You are not logged in. Press here to login.

Content

List volumes - List articles in this issue

Special report

Benefits of treatment theory in the design of explanatory trials: Cognitive treatment of illness perception in chronic low back pain rehabilitation as an illustrative example

doi: 10.2340/16501977-0492

Open access

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment is not effective for all patients. Research must therefore be carried out to help clinicians to decide for whom and under what circumstances certain treatment is effective. Treatment theory can assist in designing research that will provide results on which clinical decision-making can be based.
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate how treatment theory can be helpful in the design of explanatory trials that assist clinical decision-making.
METHODS: The benefit of treatment theory was demonstrated by approaching the design of a clinical trial from two perspectives: one without the use of treatment theory and one with the explicit use of treatment theory. Evaluation of the effectiveness of cognitive treatment of illness perceptions for patients with chronic low back pain was used as an illustrative example.
Issues: With treatment theory as the main focus, the intervention became the starting point for the design of an explanatory trial. Potentially relevant patient selection criteria, essential treatment components, the optimal choice of a control group and the selection of outcome measures were specified.
CONCLUSION: This paper not only describes problems encountered in research on the effectiveness of treatment, but also ways in which to address these problems.

Authors:

Petra C. Siemonsma, Carin D. Schröder, Leo D. Roorda, Ant T. Lettinga

References

  1. Ebenbichler G, Kerschan-Schindl K, Brokow T, Resch K. The future of physical & rehabilitation medicine as a medical speciality in the era of evidence-based medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 871–873.
  2. Frontera WR, Fuhrer MJ, Jette AM, Chan L, Cooper RA, Duncan PW, et al. Rehabilitation medicine summit; building research capacity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: 913–917.
  3. Stucki G, Celio M. Developing human functioning and rehabilitation research part II: interdisciplinary university centres and national and regional collaboration networks. J Rehabil Med 2007; 39: 334–342.
  4. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine, how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd edn. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
  5. Fuhrer MJ. Overview of clinical trials in medical rehabilitation. Impetuses, challenges, and needed future directions. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82 Suppl: s8–s15.
  6. Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary bio-psychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008; 3.
  7. Stroke Unit Trailists’ Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001; 3.
  8. Whyte J. Using treatment theories to refine the designs of brain injury rehabilitation treatment effectiveness studies. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2006; 21: 99–106.
  9. Mol A. Proving or improving: on health care research as a form of self-reflection. Qual Health Res 2006; 16: 405–414.
  10. Lettinga AT, Twillert van S, Poels B, Postema K. Distinguishing theories of dysfunction, treatment and care. Reflections on “Describing rehabilitation interventions”. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 369–374.
  11. Lambert H, Gordon EJ, Bogdan-Lovis EA. Introduction: gift horse or Trojan horse? Social science perspectives on evidence-based health care. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2613–2620.
  12. Siemonsma PC, Schroder CD, Dekker JHM, Lettinga AT. The benefits of theory for clinical practice: cognitive treatment for chronic low back pain patients as an illustrative example. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 1309–1317.
  13. Tulder van MW, Koes BW, Assendelft W, Bouter LM, Daams J, Driessen G, et al. The effectiveness of conservative treatment of acute and chronic low back pain: summary and recommendations. In: Tulder van MW, Koes BW, Assendelft W, Bouter LM, editors. The effectiveness of conservative treatment of acute and chronic low back pain. Amsterdam: EMGO Institute; 1999: 1b, p. 17–56.
  14. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine 2000; 25: 3115–3124.
  15. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 1998; 78: 1186–1196.
  16. Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal E. The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In: Cameron L, Leventhal H, Editors. The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. London: Routledge; 2003: 3, p. 42–65.
  17. Kazdin AE. Research design in clinical psychology. 4th edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2003.
  18. Kopec JA. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Kopec et al 1995). Austr J Physiother 1997; 43: 38.
