↓ Skip to main content

Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to people with low back pain with high psychological risk; results and lessons learnt from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
308 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to people with low back pain with high psychological risk; results and lessons learnt from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) vs. Physiotherapy
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0594-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamar Pincus, Shamaila Anwar, Lance M. McCracken, Alison McGregor, Liz Graham, Michelle Collinson, John McBeth, Paul Watson, Stephen Morley, Juliet Henderson, Amanda J. Farrin, on behalf of the OBI Trial Management Team

Abstract

Low Back Pain (LBP) remains a common and costly problem. Psychological obstacles to recovery have been identified, but psychological and behavioural interventions have produced only moderate improvements. Reviews of trials have suggested that the interventions lack clear theoretical basis, are often compromised by low dose, lack of fidelity, and delivery by non-experts. In addition, interventions do not directly target known risk mechanisms. We identified a theory driven intervention (Contexual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, CCBT) that directly targets an evidence-based risk mechanism (avoidance and ensured dose and delivery were optimised. This feasibility study was designed to test the credibility and acceptability of optimised CCBT against physiotherapy for avoidant LBP patients, and to test recruitment, delivery of the intervention and response rates prior to moving to a full definitive trial. A randomised controlled feasibility trial with patients randomised to receive CCBT or physiotherapy. CCBT was delivered by trained supervised psychologists on a one to one basis and comprised up to 8 one-hour sessions. Physiotherapy comprised back to fitness group exercises with at least 60 % of content exercise-based. Patients were eligible to take part if they had back pain for more than 3 months, and scored above a threshold indicating fear avoidance, catastrophic beliefs and distress. 89 patients were recruited. Uptake rates were above those predicted. Scores for credibility and acceptability of the interventions met the set criteria. Response rates at three and six months fell short of the 75 % target. Problems associated with poor response rates were identified and successfully resolved, rates increased to 77 % at 3 months, and 68 % at 6 months. Independent ratings of treatment sessions indicated that CCBT was delivered to fidelity. Numbers were too small for formal analysis. Although average scores for acceptance were higher in the CCBT group than in the group attending physiotherapy (increase of 7.9 versus 5.1) and change in disability and pain from baseline to 6 months were greater in the CCBT group than in the physiotherapy group, these findings should be interpreted with caution. CCBT is a credible and acceptable intervention for LBP patients who exhibit psychological obstacles to recovery. ISRCTN43733490 , registered 15/12/2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 308 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 302 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 17%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 53 17%
Unknown 87 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 60 19%
Psychology 39 13%
Sports and Recreations 17 6%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 96 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2016.
All research outputs
#885,734
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#125
of 4,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,236
of 240,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.