***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE For long-term treatment effects , patients with subacute back pain need to adhere to treatment recommendations beyond the prescribed exercise treatment . Adherence rates are as low as 30 % , so we developed a cognitive-behavioural training programme to enhance patients ' self-efficacy , maximise severity perceptions and reduce barrier perceptions . METHOD A 2 x 4 ( group x time ) repeated measurement design was applied . Forty-seven patients with non-specific , subacute back pain were r and omly assigned to a training group ( exercise treatment plus cognitive-behavioural training programme ) or a control group ( exercise treatment only ) . RESULTS Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant main and interaction effects ; the training group reported enhanced self-efficacy and severity perceptions , reduced barrier perceptions , and self-reported that they exercised more often than the control group over time . However , no group differences regarding pain intensity emerged . CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrate that a short and inexpensive cognitive-behavioural training programme is an effective tool to enable back pain patients to follow treatment recommendations on a regular basis . PRACTICE IMPLICATION S The short and simple intervention can easily be conducted by personnel , other than psychologists , i.e. , physiotherapists Study Design . A prospect i ve r and omized controlled trial . Objectives . To examine the effectiveness of combined manipulative treatment , stabilizing exercises , and physician consultation compared with physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain . Summary of Background Data . Strong evidence exists that manual therapy provides more effective short-term pain relief than does placebo treatment in the management of chronic low back pain . The evidence for long-term effect is lacking . Methods . Two hundred four chronic low back pain patients , whose Oswestry disability index was at least 16 % , were r and omly assigned to either a manipulative-treatment group or a consultation group . All were clinical ly examined , informed about their back pain , provided with an educational booklet , and were given specific instructions based on the clinical evaluation . The treatment included four sessions of manipulation and stabilizing exercises aim ing to correct the lumbopelvic rhythm . Question naires inquired about pain intensity , self-rated disability , mental depression , health-related quality of life , health care costs , and production costs . Results . At the baseline , the groups were comparable , except for the percentage of employees ( P = 0.01 ) . At the 5- and 12-month follow-ups , the manipulative-treatment group showed more significant reductions in pain intensity ( P < 0.001 ) and in self-rated disability ( P = 0.002 ) than the consultation group . However , we detected no significant difference between the groups in health-related quality of life or in costs . Conclusions . The manipulative treatment with stabilizing exercises was more effective in reducing pain intensity and disability than the physician consultation alone . The present study showed that short , specific treatment programs with proper patient information may alter the course of chronic low back pain Study Design . A r and omized controlled design superimposed on treatment as usual was used to compare the effects of a cognitive-behavior intervention aim ed at preventing chronicity with two different forms of information . Objective . To develop a coping-oriented preventive intervention applicable in primary care , and to compare its impact with educational information . Summary of Background Data . Preventing long-term disability result ing from spinal pain has proved difficult . The information provided by health care professions and early interventions aim ed at preventing long-term disability may be important , but little scientific evidence exists concerning their use . Methods . A protocol for a six-session cognitive-behavior group intervention was developed on the basis of earlier research . The main focus was to prevent long-term disability by changing patients ’ behaviors and beliefs so they can cope better with their problems . Comparison groups received either a pamphlet shown earlier to have an effect , or a more extensive information package consisting of six installments . All the groups continued to receive treatment as usual in primary care . There were 243 patients with acute or subacute spinal pain who perceived that they were at risk for developing a chronic problem . These patients were r and omized to the cognitive-behavioral intervention or one of the two information groups . Because the aim was to prevent long-term disability , the key outcome variables at the 1-year follow-up assessment were sick absenteeism and health care use . Other variables were pain , function , fear-avoidance beliefs , and cognitions . Results . The comparison groups reported benefits . However , the risk for a long-term sick absence developing was lowered ninefold for the cognitive-behavior intervention group as compared with the risk for the information groups ( relative risk , 9.3 ) . Participants in the cognitive-behavior group also reported a significant decrease in