The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Alexander technique and Supervised Physiotherapy Exercises in back paiN (ASPEN): a four-group randomised feasibility trial

Alexander technique and Supervised Physiotherapy Exercises in back paiN (ASPEN): a four-group randomised feasibility trial
Alexander technique and Supervised Physiotherapy Exercises in back paiN (ASPEN): a four-group randomised feasibility trial
Background

The Alexander technique probably helps back pain but it is unclear whether or not it can be combined with physiotherapy exercise classes, how many lessons are needed and what mechanisms might be involved.

Objectives

To undertake a feasibility trial of the Alexander technique and supervised exercise classes and perform exploratory biomechanical and neuromuscular physiological marker analyses to better understand mediators of recovery.

Design

Feasibility parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

Setting

General practices in southern England.

Participants

Patients with recurrent back pain (at least 3 weeks’ duration of a current episode).

Interventions

Participants were allocated by an external randomisation line to four groups: (1) normal care, (2) 10 Alexander technique lessons, (3) 12 physiotherapy exercise classes, (4) Alexander technique lessons plus exercise classes.

Main outcome measures

The feasibility outcomes were recruitment, acceptability and follow-up. The clinical outcomes were the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), days in pain, the Von Korff pain and disability scale, overall improvement, fear of activity, enablement, the Oswestry Disability Index and the Aberdeen pain and function scale. Laboratory-based markers were axial muscle tone and flexibility, electrical activity, muscle tone and mechanical properties of elasticity and stiffness, trunk strength, and proprioception.

Results

In total, 83 patients consented, 69 were randomised and 56 (81%) were followed up at 6 months. Most patients had long-standing pain (median >300 days of pain). The RMDQ and other instruments were sensitive to change and the preliminary evidence suggests that the Aberdeen scale could be a useful measure. Study procedures were feasible and three methods of recruitment were successfully piloted. At 6 months the control group had changed little (RMDQ 1 point lower than at baseline) and, compared with the control group, clinically important improvements in RMDQ were seen in all groups, albeit not significant [Alexander technique ?3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?6.7 to 0.8]; exercise classes ?2.9, 95% CI ?6.5 to 0.8; combined Alexander technique + exercise classes ?2.50, 9% CI ?6.20 to 1.19]. Novel biomechanical variables strongly associated with RMDQ score at 6 months were muscle tone (0.94 increase in RMDQ per unit increase in Hz, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40; p < 0.0001), lumbar proprioception (1.48 increase in RMDQ per degree, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.12; p < 0.0001) and muscle elasticity (?4.86 increase in RMDQ per unit log decrement, 95% CI ?0.01 to ?9.72; p < 0.05). At 3 months the Alexander technique improved proprioception and exercise classes improved trunk extension strength. At 6 months the Alexander technique improved the timing of multifidus muscle onset and the active straight leg raise test and exercise classes improved multifidus muscle thickness and the ability to contract. The combined effects of the Alexander technique and exercise classes were improvements in muscle tone, elasticity and thickness and contractile ability. These observations provide possible links between intervention, proprioception, muscle tone and elasticity and outcome. In terms of harms, one patient fell in the exercise class group.

Conclusions

The trial is feasible and the interventions may provide clinically important benefits. Exploratory analysis suggests that muscle tone, elasticity and proprioception are strongly associated with improved RMDQ score and are likely to be modified by the interventions.
2050-4365
1-106
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777
Stuart, Beth
626862fc-892b-4f6d-9cbb-7a8d7172b209
Stokes, Maria
71730503-70ce-4e67-b7ea-a3e54579717f
Nicholls, Carolyn
a4bb94b5-6fad-46d1-a38f-a8a32c84c794
Roberts, Lisa
0a937943-5246-4877-bd6b-4dcd172b5cd0
Preece, Stephen
f390275a-7b5a-478a-ac9d-3d8124d467ba
Cacciatore, Tim
42083561-2044-42a3-a898-668bd88ce617
Brown, Simon
81f6a7a5-379f-4b86-8b55-39f9799c23c8
Lewith, George
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Geraghty, Adam
2c6549fe-9868-4806-b65a-21881c1930af
Yardley, Lucy
64be42c4-511d-484d-abaa-f8813452a22e
O'Reilly, Gilly
f66a0310-7e33-4ca7-bb85-8e7a0e780a5d
Chalk, Caroline
b32e0bac-016f-4fb0-a8cc-747bc4695063
Sharp, Debbie
d9bbb95c-bc44-4be2-9de8-f08cdc8ae7b7
Smith, Peter
961a01a3-bf4c-43ca-9599-5be4fd5d3940
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777
Stuart, Beth
626862fc-892b-4f6d-9cbb-7a8d7172b209
Stokes, Maria
71730503-70ce-4e67-b7ea-a3e54579717f
Nicholls, Carolyn
a4bb94b5-6fad-46d1-a38f-a8a32c84c794
Roberts, Lisa
0a937943-5246-4877-bd6b-4dcd172b5cd0
Preece, Stephen
f390275a-7b5a-478a-ac9d-3d8124d467ba
Cacciatore, Tim
42083561-2044-42a3-a898-668bd88ce617
Brown, Simon
81f6a7a5-379f-4b86-8b55-39f9799c23c8
Lewith, George
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Geraghty, Adam
2c6549fe-9868-4806-b65a-21881c1930af
Yardley, Lucy
64be42c4-511d-484d-abaa-f8813452a22e
O'Reilly, Gilly
f66a0310-7e33-4ca7-bb85-8e7a0e780a5d
Chalk, Caroline
b32e0bac-016f-4fb0-a8cc-747bc4695063
Sharp, Debbie
d9bbb95c-bc44-4be2-9de8-f08cdc8ae7b7
Smith, Peter
961a01a3-bf4c-43ca-9599-5be4fd5d3940

