Abstract
Background: Neck pain is a common problem accounting for up to 22% of the workload of physiotherapists. Many different approaches are used and the evidence for these is unclear.
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention (1–3 sessions) for patients with neck pain in the primary care setting, taking preferences into account.
Method: A Randomised controlled trial (n=268) compared a brief physiotherapy intervention based on cognitive-behavioural principles with ‘usual’ physiotherapy. Patients from physiotherapy waiting lists aged 18 – 87 years with neck pain of musculoskeletal origin of more than 2 weeks duration were invited to participate. Their preferences for type of treatment were elicited independently of randomisation.
The brief intervention aimed to facilitate problem-solving, encourage self-management and early return to normal function. Physiotherapists undertook a one-day training programme in communication skills and cognitive-behavioural approaches. In the ‘Usual’ physiotherapy intervention treatment was provided at the discretion of the individual physiotherapist.
The main outcome measures were the Neck Pain Questionnaire, a specific measure of functional disability due to neck pain, the SF-36 a generic health-related quality of life measure, the Tampa Scale for Kinesophobia, a measure of fear- and-avoidance of movement and the use of healthcare services. Data was collected at baseline, at 3 months and at 12 months.
Results: Patients randomised to the ‘Usual’ physiotherapy group were significantly improved compared with the Brief Intervention group, 12 months after randomisation. However, the differences were small and patients randomised to the Brief Intervention who preferred that arm of the study also improved to a similar degree. In contrast, patients who wanted ‘Usual’ physiotherapy but got the brief Intervention did not improve.
Conclusions: The Brief intervention may be effective for patients who prefer the option of a one-off treatment of advice. It is also cheaper and should therefore be offered as an option.ot
The abstracts were prepared by Editorial Secretary, Dr Charles Pither. Correspondence should be addressed to SBPR at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN
