Randomized controlled trial of back school with and without peer support. Back school in a first episode of compensated acute low back pain: a clinical trial to assess efficacy and prevent relapse. Effects of different treatment modalities on gait symmetry and clinical measures for sacroiliac joint patients. Active back school: prophylactic management for low back pain. A randomized, controlled, 1-year follow-up study. Secondary prevention of low-back pain. A clinical trial. The effect of the Swedish Back School in chronic idiopathic low back pain. A prospective controlled study. Good prognosis for low back pain when left untampered. A randomized clinical trial. A controlled, prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school in the relief of chronic low back pain. Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. The secondary prevention of low back pain: a controlled study with follow-up. Acute low back pain in industry. A controlled prospective study with special reference to therapy and confounding factors. A controlled study on the outcome of inpatient and outpatient treatment of low back pain. Part I. Pain, disability, compliance, and reported treatment benefits three months after treatment. The Swedish back school in chronic low back pain. Part I. Benefits.
The aim of this trial was to determine whether social interaction between patients with long-lasting nonspecific back pain reduces subjective or objective disability. The participants were selected from persons visiting an occupational health care unit because of back pain. After a clinical examination in a university clinic, subjects without a specific diagnosis and having no disabilities preventing active rehabilitation were selected for study. The subjects (n = 108) were randomized into treatment (n = 54) and control groups (n = 54). Altogether 18 study groups, 9 treatment groups and 9 groups for controls, were formed. Before starting the back schools altogether 15 subjects dropped out. Both the treatment groups (n = 47) and the controls (n = 46) attended a back school consisting of 10 lessons and demonstrations supervised by a physiotherapist. The participants in treatment groups, but not the controls, had physical exercise and social intercourse with other members within the group. The clinical examination was repeated after 6 and 12 months. Both the treatment groups and the controls showed improvement in perceived functional capacity (assessed with Oswestry disability questionnaire) and in perceived life quality (assessed with 15D score). At the 6-month follow-up life quality had improved statistically significantly more among the participants in treatment groups than among the controls, and at the 12-month follow-up the Oswestry index showed corresponding improvement. Among subjects suffering from nonspecific back pain, social support improves the results of active rehabilitation. To assess the efficacy of a back school program for patients with a first episode of acute work-related low back pain requiring compensation.
                A randomized single-blind controlled trial.
                A private physiatrics outpatient clinic.
                The mean duration of low back pain was 15 days.
                Eligible patients were randomized to a standard treatment program that included daily physiotherapy (n = 86) or the same program with the addition of back school (n = 82). The back school program consisted of three 90-minute sessions given by a single trained instructor at 0, 1, and 8 weeks.
                The primary outcomes were the time off work for the presenting episode of back pain and the number and duration of recurrences in the year following the study onset. Secondary outcomes included the level of pain, spinal mobility, active straight-leg raising, and functional disability assessed by the Oswestry and Roland-Morris scales.
                Those randomized to the back school group gained significantly more knowledge, based on the multiple choice examination (p = .0001) and performed the exercise program significantly better (p = .0001) than the standard care group. There were no differences between the two treatment groups for either of the primary outcomes. The median time to return to work from randomization was 33 days for both the back school and the standard care groups (p = .48). The number of compensated recurrences of low back pain over 1 year was similar (back school = 14, standard care = 10, p = .16), as was the median duration of these episodes (back school = 25 days, standard care = 70 days, p = .21). There were no significant differences favoring the back school group for any of the secondary outcomes at the posttreatment, 6-month, or 12-month assessments.
                A back school intervention in addition to standard care resulted in no reduction in the time to return to work or the number or duration of recurrences of low back pain requiring compensation over a period of one year. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of two different treatment modalities on the rehabilitation process of chronic sacroiliac joint patients. The treatment modalities included spinal manipulative therapy given by a chiropractor and a program of back school therapy given by a physiotherapist. The rehabilitation process was assessed using clinical and biomechanical measures. It was found that back school therapy was a better treatment modality than the spinal manipulative therapy, according to the clinical measures of rehabilitation. Precisely the opposite result was found for the biomechanical measures. A randomized, controlled, single-center trial with a stratified group design.
