Effectiveness of in-group <i>versus</i> individually administered pain neuroscience education on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective (1) This trial will compare the clinical and psychosocial effectiveness of in-group and individually pain neuroscience education (PNE) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In addition, (2) the influence of social determinants of health on post-treatment results will be analyzed. Methods A three-arm randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Sixty-nine participants with CLBP will be recruited in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants, assessor, and statistician will be blinded to group assignment. The PNE intervention will be adapted to the context of the participants. An experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an in-group modality, the other experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an individually modality and the control group (n = 33) will continue with usual care. Additionally, participants will be encouraged to stay active by walking for 20–30 min 3–5 times per week and will be taught an exercise to improve transversus abdominis activation (bracing or abdominal following). The outcome measures will be fear avoidance and beliefs, pressure pain threshold, pain self-efficacy, catastrophizing, pain intensity, and treatment expectation. Outcome measures will be collected at one-week before intervention, immediately post-intervention, and four-weeks post-intervention. Conclusion The innovative approach of PNE oriented to fear beliefs proposed in this study could broaden the application strategies of this educational therapeutic modality. Impact. Contextualized PNE delivered by physical therapist could be essential to achieve a good cost-effectiveness ratio of this intervention to improve the clinical condition of people with CLBP.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".