Studies on validation of telerehabilitation as an effective platform to help manage as well as reduce burden of care for Low-Back Pain (LBP) are sparse. This study compared the effects of Telerehabilitation-Based McKenzie Therapy (TBMT) and Clinic-Based McKenzie Therapy (CBMT) among patients with LBP. Forty-seven consenting patients with chronic LBP who demonstrated ‘directional preference’ for McKenzie Extension Protocol (MEP) completed this quasi experimental study. The participants were assigned into either the CBMT or TBMT group using block permuted randomization. Participants in the CBMT and TBMT groups received MEP involving a specific sequence of lumbosacral repeated movements in extension aimed to centralize, decrease, or abolish symptoms, thrice weekly for eight weeks. TBMT is a comparable version of CBMT performed in the home with the assistance of a mobile phone app. Outcomes were assessed at the 4th and 8th weeks of the study in terms of Pain Intensity (PI), Back Extensors Muscles’ Endurance (BEME), Activity Limitation (AL), Participation Restriction (PR), and General Health Status (GHS). Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Alpha level was set at p< 0.05.Within-group comparison across baseline, 4th and 8th weeks indicate that both CBMT and TBMT had significant effects on PI (p=0.001), BEME (p=0.001), AL (p=0.001), PR (p=0.001) and GHS (p=0.001) respectively. However, there were no significant differences (p>0.05) in the treatment effects between TBMT and CBMT, except for ‘vitality’ (p=0.011) scale in the GHS where TBMT led to significantly higher mean score. Mobile-app platform of the McKenzie extension protocol has comparable clinical outcomes with the traditional clinic-based McKenzie Therapy, and thus is an effective supplementary platform for care of patients with low-back pain.
Background: Vacillation between conventional healthcare professionals and traditional bone setters (TBS) for musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders is still common despite shortcomings and complications associated with TBS services. Objectives: This study assessed knowledge and attitude about the practice of TBS and its use for MSK disorders among Nigerian rural dwellers. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized a multistage sampling method based on the World Health Organization procedures for a community-based survey to recruit 398 (213 males and 185 females) respondents from two randomly selected rural communities. A validated questionnaire adapted from relevant previous studies was used as a tool in this study. A household was served as the Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) and 60 PSUs were randomly selected. Results: The lifetime and 12-month prevalence of MSK disorders were 27.6% and 25.6%, respectively. Based on 12-month prevalence, neck (16, 21.6%) and shoulder (12, 17.6%) were the most affected body parts. The lifetime (i.e. "ever use") and point ("current use") prevalence of treatment by TBS were 19.3% and 3.8%, respectively. Among those who had ever experienced MSK disorders, 13.3% had experienced only treatment by TBS services, whereas 6.0% had used both treatment by TBS and orthodox medicine. Common services received by TBS were massage (61.0%), splinting (14.3%), traction (11.7%), and scarification (10.4%). Cost-effectiveness (42.9%), distance/accessibility (35.1%), and cultural beliefs (15.9%) were the major reasons for TBS patronage. Using TBS services was not significantly associated with socio-demographic variables (P > 0.05). Also, 57.3% of the respondents acknowledged that TBS services were associated with complications, such as gangrene (19.7%), malunion/nonunion of fractures (36.0%), paralysis (19.3%), joint instability (7.5%), and chronic osteomyelitis (6.6%). Users of the TBS services believed that they were effective in maintaining a healthy life (40.7%), with fewer side effects (30.0%), more effective (11.7%), and healthier than orthodox medicine (23.1%). Conclusions: There was a positive attitude towards treatment by TBS for MSK disorders, despite the complications and shortcomings that arise from the practice. Cost-effectiveness, socio-cultural beliefs, and easy access have increased patronage of treatment by TBS regardless of the socio-demographic characteristics of the people.
Purpose. The study compared the influence of Clinic-based McKenzie Therapy (CbMT) and a Virtual Reality Game (VRG) version on pain intensity, back extensor muscles endurance, activity limitation, participation restriction, fear avoidance belief, kinesiophobia, and general health status of patients with chronic non-specific low-back pain.Methods. This quasi-experimental study involved 46 patients (CbMT: n = 24; VRG: n = 22) with 'directional preference' for extension, randomized into CbMT or VRG group. Treatment was applied thrice weekly for 8 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the 4 th and 8 th week. Data analysis employed descriptive and inferential statistics of independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, repeated measure ANOVA, Friedman's ANOVA, and ANCOVA. The significance level was set as = 0.05.Results. There were no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (mean change) across the groups (p > 0.05), except for kinesiophobia, where VRG led to a significantly higher decline in mean rank at week 4 (28.3 vs. 19.1; p = 0.018) and 8 (28.7 vs. 18.7; p = 0.009), and vitality (a general health status item) at week 4 (27.6 vs. 19.8; p = 0.042) and 8 (28.1 vs. 19.3; p = 0.042). ANCOVA showed that significant baseline parameters were not significant predictors of vitality (F = 1.986; p = 0.070) or kinesiophobia (F = 0.866; p = 0.563) outcomes. Conclusions. The VRG mode of McKenzie therapy is comparable with the clinic-based approach in most outcomes. VRG has a superior effect on kinesiophobia, but may take a higher toll on vitality/energy. Citation: Mbada CE, Makinde MO, Odole AC, Dada OO, Ayanniyi O, Salami AJ, Gambo IP. Comparative effects of clinicand virtual reality-based McKenzie extension therapy in chronic non-specific low-back pain. Hum Mov. 2019;20(3):66-79; doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2019.83998.
Background Low-back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem globally and its direct and indirect healthcare costs are growing rapidly. Virtual reality involving the use of video games or non-game applications are alternatives to conventional face-to-face physical therapy for LBP. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Back Extension-Virtual Reality Game (BE-VRG) compared to Clinic-based McKenzie therapy (CBMT) for chronic non-specific LBP in Nigeria. Methods Patients with chronic non-specific LBP were randomised into either BE-VRG or CBMT group. Patients’ level of disability was assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at week 4 and week 8. ODI was mapped to SF-6D to generate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) used for cost-effectiveness analysis. Resource use and costs were assessed based on rehabilitation services from a healthcare perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis which included direct healthcare costs was conducted. Incremental cost per QALY was also calculated. Results Forty-six patients (BE-VRG, n = 22; CBMT, n = 24) with the mean (±SD) age of 32.6 ± (11.5) years for BE-VRG and 48.8 ± (10.2) years for CBMT intervention completed in this study. The mean direct health costs per patient were USD100.67 and USD106.3 for BE-VRG and CBMT, respectively. The mean quality adjusted life years at week 4 and week 8 were (BE-VRG, 0.0574 ± (0.002); CBMT, 0.0548 ± (0.002)); and (BE-VRG; 0.116 ± (0.002); CBMT; 0.114 ± (0.004)), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that BE-VRG arm was less costly and more effective than CBMT. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that BE-VRG was cost saving for chronic non-specific LBP compared to CBMT. This evidence could guide policy makers, payers and clinicians in evaluating BE-VRG as a treatment option for people with chronic non-specific LBP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.