                To investigate the secondary prophylactic effect of the Active Back School program on minimizing recurrences of low back pain episodes.
                The results of back school interventions are controversial. Previous work often used short intervention periods and low doses of practical training. However, studies with the highest methodologic scores have shown the best results, especially when conducted in occupational settings and coupled with a comprehensive rehabilitation program.
                By block randomization, 19 men and 24 women were allocated to Active Back School, with 18 men and 20 women as control subjects. The Slumps test and number of low back pain episodes during the previous 36 months were used as stratification factors. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to demographic factors and initially observed variables. Active Back School consisted of 20 lessons over a 13-week period. Each lesson was divided into a 20-minute theoretical part and a 40-minute exercise part. All participants were examined on enrollment, then 5 and 12 months after initiation of the program. Outcome measures were recurrence of low back pain episodes and number of days of sick leave.
                The recurrence of new low back pain episodes was significantly lower (P < 0.05) and the time from inclusion to the first new episode significantly longer (P < 0.01) in the Active Back School group than in the control group. In the Active Back School group, seven participants took sick leave because of low back pain episodes during the first 12 months of follow-up compared with 11 among the control subjects. The number of sick leave days was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the Active Back School group than in the control group.
                Active Back School reduced the recurrence and severity of new low back pain episodes according to results of follow-up examinations performed 5 and 12 months after enrollment. A clinical trial, aimed at secondary prevention of low-back pain, was performed in 142 hospital employees reporting at least three annual episodes of this condition. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a calisthenics program (CAL) for 3 months with biweekly sessions of flexion exercises, a back school program (5 sessions), and a control group. The effectiveness of the two intervention programs was evaluated over a 1-year period. Baseline preintervention data and evaluation at the end of 3 months of intervention and after an additional 6 months were collected. A monthly surveillance for the whole year showed a mean of 4.5 "painful months" in the CAL group versus 7.3 and 7.4 months in the back school and control groups, respectively (P less than 0.0001). The superiority of the CAL group was achieved partly because of the significant increase in trunk forward flexion and to initial increment in abdominal muscle strength. The increased trunk flexion was associated with the rate of participation in the CAL sessions. Further research is needed to answer the question of "intensity versus type of exercise" by comparing different intervention programs, with similar intensity. A prospective controlled study of the effect of the Swedish Back School in chronic idiopathic Low Back Pain was conducted. Forty-eight patients entered the study. There were no significant pre-treatment differences between the experimental group members who attended the four lessons of the Back School, and the control group who received four detuned shortwave applications to the low back. Forty-three patients (21 in the experimental and 22 in the control group) completed the study. Subjects were repeatedly tested for one year. The following assessments were made: 1) subjective scores of pain and functional capacity, and 2) objective measurements of spinal mobility. After one year, no statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed. Given the proven efficacy of the Back School in (sub)acute Low Back Pain, it should be administered when it is most beneficial, i.e. in the early phase of Low Back Pain. This randomized clinical trial was designed to determine the effect of treating low back pain as a benign, self limiting condition by light normal activity.
                Patients on sickness leave from work for more than 8 weeks were randomized into two groups: intervention (n = 463) and control (n = 512). Those in the intervention group were examined, provided information, and given instruction. Outcome was measured by return or failure to return to work (still on sickness leave).
                Survival analysis showed a highly significant (P = 0.000) reduction in sickness leave in the intervention group as compared with the control group. At 200 days 60% were still on sickness leave in the control group vs. 30% in the intervention group. A multivariate analysis with age, sex, and treatment as cofactors showed that sex had no effect on length of sickness leave and that treatment retained its effect when adjusting for differences in age composition.
