Biopsychosocial primary care versus physiotherapy as usual in chronic low back pain: results of a pilot-randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To compare the effectiveness of a biopsychosocial primary care intervention (Back on Track) with primary care physiotherapy as usual in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) experiencing low complex psychosocial complaints.Method A double-blind multicentre pilot-randomised controlled trial. Twenty-five patients (≥18 years) with non-specific CLBP (≥12 weeks) experience low psychosocial complaints and a low to moderate level of disability. The Back on Track intervention (four individual and eight group sessions) versus physiotherapy as usual (maximally 12 individual sessions). Primary outcome: functional disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Score) at post-treatment and 3 months follow-up.Secondary measures Anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, pain intensity, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, global perceived effect. Effects were analysed using linear mixed model analysis.Results No significant differences in functional disability were found between interventions at post-treatment (mean difference 0.10, 95% CI: −12.9 to 13.1) and 3 months follow-up (mean difference −5.4, 95% CI −19.1 to 8.3). Secondary outcomes also showed no significant differences.Conclusions No differences in effects were found between patients with CLBP experiencing low complex psychosocial complaints who receive the Back on Track intervention compared to patients receiving primary care physiotherapy as usual. Well-powered studies of sufficient methodological quality are needed to detect differences in effects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".