The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Findings from the development of a novel course of both group and individual Alexander Technique lessons for neck, hip, and knee pain: a mixed methods study

Findings from the development of a novel course of both group and individual Alexander Technique lessons for neck, hip, and knee pain: a mixed methods study
Findings from the development of a novel course of both group and individual Alexander Technique lessons for neck, hip, and knee pain: a mixed methods study
Background: musculoskeletal pain, often affecting multiple sites — including neck, hip, and knee — is common, with limited treatment options. Novel treatments are needed to support self-management, preferably addressing multiple pain sites.
Aim: To develop and explore the acceptability of a short, mixed course of individual (one-to-one) and group lessons in the Alexander Technique (AT), which addresses dysfunctional use of the musculoskeletal system.

Design & setting: a single-centre, mixed-methods study of patients with chronic or recurrent neck, hip, or knee pain from four general practices.

Method: preliminary development of a course of 10 AT lessons (six group, four individual) took place with a group of AT teachers. Semi-structured interviews of participants were undertaken, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Descriptive pre-post analysis of quantitative scales were used to assess improvement (Numerical pain scale [NRS]; modified Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); enablement (modified Patient Enablement Instrument used in the ATEAM
trial); and global improvement (Health Transition scale).

Results: twenty-three participants were included; 18 were interviewed. Commonly, participants found the mixture of group and individual lessons helpful, including helping multiple pain sites, and the mix of different problems enhanced learning. There was moderate improvement in standard quantitative
measures over 12 weeks (NRS from 5.15 to 3.85; modified RMDQ 8.26 to 5.7) but with more substantial improvement in enablement and global improvement. Those who perceived underlying structural damage to the knee reported little benefit.

Conclusion: people with chronic or recurrent neck, hip, or knee pain found a course of mixed group and individual lessons in AT helpful in managing their pain, but not those with severe knee problems. Whether standard quantitative measures provide the best measures of effectiveness requires exploration.
2398-3795
Little, Joseph
2677e621-94f6-47b2-8c57-fd46231ff51c
Geraghty, Adam
2c6549fe-9868-4806-b65a-21881c1930af
Nicholls, Carolyn
a4bb94b5-6fad-46d1-a38f-a8a32c84c794
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777
Little, Joseph
2677e621-94f6-47b2-8c57-fd46231ff51c
Geraghty, Adam
2c6549fe-9868-4806-b65a-21881c1930af
Nicholls, Carolyn
a4bb94b5-6fad-46d1-a38f-a8a32c84c794
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777

Little, Joseph, Geraghty, Adam, Nicholls, Carolyn and Little, Paul (2025) Findings from the development of a novel course of both group and individual Alexander Technique lessons for neck, hip, and knee pain: a mixed methods study. BJGP Open, 9 (4). (doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0295).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: musculoskeletal pain, often affecting multiple sites — including neck, hip, and knee — is common, with limited treatment options. Novel treatments are needed to support self-management, preferably addressing multiple pain sites.
Aim: To develop and explore the acceptability of a short, mixed course of individual (one-to-one) and group lessons in the Alexander Technique (AT), which addresses dysfunctional use of the musculoskeletal system.

Design & setting: a single-centre, mixed-methods study of patients with chronic or recurrent neck, hip, or knee pain from four general practices.

Method: preliminary development of a course of 10 AT lessons (six group, four individual) took place with a group of AT teachers. Semi-structured interviews of participants were undertaken, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Descriptive pre-post analysis of quantitative scales were used to assess improvement (Numerical pain scale [NRS]; modified Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); enablement (modified Patient Enablement Instrument used in the ATEAM
trial); and global improvement (Health Transition scale).

Results: twenty-three participants were included; 18 were interviewed. Commonly, participants found the mixture of group and individual lessons helpful, including helping multiple pain sites, and the mix of different problems enhanced learning. There was moderate improvement in standard quantitative
measures over 12 weeks (NRS from 5.15 to 3.85; modified RMDQ 8.26 to 5.7) but with more substantial improvement in enablement and global improvement. Those who perceived underlying structural damage to the knee reported little benefit.

Conclusion: people with chronic or recurrent neck, hip, or knee pain found a course of mixed group and individual lessons in AT helpful in managing their pain, but not those with severe knee problems. Whether standard quantitative measures provide the best measures of effectiveness requires exploration.

Text
BJGPO.2024.0295.full - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (904kB)
Text
AT groups paper BJGP - Other
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (904kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 18 March 2025
e-pub ahead of print date: 8 October 2025
Published date: 19 December 2025

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 508505
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/508505
ISSN: 2398-3795
PURE UUID: cad44d27-d9ed-42d0-a1bf-1088c058c9a2
ORCID for Adam Geraghty: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-8351
ORCID for Paul Little: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-1873

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Jan 2026 17:55
Last modified: 24 Jan 2026 02:50

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Joseph Little
Author: Adam Geraghty ORCID iD
Author: Carolyn Nicholls
Author: Paul Little ORCID iD

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 http://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.

×