Adherence to a home exercise programme following a clinical programme for non-acute non-specific low back pain: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Lack of adherence to home exercise programmes is hypothesised to partially explain the modest clinical effects seen in patients with low back pain. This study explored the association between the main biopsychosocial factors and adherence using a theory-driven approach including the fear-avoidance model, the common-sense model and the working alliance concept.Methods: A repeated measures design was used. During and after an eight-week clinical exercise programme, 48 participants with non-acute and disabling low back pain followed a home exercise programme. Questionnaires assessed home exercise adherence and biopsychosocial factors at baseline, after the eight-week clinical programme and at the six-month follow-up.Results: The regression model explained 50% of adherence (ICC = 0.50, p < .001) and the highest association was with the global rating of change. In addition, two secondary factors from the common-sense model, illness perceptions and outcome expectations, explained 58% of the global rating of change.Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of monitoring individuals/patients’ perceptions of change as a significant factor contributing to adherence. The common-sense model might be helpful in this process.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".