  19. Schoppink L, Tulder van MW, Koes BW, Beurskens A, Bie de R. Reliability and validity of the Dutch adaptation of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther 1996; 76: 269–275.
  20. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191–1194.
  21. Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie K, Horne R, Cameron L, Buick D. The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health 2002; 17: 1–16.
  22. Weinman J, Petrie K, Moss-Morris R, Horne R. The illness perception questionnaire: a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of illness. Psychol Health 1996; 11: 431–445.
  23. Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA, Patrick-Miller L,et al. Illness representations: theoretical foundations. In: Petrie KJ, Weinman JA, editors. Perceptions of health and illness. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic; 1997, p. 19–45.
  24. Petrie KJ, Cameron LD, Ellis CJ, Buick D, Weinman J. Changing illness perceptions after myocardial infarction: an early intervention randomized controlled trial. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 580–586.
  25. Ogden J. Illness cognitions. Health Psychology, a textbook. 2nd edn. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press; 2000: 3, p. 36–58.
  26. Nelson L. [The Socratic method]. Amsterdam: Boom; 1994 (in Dutch).
  27. Vincelli F, Choi Y, Molinari E, Wiederhold B, Riva G. Experimental cognitive therapy for the treatment of panic disorders with agoraphobia: definition of a clinical protocol. Cyber Psychol Behav 2000; 3: 375–386.
  28. Strike KA, Posner GJ. A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In: Duschl RA, Hamilton RJ, editors. Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1992: 5, p. 147–176.
  29. Foster NE, Bishop A, Thomas E, Main C, Horne R, Weinman J et al. Illness perceptions of low back pain patients in primary care: what are they, do they change and are they associated with outcome? Pain 2008; 136: 177–187.
  30. Bleichrodt N, Berg van den RH. [Multicultural Capacity Test intermediate education level. User manual.] Amsterdam: NOA; 2004 (in Dutch).
  31. D’Zurilla TJ, Maydeu-Olivares A. Conceptual and methodological issues in social problem-solving assessment. Behav Ther 1995; 26: 409–432.
  32. Maydeu-Olivares A, D’Zurilla TJ. A factor analysis of the social problem-solving inventory using polychoric correlations. Eur J Psych Assessm 1995; 11: 98–107.
  33. Hout van den, J. To solve or not to solve? Effects of problem solving therapy and graded activity in non-specific low back pain. Maastricht: University Maastricht; 2002.
  34. Luteijn F, Starren J, van Dijk H. [Manual of the Dutch Personality Questionnaire.] Revised edition. Lisse: Harcourt Test Publishers; 2000 (in Dutch).
  35. Schreurs PJG, Willige van de G, Brosschot JF, Tellegen B, Graus GMH. [Revised manual of the Utrecht Coping List (UCL]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger 1993 (in Dutch).
  36. Kloens GJ, Barelds DPH, Luteijn F, Schaap CPDR. [The value of some questionnaires in primary care.] Diagnostiek-wijzer 2002; 5: 103–148 (in Dutch).
  37. Kloens GJ, Barelds DPH, Luteijn F, Schaap CPDR. [Prediction of treatment outcome in primary care.] Diagnostiek-wijzer 2004; 7: 4–17 (in Dutch).
  38. Beurskens A, Vet de HCW, Köke A, Lindeman E, Van der Heijden GJ, Regtop W, et al. A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Man Physiol Ther 1999; 22: 144–148.
  39. French DP, Weinman J. Current issues and new directions in psychology and health: “assessing illness perceptions: beyond the IPQ”. Psychol Health 2008; 23: 5–9.
  40. Ostelo R, Tulder van M, Vlaeyen J, Linton S, Morley S, Assendelft W. Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004; 4.
  41. Goldenberg MJ. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: lessons from the philosophy of science. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2621–2632.
  42. Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312: 71–72.
  43. Biswas R, Umakanth S, Sturmberg J, Martin CM, Hande M, Nagra JS. The process of evidence-based medicine and the search for meaning. J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 13: 529–532.
  44. Struhkamp R, Mol A, Swierstra T. Dealing with in/dependence. Doctoring in physical rehabilitation practice. Sci Technol Hum Val 2009; 34: 55–76.
  45. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Speigelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000; 321: 694–696.
  46. Whyte J. Clinical trials in rehabilitation: what are the obstacles? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82 Suppl: s16–s21.


Related articles

There are no related articles.


Actions


Abstract

Full text

PDF

Supplementary


There is no supplementary for this article.

Related articles


Click here to show related articles

Print information


Volume 42, Issue 2

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0492

Pages: 111-116

View at PubMed