Efficacy Of Breaking Up Sedentary Time On Pain And Mood In Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High sedentary time negatively influences health and is associated with an increased risk for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Emerging evidence suggests breaking up prolonged bouts of sedentary behavior may be effective for reducing chronic pain. PURPOSE: This randomized controlled pilot study examined the efficacy of an intervention based on motivational interviewing (MI) and habit theory to reduce and break up sedentary behaviors on pain, depression, and quality of life in individuals with CLBP and elevated symptoms of depression. METHODS: Forty adults with CBLP were randomized to receive a wearable activity tracker with an idle alert along with MI-based health coaching (INT) or a wait-list control condition (WLC) for eight weeks with a 12-week follow-up. Time spent in total and prolonged sedentary behaviors (activPAL and SIT-Q-7D), pain (short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ)), depressed mood (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)), quality of life (Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)), and habits surrounding sedentary behavior (Automaticity Scale of the Self-reported habit Index (AS-SRHI)) were assessed pre- and post-intervention and at follow-up. Effect size calculations and repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine changes in outcomes over the course of the intervention and follow-up. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that, on average, INT reduced time spent in prolonged bouts of sedentary time by ~53 minutes/day compared to WLC who decreased by less than 1 minute/day. INT also experienced large, non-significant improvements in pain and depressed mood (g = 0.70-1.72, p > 0.05) over the intervention and follow-up periods. Quality of life (physical health and bodily pain SF-36 subscales and PGIC) and automaticity of habits surrounding sedentary behavior improved significantly for INT over WLC (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present results provide support for the potential utility of decreasing prolonged sedentary behaviors to improve symptoms, and especially quality of life, in those with CLBP. Fully-powered efficacy trials are needed to thoroughly examine the use of this behavioral intervention strategy in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".