A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Treatment Preference of People with Chronic Low Back Pain.

Research paper by Sara J SJ Francois, Vanessa M VM Lanier, Andrej V AV Marich, Michael M Wallendorf, Linda R LR Van Dillen

Indexed on: 01 Jun '18Published on: 01 Jun '18Published in: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation


To assess treatment preference and attributes of two exercise-based treatments for people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Cross-sectional study. Academic research setting. Individuals (n=154) with chronic LBP. Not applicable. Participants completed a treatment preference assessment measure that described two treatments for chronic LBP [strength and flexibility (SF) and motor skill training (MST)]. Participants rated each treatment on four attributes: effectiveness, acceptability/logicality, suitability/appropriateness, and convenience. An overall score for each treatment was calculated as the mean of the four attribute ratings. The participants indicated either (1) no treatment preference or (2) preference for SF or MST. One hundred four participants (67.5%) had a treatment preference; of those, 95 (91.3%) preferred SF and nine (8.7%) preferred MST. The SF preference group rated SF higher than MST overall and on all attributes (all ps < .01, ds ranged from .48-1.07). The MST preference group did not rate the treatments differently overall or on any of the attributes (all ps > .05, ds ranged from .43-.66). Convenience of SF (p = .05, d = .79) and effectiveness (d = 1.20), acceptability/logicality (d = 1.27), and suitability/appropriateness (d = 1.52) of MST (all ps < .01) were rated differently between the two preference groups. When presented with two treatment options, a majority of patients preferred SF over MST. Convenience was a particularly important attribute impacting preference. Assessing treatment preference and attributes prior to treatment initiation allows the clinician to identify factors that may need to be addressed to enhance adherence to, and outcomes of, treatment. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.