Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Group-Based Intervention versus Individual Physiotherapy for Improving Chronic Low Back Pain in Nursing Staff: A Clinical Trial with 3- and 6-Month Follow-Up Visits from Tehran, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>Clinical trial.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>To evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary group-based intervention on improving pain and disability among Iranian nurses with chronic low back pain in Tehran, Iran.</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>Although low back pain (LBP) is one of the most important health problems, the challenge remains on how to find an effective intervention to reduce pain and related disabilities.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Overall, 136 eligible nurses with chronic mechanical LBP were classified into two groups. The intervention group (n=66 participants) participated in a physiotherapy educational program (for 120 minutes) plus a health educational program based on predictive constructs of the social cognitive theory (for 120 minutes). These interventions were delivered by a physiotherapist and a health education specialist. The control group (n=70 participants) participated in a physiotherapy educational program (for 120 minutes). Disability rate, pain severity, and back pain prevention behavior were measured initially and at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits using the visual analogue scale, Roland-Morris Disability, and Nursing Low Back Pain Preventive Behaviors Questionnaire. Data were analyzed by SPSS ver. 16.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the main outcome measures immediately after the educational program and at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. Preventive behaviors of participants in the intervention group were improved at 3- and 6- month follow-up visits (<italic>p</italic>&lt;0.001). The mean scores of predictive constructs regarding LBP preventive behaviors in the intervention group were improved after 3 and 6 months (<italic>p</italic>&lt;0.001). Finally, in the intervention group, pain severity and disability were decreased significantly.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>This study showed that a multidisciplinary educational program intervention can be an effective approach for reducing LBP and related disabilities among nurses.</p></sec>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".