perceived risk . In addition , the cognitive-behavior group demonstrated a significant decrease in physician and physical therapy use as compared with two groups receiving information , in which such use increased . All three groups tended to improve on the variables of pain , fear-avoidance , and cognitions . Conclusions . This study demonstrates that a cognitive-behavior group intervention can lower the risk of a long-term disability developing . These findings underscore the significance of early interventions that specifically aim to prevent chronic problems . This approach might be applied to primary care setting To assess the differential efficacy of two commonly used treatments for temporom and ibular disorders ( TMD ) , intraoral appliances ( IAs ) and biofeedback ( BF ) , separately and in combination , two studies were conducted . The first study directly compared IA treatment , a combination of biofeedback and stress management ( BF/SM ) , and a waiting list control group in a sample of 80 TMD patients . Both treatments were determined to be equally credible to patients , ruling out this potential threat to the validity of the results obtained . The results demonstrated that the IA treatment was more effective than the BF/SM treatment in reducing pain after treatment , but at a 6-month follow-up the IA group significantly relapsed , especially in depression , whereas the BF/SM maintained improvements on both pain and depression and continued to improve . The second study examined the combination of IA and BF/SM in a sample of 30 TMD patients . The results of this study demonstrated that the combined treatment approach was more effective than either of the single treatments alone , particularly in pain reduction , at the 6-month follow-up . These results support the importance of using both dental and psychologic treatments to successfully treat TMD patients if treatment gains are to be maintained Study Design . R and omized controlled trial . Objectives . To investigate the effectiveness and costs of a mini-intervention , provided in addition to the usual care , and the incremental effect of a work site visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain . Summary of Background Data . There is lack of data on cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with prolonged low back pain . Methods . A total of 164 patients with subacute low back pain were r and omized to a  mini-intervention group ( A ) , a work site visit group ( B ) , or a usual care group ( C ) . Groups A ( n = 56 ) and B ( n = 51 ) underwent one assessment by a physician plus a physiotherapist . Group B received a work site visit in addition . Group C served as controls ( n = 57 ) and was treated in municipal primary health care . All patients received a leaflet on back pain . Pain , disability , specific and generic health-related quality of life , satisfaction with care , days on sick leave , and use and costs of health care consumption were measured at 3- , 6- , and 12-month follow-ups . Results . During follow-up , fewer subjects had daily pain in Groups A and B than in Group C ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.002 ; Group B vs. Group C , P = 0.030 ) . In Group A , pain was less bothersome ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.032 ) and interfered less with daily life ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.040 ) than among controls . Average days on sick leave were 19 in Group A , 28 in Group B , and 41 in Group C ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.019 ) . Treatment satisfaction was better in the intervention groups than among the controls , and costs were lowest in the mini-intervention group . Conclusions . Mini-intervention reduced daily back pain symptoms and sickness absence , improved adaptation to pain and patient satisfaction among patients with subacute low back pain , without increasing health care costs . A work site visit did not increase effectiveness Abstract Objective To compare the effects of a minimal intervention strategy aim ed at assessment and modification of psychosocial prognostic factors and usual care for treatment of (sub)acute low back pain in general practice . Design Cluster r and omised clinical trial . Setting 60 general practitioners in 41 general practice s. Participants 314 patients with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks ' duration , recruited by their general practitioner . Interventions In the minimal intervention strategy group the general practitioner explored the presence of psychosocial prognostic factors , discussed these factors , set specific goals for reactivation , and provided an educational booklet . The consultation took about 20 minutes . Usual care was not st and ardised . Main outcome measures Functional disability ( Rol and -Morris disability question naire ) , perceived recovery , and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6 , 13 , 26 , and 52 weeks . Results The dropout rate was 8 % in the minimal intervention strategy group and 9 % in the usual care group . Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure during 12 months of follow-up in the whole group or in relevant subgroups ( patients with high scores on psychosocial measures at baseline or a history of frequent or prolonged low back pain ) . Conclusion This study provides no evidence that ( Dutch ) general practitioners should adopt our new treatment strategy aim ed at psychosocial prognostic factors in patients with (sub)acute low back pain . Further research should examine why our new strategy was not more effective than usual care Abstract Objective To measure the effectiveness of routine physiotherapy compared with an assessment session and advice from a physiotherapist for patients with low back pain . Design Pragmatic , multicentre , r and omised controlled trial . Setting Seven British NHS physiotherapy departments . Participants 286 patients with low back pain of more than six weeks ' duration . Intervention Routine physiotherapy or advice on remaining active from a physiotherapist . Both groups received an advice book . Main outcome measures Primary outcome was scores on the Oswestry disability index at 12 months . Secondary outcomes were scores on the Oswestry disability index ( two and six months ) , scores on the Rol and and Morris disability question naire and SF-36 ( 2 , 6 and 12 months ) , and patient perceived benefit from treatment ( 2 , 6 , and 12 months ) . Results 200 of 286 patients ( 70 % ) provided follow up information at 12 months . Patients in the therapy group reported enhanced perceptions of benefit , but there was no evidence of a long term effect of physiotherapy in either disease specific or generic outcome measures ( mean difference in change in Oswestry disability index scores at 12 months −1.0 % , 95 % confidence interval −3.7 % to 1.6 % ) . The most common treatments were low velocity spinal joint mobilisation techniques ( 72 % , 104 of 144 patients ) and lumbar spine mobility and abdominal strengthening exercises ( 94 % , 136 patients ) . Conclusions Routine physiotherapy seemed to be no more effective than one session of assessment and advice from a physiotherapist BACKGROUND CONTEXT Restorative exercise and palliative modalities are frequently used together for the treatment of acute low back pain . However , little is known about the effects of combining these treatments . PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise on the functional ability of patients with acute low back pain . STUDY DESIGN / SETTING A r and omized controlled trial was conducted at three outpatient medical facilities . PATIENT SAMPLE One hundred individuals ( age 31.2+/-10.6 years ) with low back pain of less than 3 months duration . OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was functional ability assessed by the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile question naire . Secondary outcomes were disability assessed by the Rol and -Morris Disability Question naire and pain relief assessed by a 6-point verbal rating scale . METHODS Participants were r and omized to one of four groups : Heat wrap therapy alone ( heat wrap , n=25 ) ; directional preference-based exercise alone ( exercise , n=25 ) ; combination of heat wrap therapy and exercise ( heat+exercise , n=24 ) ; or control ( booklet , n=26 ) . Treatment was administered for five consecutive days and included four visits to the study center over 1 week . RESULTS At 2 days after the conclusion of treatment ( Day 7 ) , functional improvement for heat+exercise was 84 % , 95 % , and 175 % greater than heat wrap , exercise , and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . Seventy-two percent of the subjects in the heat+exercise group demonstrated a return to pre-injury function compared with 20 % , 20 % , and 19 % for heat wrap , exercise , and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . Disability reduction for heat+exercise was 93 % , 139 % , and 400 % greater than heat wrap , exercise , and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . Pain relief for heat+exercise was 70 % and 143 % greater than exercise and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS Combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise during the treatment of acute low back pain significantly improves functional outcomes compared with either intervention alone or control . Either intervention alone tends to be more effective than control Study Design . A r and omized clinical trial . Objectives . To evaluate long-term clinical and economical effects of a light mobilization program on the duration of sick leave for patients with subacute low back pain . Summary of Background Data . Twelve-month 
    Output:
    
Results showed that for patients with subacute LBP , there is strong evidence that an individual 2.5 hour oral educational session is more effective on short-term and long-term return-to-work than no intervention .
Educational interventions that were less intensive were not more effective than no intervention .
Furthermore , there is strong evidence that individual education for patients with (sub)acute LBP is as effective as non-educational interventions on long-term pain and global improvement and that for chronic patients , individual education is less effective for back pain-specific function when compared to more intensive interventions .
Comparison of different types of individual education did not show significant differences .
For patients with acute or subacute LBP , intensive patient education seems to be effective .
For patients with chronic LBP , the effectiveness of individual education is still unclear