blinded as to which intervention the participants have been allocated until after data collection and evaluation
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Pain Toolkit plus the Back Book
Participants who are being discharged from the regional back pain pathway who are allocated the 'Pain Toolkit' booklet along with the control intervention 'the Back Book'. They follow the interventions in the 'PainToolkit' for 12 months and are followed up 6 months and 1 year.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
The Pain Toolkit
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
the Pain Toolkit is a leaflet that encourages self management techniques for patients with chronic pain
the Back Book
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
The Back Book is a patient information leaflet that offers information and advice about back pain
Back Book
Participants who are being discharged from the regional back pain pathway who are allocated 'the Back Book'. They are followed up 6 months and 1 year. This is the control group.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
the Back Book
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
The Back Book is a patient information leaflet that offers information and advice about back pain
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
The Pain Toolkit
the Pain Toolkit is a leaflet that encourages self management techniques for patients with chronic pain
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
the Back Book
The Back Book is a patient information leaflet that offers information and advice about back pain
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* : patients with back pain who have been referred to the North of England regional back pain service who consent to take part in the study
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Teesside University
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Gill Findley
Principle Investigator
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
County Durham and Darlington Nhs Foundation Trust
Durham, , United Kingdom
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United Kingdom
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Findley G, Ryan C, Cartwright A, Martin D. Study protocol for an investigation of the effectiveness of the pain toolkit for people with low back pain: double-blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 10;9(11):e031266. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031266.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
176/17
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Integrated Supported Biopsychosocial Self-Management for Back Related Leg Pain
NCT05022121
COMPLETED
NA
Effects of Pain Neuroscience Education vs. Self-Management Education in Low Back Pain
NCT03714061
COMPLETED
NA
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF CHRONIC NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN
NCT04715789
UNKNOWN
NA
Self-Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: Targeting Patient Activation
NCT06236529
COMPLETED
NA
Spinal Manipulation and Patient Self-Management for Preventing Acute to Chronic Back Pain
NCT03581123
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Effects of Cervicothoracic Mobility Program on Low Back Pain
NCT05347251
COMPLETED
NA
Optimize Low Back Pain
NCT03859713
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
MyBack - A Behavior Change Informed Exercise Program to Prevent Low Back Pain Recurrences
NCT05841732
RECRUITING
NA
Long-term Multidisciplinary Team-based Management of Back Pain
NCT05115227
COMPLETED
NA
Developing an Activity Pacing Framework: Feasibility and Acceptability
NCT03497585
COMPLETED
Effect of Back School-based Intervention on Non-specific Low Back Pain in Adults.
NCT05391165
COMPLETED
NA
Efficacy of a Physical Activity Counselling on the Severity of Chronic Low Back Pain in Patients With Cardiovascular Risk
NCT02837653
COMPLETED
NA
Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Chronic Back Pain
NCT01329861
COMPLETED
NA
Motor Control Exercises vs Standard Exercises in Unspecific Low Back Pain
NCT02633917
COMPLETED
NA
Comparative Effects of Cognitive Functional Therapy With Kinetic Control Training on Non-specific Low Back Pain
NCT07282925
RECRUITING
NA
Information or Physical Activity for Chronic LBP
NCT00410319
UNKNOWN
NA
Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of Two Measures of Pain Intensity in People With Low Back Pain
NCT06270069
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Feldenkrais vs Back School for Treating Chronic Low Back Pain: a Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT02231554
COMPLETED
NA
Effect of Back School-based Intervention on Non-specific Neck Pain in Adults.
NCT05244876
COMPLETED
NA
A Combined Exercise Programme Involving Strengthening, Flexibility and Aerobic Exercise for Lower Back Pain
NCT06921694
RECRUITING
NA
Feasibility of a One-day-and-a-half for Patients With Low Back Pain
NCT04133818
COMPLETED
Effect of Massage on Chronic Low Back Pain
NCT00371384
COMPLETED
PHASE2/PHASE3
Pain Education vs. Self-management Associated With Movement Control Exercises for Chronic Low Back Pain
NCT03778970
UNKNOWN
NA
The Effect of Secondary Prevention in Patients With Recurrent Low Back Pain
NCT03852667
COMPLETED
NA