Search

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear.Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain.Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020.Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point.Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group.Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings.Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is pain that has persisted for greater than three months. It is common and burdensome and represents a significant proportion of primary health presentations. For the majority of people with CLBP, a specific nociceptive contributor cannot be reliably identified, and the pain is categorised as 'non‐specific'. Exercise therapy is recommended by international clinical guidelines as a first‐line treatment for non‐specific CLBP. Aim: This comprehensive review aims to synthesise and appraise the current research to provide practical, evidence‐based guidance concerning exercise prescription for non‐specific CLBP. We discuss detailed initial assessment and being informed by patient preferences, values, expectations, competencies and goals. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) using broad search terms from January 2000 to March 2021, to identify the most recent clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on exercise for CLBP. Results/Discussion: Systematic reviews show exercise is effective for small, short‐term reductions in pain and disability, when compared with placebo, usual care, or waiting list control, and serious adverse events are rare. A range of individualised or group‐based exercise modalities have been demonstrated as effective in reducing pain and disability. Despite this consensus, controversies and significant challenges remain. Conclusion: To promote recovery, sustainable outcomes and self‐management, exercise can be coupled with education strategies, as well as interventions that enhance adherence, motivation and patient self‐efficacy. Clinicians might benefit from intentionally considering their own knowledge and competencies, potential harms of exercise and costs to the patient. This comprehensive review provides evidence‐based practical guidance to health professionals who prescribe exercise for people with non‐specific CLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does feeling reassured after a consultation reduce future disability or healthcare use in people with acute low back pain (LBP)? Mediation analysis of a randomised, sham-controlled trial. Two hundred and two people with acute LBP at above average risk (high risk) of developing chronic LBP. All participants received guideline-based care from their usual clinician. Participants received two additional 1-hour sessions of patient education focused on emphasising the benign nature of LBP or sham patient education that included active listening only. The two primary outcomes for this study were self-reported disability and healthcare use. The mediator was feeling reassured that LBP was not caused by serious illness. Data from 194 (96%) participants and 178 (88%) participants were included in the analysis for disability and healthcare use outcome models, respectively. Feeling reassured did not mediate the effect of the intervention on disability (indirect effect −0.23, 95% CI −0.71 to 0.18) or healthcare use (indirect effect 0.00, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.04). Patient education intervention increased feeling reassured (1.14 points, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.85) compared with sham patient education. However, the mediator (ie, feeling reassured) did not reduce disability (−0.20 points, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.19) or healthcare use (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.21). Feeling reassured after a consultation did not lead to improvements in disability and healthcare use for people with acute LBP. Clinicians should reflect on the time that they allocate to reassuring their patients and consider reallocating time to other aspects of the consultation that could reduce disability and future healthcare use. ACTRN12612001180808, study protocol https://osf.io/4tfaz/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One model of care that has not been tested for chronic low back pain (LBP) is patient-led goal setting. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and healthcare use of a patient-led goal setting approach (intervention) with simple advice to exercise (control) over 12 months.Methods: An assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial. Intervention was education combined with patient-led goal setting compared with a control group receiving a standardised exercise programme. The primary outcomes were back pain disability and pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and stress. Outcomes and healthcare use were assessed immediately post-treatment (2 months) and after 4 and 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat.Results: Seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=37) or the control (n=38) group. Using linear mixed model analyses, adjusted mean changes in primary outcomes of disability and pain intensity were greater in the intervention group than in the control group (disability post-treatment: p<0.05). These differences were clinically meaningful. Mean differences in all secondary measures were greater in the intervention group than in the control group (p<0.05). There was no difference in healthcare use between groups over 12 months.Conclusion: A patient-led goal setting intervention was significantly more effective than advice to exercise for improving outcomes in disability, pain intensity, quality of life, self-efficacy and kinesiophobia in chronic LBP. These improvements were maintained at 12 months. Smaller effects were seen in measures of depression, anxiety and stress.Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12614000830695. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether emotional distress reported at the initial consultation affects subsequent healthcare use either directly or indirectly via moderating the influence of symptoms.Methods: Longitudinal observational study of 2891 participants consulting primary care for low back pain. Negative binomial regression models were constructed to estimate independent effects of emotional distress on healthcare use. Potential confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs.Results: After the initial consultation, participants had a mean (SD) of one (1.2) visit for back pain over 3 months, and nine (14) visits for back pain over 12 months. Higher reports of anxiety during the initial consultation led to increased short-term healthcare use (IRR 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01-1.11) and higher reports of depression led to increased long-term healthcare use (IRR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.02-1.07). The effect sizes suggest that a patient with a high anxiety score (8/10) would consult 50 % more frequently over 3 months, and a person with a high depression score (8/10) would consult 30 % more frequently over 12 months, compared to a patient with equivalent pain and disability and no reported anxiety or depression.Conclusions: Emotional distress in the acute stage of low back pain increased subsequent consultation rates. Interventions that target emotional distress during the initial consultation are likely to reduce costly and potentially inappropriate future healthcare use for patients with non-specific low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Goal setting, led by the patient, is promising as an effective treatment for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP); however, little is known about current practice. The aims of the study were to explore (1) current goal setting practice in CLBP among physiotherapists; (2) perceived barriers to goal setting in CLBP; and (3) relationship between clinician’s attitudes and beliefs and goal setting practice. Method: A cross-sectional observational survey. Results: The majority of respondents used goal setting with the main aim of facilitating self-management. The greatest number of goals were set with 50% therapist/50% patient involvement. The most common perceived barriers to goal setting related to time constraints and lack of skill and confidence. A higher biomedical score for treatment orientation of the therapist was associated with a lower patient involvement score. Conclusion: Goal setting is common practice for CLBP and is perceived as a high priority. It is more often a collaboration between therapist and patient rather than patient-led with treatment orientation of the physiotherapist a predictor of patient involvement. Education of healthcare professionals needs to include better understanding of chronic pain to orient them away from a biomedical treatment approach, as well as to enhance skills in facilitating patient involvement in goal setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the prognostic and predictive models relevant to healthcare, particularly in the clinical decision-making, with implications for payers, patients, and providers.

Background: Marketing communication and brand identity is a fundamental principle of advertising and end-user engagement. Health researchers have begun to apply this principle to trial recruitment in primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a Teaser Campaign using a series of postcards in advance of a conventional mail-out increases the number of primary care clinics that engage with a clinical trial. Methods: Embedded randomised recruitment trial across primary care clinics (general practitioners and physiotherapists) in the Sydney metropolitan area. Clinics in the Teaser Campaign group received a series of branded promotional postcards in advance of a standard letter inviting them to participate in a clinical trial. Clinics in the Standard Mail group did not receive the postcards. Results: From a total of 744 clinics that were sent an invitation letter, 46 clinics in the Teaser Campaign group and 40 clinics in the Standard Mail group responded (11.6% total response rate). There was no between-group difference in the odds of responding to the invitation letter (odds ratio = 1.18, 95% confidence interval = 0.75-1.85, p = 0.49). For phy-siotherapy clinics and general practice clinics, the odds ratios were 1.43 (confidence interval = 0.82-2.48, p = 0.21) and 0.77 (confidence interval = 0.34-1.75, p = 0.54), respectively. Conclusion: A Teaser Campaign using a series of branded promotional postcards did not improve clinic engagement for a randomised controlled trial in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem globally, but approaches to prevention are not yet clearly identified because modifiable risk factors are not well established. Although physical activity is one promising modifiable risk factor, it is still not known what types and doses of physical activity are protective or harmful for LBP. The aim of this study is to establish the feasibility of a definitive cohort study that will investigate the effects of different types and doses of physical activity on the risk of developing recurrent LBP while accounting for genetic factors. This will be a pilot longitudinal twin study and twins will be recruited from the Australian Twin Registry, and will be followed over 1 year. Thirty adult complete twin pairs with a history of LBP, but symptom free at recruitment, will be included. Data on physical activity (predictor) will be collected using four questionnaires and an objective measure (accelerometer) at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Twins will also complete an additional physical activity questionnaire monthly. Data on LBP (outcome) will be collected at baseline and weekly. Data will be collected using short message service (SMS) and email. We will keep records of the recruitment rate, follow-up rate, and completeness of data. Barriers to completing the study will be investigated. The results of this study will inform the design and implementation of a future definitive study, which will help to clarify the effects of different types and doses of physical activity on the risk of developing recurrent LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Globally it is responsible for the most years lived with disability. The most problematic type of LBP is chronic LBP (pain lasting longer than 3 mo); it has a poor prognosis and is costly, and interventions are only moderately effective. Targeting interventions according to risk profile is a promising approach to prevent the onset of chronic LBP. Developing accurate prognostic models is the first step. No validated prognostic models are available to accurately predict the onset of chronic LBP. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate the risk of chronic LBP.Methods and Findings: We used the PROGRESS framework to specify a priori methods, which we published in a study protocol. Data from 2,758 patients with acute LBP attending primary care in Australia between 5 November 2003 and 15 July 2005 (development sample, n = 1,230) and between 10 November 2009 and 5 February 2013 (external validation sample, n = 1,528) were used to develop and externally validate the model. The primary outcome was chronic LBP (ongoing pain at 3 mo). In all, 30% of the development sample and 19% of the external validation sample developed chronic LBP. In the external validation sample, the primary model (PICKUP) discriminated between those who did and did not develop chronic LBP with acceptable performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.69]). Although model calibration was also acceptable in the external validation sample (intercept = -0.55, slope = 0.89), some miscalibration was observed for high-risk groups. The decision curve analysis estimated that, if decisions to recommend further intervention were based on risk scores, screening could lead to a net reduction of 40 unnecessary interventions for every 100 patients presenting to primary care compared to a "treat all" approach. Limitations of the method include the model being restricted to using prognostic factors measured in existing studies and using stepwise methods to specify the model. Limitations of the model include modest discrimination performance. The model also requires recalibration for local settings.Conclusions: Based on its performance in these cohorts, this five-item prognostic model for patients with acute LBP may be a useful tool for estimating risk of chronic LBP. Further validation is required to determine whether screening with this model leads to a net reduction in unnecessary interventions provided to low-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the association between domestic and recreational physical activity (PA) and low back pain (LBP) after adjusting for genetic and environmental influences. Methods: Twins were recruited through the Australian twin registry. LBP prevalence and domestic (vigorous gardening/heavy yard work) and recreational (light walking, moderate/vigorous) PA were assessed by a validated questionnaire. Associations were analysed using a cross-sectional analysis of the complete sample of 486 twins, including a matched case-control analysis of 69 twin pairs discordant for LBP. Logistic regression and the lincom post-estimation method were used for the analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: The case-control analysis showed that LBP was significantly associated with heavy domestic PA (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.29-6.43), whereas no significant association was found with any form of recreational PA. The results of the lincom command indicated that being engaged in both heavy domestic and recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous) was associated with a significantly increased probability of LBP compared with being engaged only in recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous, ORs 3.48-4.22). Using the whole sample, we found weaker associations but in the same direction. Conclusions: We found evidence that heavy domestic PA is associated with an increased probability of LBP, and the combination of heavy domestic and recreational PA might increase the probability of LBP more so than heavy domestic or recreational PA alone. Associations being greater when using the co-twin case-control analysis indicate that genetic and environmental factors influence the relationship between PA and LBP, and demonstrate the value of a twin design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of disability, and results in significant personal hardship. Most available treatments, when tested in high-quality randomised, controlled trials , achieve only modest improvements in pain, at best. Recently, treatments that target central nervous system function have been developed and tested in small studies. Combining treatments that target central nervous system function with traditional treatments directed towards functioning of the back is a promising approach that has yet to be tested in adequately powered, prospectively registered , clinical trials. The RESOLVE trial will be the first high-quality assessment of two treatment programs that combine central nervous system-directed and traditional interventions in order to improve chronic low back pain. Aim To compare the effectiveness of two treatment programs that combine central nervous system-directed and traditional interventions at reducing pain intensity at 18 weeks post randomisation in a randomised clinical trial of people with chronic low back pain. Design Two-group, randomised, clinical trial with blinding of participants and assessors. Participants and setting Two hundred and seventy -five participants with chronic low back pain that has persisted longer than 3 months and no specific spinal pathology will be recruited from the community and primary care in