                This study indicates that low back pain treated as a benign, self limiting condition recommended to light mobilization gives superior results as compared to treatment within a conventional medical system. Ninety-two chronic low back pain patients were randomly allocated to two groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school compared with an exercise-only regimen according to specified outcome variables. The data from 78 patients with 7 years mean duration of symptoms was analyzed. Three assessments were made: before treatment and 6 and 16 weeks after treatment. Changes in patients' levels of pain, functional disability, and other related variables were compared in the two groups. Almost all variables showed an improvement at 6 weeks. At 16 weeks, functional disability and pain levels showed a significant difference. Back school patients continued to make an improvement. This method of managing low back pain makes maximal use of limited resources and appears to be effective, especially in the longer term. A randomized, assessor-blinded clinical trial was conducted.
                To investigate the relative effectiveness of three manual treatments and back school for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Literature comparing the relative effectiveness of specific therapies for low back pain is limited.
                Among the 5925 inquiries, 206 patients met the specific admission criteria, and 200 patients randomly received one of four treatments for 3 weeks: back school, joint manipulation, myofascial therapy, and combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy. These patients received assessments at baseline, after 3 weeks of therapy, and 6 months after the completion of therapy. The primary outcomes were evaluated using visual analog pain scales and Roland-Morris activity scales.
                All four groups showed significant improvement in pain and activity scores after 3 weeks of care, but did not show further significant improvement at the 6-month follow-up assessment. No statistically significant between-group differences were found either at the 3-week or 6-month reassessments.
                For subacute low back pain, combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy was as effective as joint manipulation or myofascial therapy alone. Additionally, back school was as effective as three manual treatments. The current investigation studied the effectiveness of a secondary prevention program for nurses with back pain who were deemed at risk for developing a chronic problem. A 2 X 3 repeated measures design was employed with 2 groups and 3 assessment periods. The treatment group received an intervention designed to reduce current problems, but above all to prevent reinjury and minor pains from becoming chronic medical problems, and it included a physical and behavioral therapy package. The control group was placed on a waiting-list. Results indicated that the treatment group had significantly greater improvements than the control group for pain intensity, anxiety, sleep quality and fatigue ratings, observed pain behavior, activities, mood, and helplessness. These differences were generally maintained at the 6 month follow-up. In addition, the treatment group broke a trend for increasing amounts of pain-related absenteeism, while the control group did not. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that a secondary prevention program aimed at altering life style factors may represent an effective method for dealing with musculoskeletal pain problems. nan Outcome of inpatient and outpatient treatment of low back pain was studied in 459 patients (aged 35-54 years, 63% men); 156 inpatients, 150 outpatients and 153 controls. Changes in low back pain and in disability caused by it, and adherence and accomplishment of back exercises were used as short-term outcome criteria. The overall results showed a significant decrease in pain and disability and better compliance in the two treated groups when compared to the controls. There was also a significant difference in treatment gains between the inpatients and outpatients; i.e. the decrease in pain was greater and the frequency of back exercises higher in the inpatients. The inpatients also estimated their treatment benefits more positively than the outpatients. The aim of this 12-month follow-up study was to evaluate the effect of the Swedish-type back school in chronic low back pain. 188 subjects completed the study (95 in the treatment group and 93 in the control group). The following were assessed: 1) subjective scores of pain and disability; 2) clinical measurement and evaluation including spinal mobility and strength measurement; 3) number and length of sick-leaves. At 12 months, subjective scores of pain and disability, and mobility of the lumbosacral section of the spine showed differences in the favour of the treatment group. There was no difference, however, in the number or the length of sick-leaves after the back school. It was concluded that patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain may get relief of subjective symptoms of low back pain from the back school. In addition to chronicity, there may be other factors affecting the outcome of treatment.
There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain, and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short and intermediate-term, compared to exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodological quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.