Little, Paul, Stuart, Beth, Stokes, Maria, Nicholls, Carolyn, Roberts, Lisa, Preece, Stephen, Cacciatore, Tim, Brown, Simon, Lewith, George, Geraghty, Adam, Yardley, Lucy, O'Reilly, Gilly, Chalk, Caroline, Sharp, Debbie and Smith, Peter (2014) Alexander technique and Supervised Physiotherapy Exercises in back paiN (ASPEN): a four-group randomised feasibility trial. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, 1 (2), 1-106. (doi:10.3310/eme01020).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background

The Alexander technique probably helps back pain but it is unclear whether or not it can be combined with physiotherapy exercise classes, how many lessons are needed and what mechanisms might be involved.

Objectives

To undertake a feasibility trial of the Alexander technique and supervised exercise classes and perform exploratory biomechanical and neuromuscular physiological marker analyses to better understand mediators of recovery.

Design

Feasibility parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

Setting

General practices in southern England.

Participants

Patients with recurrent back pain (at least 3 weeks’ duration of a current episode).

Interventions

Participants were allocated by an external randomisation line to four groups: (1) normal care, (2) 10 Alexander technique lessons, (3) 12 physiotherapy exercise classes, (4) Alexander technique lessons plus exercise classes.

Main outcome measures

The feasibility outcomes were recruitment, acceptability and follow-up. The clinical outcomes were the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), days in pain, the Von Korff pain and disability scale, overall improvement, fear of activity, enablement, the Oswestry Disability Index and the Aberdeen pain and function scale. Laboratory-based markers were axial muscle tone and flexibility, electrical activity, muscle tone and mechanical properties of elasticity and stiffness, trunk strength, and proprioception.

Results

In total, 83 patients consented, 69 were randomised and 56 (81%) were followed up at 6 months. Most patients had long-standing pain (median >300 days of pain). The RMDQ and other instruments were sensitive to change and the preliminary evidence suggests that the Aberdeen scale could be a useful measure. Study procedures were feasible and three methods of recruitment were successfully piloted. At 6 months the control group had changed little (RMDQ 1 point lower than at baseline) and, compared with the control group, clinically important improvements in RMDQ were seen in all groups, albeit not significant [Alexander technique ?3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?6.7 to 0.8]; exercise classes ?2.9, 95% CI ?6.5 to 0.8; combined Alexander technique + exercise classes ?2.50, 9% CI ?6.20 to 1.19]. Novel biomechanical variables strongly associated with RMDQ score at 6 months were muscle tone (0.94 increase in RMDQ per unit increase in Hz, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40; p < 0.0001), lumbar proprioception (1.48 increase in RMDQ per degree, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.12; p < 0.0001) and muscle elasticity (?4.86 increase in RMDQ per unit log decrement, 95% CI ?0.01 to ?9.72; p < 0.05). At 3 months the Alexander technique improved proprioception and exercise classes improved trunk extension strength. At 6 months the Alexander technique improved the timing of multifidus muscle onset and the active straight leg raise test and exercise classes improved multifidus muscle thickness and the ability to contract. The combined effects of the Alexander technique and exercise classes were improvements in muscle tone, elasticity and thickness and contractile ability. These observations provide possible links between intervention, proprioception, muscle tone and elasticity and outcome. In terms of harms, one patient fell in the exercise class group.

Conclusions

The trial is feasible and the interventions may provide clinically important benefits. Exploratory analysis suggests that muscle tone, elasticity and proprioception are strongly associated with improved RMDQ score and are likely to be modified by the interventions.

Text __soton.ac.uk_ude_personalfiles_users_sd8u12_mydesktop_FullReport-eme01020.pdf - Other
Download (21MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: October 2014
Published date: October 2014
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 369956
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/369956
ISSN: 2050-4365
PURE UUID: 451c3a79-869b-4d6d-b52c-4aead02a48f7
ORCID for Maria Stokes: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4204-0890
ORCID for Simon Brown: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9646-3285
ORCID for Peter Smith: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4423-5410

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Oct 2014 16:01
Last modified: 09 Jun 2018 00:37

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Paul Little
Author: Beth Stuart
Author: Maria Stokes ORCID iD
Author: Carolyn Nicholls
Author: Lisa Roberts
Author: Stephen Preece
Author: Tim Cacciatore
Author: Simon Brown ORCID iD
Author: George Lewith
Author: Adam Geraghty
Author: Lucy Yardley
Author: Gilly O'Reilly
Author: Caroline Chalk
Author: Debbie Sharp
Author: Peter Smith ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×