Sydney, Australia. Interventions Both of the interventions contain treatments that target central nervous system function combined with treatments directed towards functioning of the back. Adherence to the intervention will be monitored using an individual treatment diary and adverse events recorded through passive capture. Participants are informed prior to providing informed consent that some of the treatments are not active. Blinding is maintained by not disclosing any further information. Complete disclosure of the contents of the intervention has been made with the UNSW HREC (HC15357) and an embargoed project registration has been made on the Open Science Framework to meet the Declaration of Helsinki requirement for transparent reporting of trial methods a priori . Intervention A Participants randomised to Intervention A will receive a 12-session treatment program delivered as 60-minute sessions, scheduled approximately weekly, over a period of 12 to 18 weeks. All treatment sessions are one-on-one. The program includes a home treatment component of 30 minutes, five times per week. The intervention comprises discussion of the participant's low back pain experience, graded sensory training, graded motor imagery training and graded, precision-focused and feedback-enriched, functional movement training. Treatment progression is determined by participant proficiency, with mandatory advancement at set time points with respect to a standard protocol. Intervention B Participants randomised to Intervention B will receive a 12-session treatment program of the same duration and structure as Intervention A. The intervention comprises discussion of the participant's low back pain experience, transcranial direct current stimulation to the motor and pre-frontal cortices, cranial electrical stimulation, and low-intensity laser therapy and pulsed electromagnetic energy to the area of greatest pain. Treatment is delivered according to published recommendations and progressed with respect to a standard protocol. Measurements The primary outcome is pain intensity at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include disability, depression, pain catastrophising, kinesiophobia, beliefs about back pain , pain self-efficacy, quality of life, healthcare resource use, and treatment credibility. Assessment will occur at baseline and at 18, 26 and 52 weeks after randomisation. Treatment credibility will be assessed at baseline and 2 weeks after randomisation only. Analysis A statistician blinded to group status will analyse the data by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Linear contrasts will be constructed to compare the adjusted mean change (continuous variables) in outcome from baseline to each time point between intervention A and intervention B. This will provide effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals for any difference between the interventions. Significance Preliminary data suggest that combining treatments that target central nervous system function with traditional interventions is a promising approach to chronic low back pain treatment. In the context of modest effects on pain intensity from most available treatments, this approach may lead to improved clinical outcomes for people with chronic low back pain. The trial will determine which, if either, of two treatment programs that combine central nervous system-directed and traditional interventions is more effective at reducing pain intensity in a chronic low back pain cohort. Central nervous system-directed interventions constitute a completely new treatment paradigm for chronic low back pain management. The results have the potential to be far reaching and change current physiotherapy management of chronic low back pain in Australia and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Pain education is a complex intervention developed to help clinicians manage low back pain. Although complex interventions are usually evaluated by their effects on outcomes, such as pain or disability, most do not directly target these outcomes; instead, they target intermediate factors that are presumed to be associated with the outcomes. The mechanisms underlying treatment effects, or the effect of an intervention on an intermediate factor and its subsequent effect on outcome, are rarely investigated in clinical trials. This leaves a gap in the evidence for understanding how treatments exert their effects on outcomes. Mediation analysis provides a method for identifying and quantifying the mechanisms that underlie interventions. Aim To determine whether the effect of pain education on pain and disability is mediated by changes in self-efficacy, catastrophisation and back pain beliefs. Design Causal mediation analysis of the PREVENT randomised controlled trial. Participants and setting Two hundred and two participants with acute low back pain from primary care clinics in the Sydney metropolitan area. Intervention Participants will be randomised to receive either ‘pain education’ (intervention group) or ‘sham education’ (control group). Measurements All outcome measures (including patient characteristics), primary outcome measures (pain and disability), and putative mediating variables (self-efficacy, catastrophisation and back pain beliefs) will be measured prior to randomisation. Putative mediators and primary outcome measures will be measured 1 week after the intervention, and primary outcome measures will be measured 3 months after the onset of low back pain. Analysis Causal mediation analysis under the potential outcomes framework will be used to test single and multiple mediator models. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the estimated mediation effects on the influence of violating sequential ignorability – a critical assumption for causal inference. Discussion and significance Mediation analysis of clinical trials can estimate how much the total effect of the treatment on the outcome is carried through an indirect path. Using mediation analysis to understand these mechanisms can generate evidence that can be used to tailor treatments and optimise treatment effects. In this study, the causal mediation effects of a pain education intervention for acute non-specific low back pain will be estimated. This knowledge is critical for further development and refinement of interventions for conditions such as low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Statistical analysis plans increase the transparency of decisions made in the analysis of clinical trial results. The purpose of this paper is to detail the planned analyses for the PREVENT trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patient education for acute low back pain. Results: We report the pre-specified principles, methods, and procedures to be adhered to in the main analysis of the PREVENT trial data. The primary outcome analysis will be based on Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which can test treatment effects at specific time points, and the assumptions of this analysis are outlined. We also outline the treatment of secondary outcomes and planned sensitivity analyses. We provide decisions regarding the treatment of missing data, handling of descriptive and process measure data, and blinded review procedures. Conclusions: Making public the pre-specified statistical analysis plan for the PREVENT trial minimizes the potential for bias in the analysis of trial data, and in the interpretation and reporting of trial results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Professional appearance is easily modifiable, and might alter the effects of a clinical encounter. We aimed to determine whether professional attire influences a patient's perception of treatment credibility.Methods: We performed a single-blind randomized controlled study on 128 patients with acute non-specific low back pain who were about to receive treatment in primary care. The treating clinician was randomly allocated to wear formal attire (experimental condition) or casual attire (control condition) to the consultation. Clinicians provided a standardized briefing on the rationale behind the patient's forthcoming treatment. Treatment credibility (Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire) was assessed immediately after this briefing.Results: All patients received the experimental or control condition as allocated and provided complete primary outcome data. Formal attire had no effect on perceived treatment credibility (Mean difference between groups 1.2 [95%CI-1.1 to 3.5]). Age was the only significant predictor of treatment credibility; older patients rated treatment credibility higher (Beta=0.16 [95%CI 0.08 to 0.24]).Conclusion: In a trial setting, whether or not a clinician is formally dressed has no effect on perceptions of treatment credibility in patients with acute low back pain.Practice Implication: Clinicians should dress comfortably without fear of losing credibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Statistical analysis plans describe the planned data management and analysis for clinical trials. This supports transparent reporting and interpretation of clinical trial results. This paper reports the statistical analysis plan for the RESOLVE clinical trial. The RESOLVE trial assigned participants with chronic low back pain to graded sensory-motor precision training or sham-control. We report the planned data management and analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome is pain intensity at 18-weeks post randomization. We will use mixed-effects models to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes by intention-to-treat. We will report adverse effects in full. We also describe analyses if there is non-adherence to the interventions, data management procedures, and our planned reporting of results. This statistical analysis plan will minimize the potential for bias in the analysis and reporting of results from the RESOLVE trial. ACTRN12615000610538 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A prospective, single-arm, pre-postintervention study.Objective: The aim of this study was to test the preliminary effectiveness of a patient-led goal-setting intervention on improving disability and pain in chronic low back pain.Summary Of Background Data: An effective intervention for the treatment of chronic low back pain remains elusive despite extensive research into the area.An intervention using patient-centered goal setting to drive intervention strategies and encourage self-management for patients suffering chronic low back was developed.Methods: A single group longitudinal cohort pilot study was conducted. Twenty participants (male = nine) experiencing chronic low back pain were involved in a patient-led goal-setting intervention, facilitated by a physiotherapist over a 2-month period with two monthly follow-up sessions after treatment conclusion. Participants, guided by the therapist, identified problem areas of personal importance, defined goals, and developed evidence-based strategies to achieve the goals. Participants implemented the strategies independently between sessions. Primary outcome measures of disability and pain intensity were measured at baseline, 2, and 4 months. Secondary measures of quality of life, stress and anxiety, self-efficacy, and fear of movement were also taken.Results: Significant improvements (repeated analysis of variance P < 0.05) were seen in measures of disability, pain, fear avoidance, quality of life, and self-efficacy over the period of intervention and were maintained for a further 2 months after treatment conclusion.Conclusion: This intervention is novel because the goals set are based on patients' personal preferences, and not on treatment guidelines. Our findings confirm that a patient-centered goal-setting intervention is a potentially effective intervention for the management of chronic low back pain showing significant improvements in both quality of life and pain intensity.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]