| Retention |
Percentage of reassessed individuals, based on the number of individuals allocated to each group. |
T2
|
| Adherence to treatment |
Percentage of individuals attending more than 75% of the face-to-face sessions, considering those allocated to the program. |
T2
|
| Adherence to home exercises |
Exercise adherence is defined by the extent to which the patient performs the exercises prescribed by a professional. Perceived home exercise adherence was evaluated with the question: “How much of the prescribed home exercises do you consider you’ve performed?”. Scale of 1-5 points, where 1: “I did not perform the exercises”; 2: “I’ve performed the exercises the minority of the times”; 3: “I’ve performed the exercises moderately”; 4: “I’ve performed the exercises most of the time”; 5: “I’ve always performed the exercises as prescribed by the physical therapist”. |
T2
|
| Difficulty in comprehending the intervention |
Difficulty was assessed with the question: “How much difficulty did you have comprehending some information/content during training?”. Scale of 1-5 points, where 1: “No difficulty”; 5: “Extreme difficulty”3030 Sharma S, Jensen MP, Moseley GL, Abbott JH. Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial). BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022423.. |
T2
|
| Difficulty in comprehending the execution of exercises |
Difficulty was assessed using two questions, “How much difficulty did you have comprehending the exercises?” and “How much difficulty did you have performing the exercises at home”? Scale of 1-5 points, where 1: No difficulty; 5: Extreme difficulty3030 Sharma S, Jensen MP, Moseley GL, Abbott JH. Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial). BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022423.. |
T2
|
| Credibility |
Participants assessed the degree of credibility with the question, “How much credibility does the proposed intervention have?”. Scale of 1-5 points, where 1: “No credibility”; 5: “Extreme credibility”3030 Sharma S, Jensen MP, Moseley GL, Abbott JH. Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial). BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022423.. |
T2
|
| Satisfaction |
Participants rated the degree of satisfaction with the question “How satisfied are you with the physical therapy treatment?”. Scale of 1-5 points, where 1: “Very dissatisfied”; 5: “Very satisfied”3030 Sharma S, Jensen MP, Moseley GL, Abbott JH. Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial). BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022423.. |
T2
|
| Adverse Events |
Recording of the patients’ spontaneous report to therapists during the intervention. |
T3
|
| Pain intensity |
Numerical Pain Rating Scale NPRS (0-10 points, where zero = no pain; 10 = worse imaginable pain at the time of assessment)3131 Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(11):1331-4.. |
T1, T2
|
| Disability |
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) - 0-24 point scale, where the higher the score, the higher the disability3232 Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, Goldenberg J. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire - Brazil Roland-Morris. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34(2):203-10.. |
T1, T2
|
| Self-efficacy |
Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSS) - Divided into three subscales: self-efficacy (SE) for pain management, SE for physical function, and SE for coping with symptoms. Each question has answering options ranging in a score from 10 to 100 within a Likert-type scale. The total score of the questionnaire can range from 30 to 300 points, the higher the score the better the individual’s SE3333 Salvetti MG, Pimenta CAM. Validação da Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale para a língua portuguesa. Arch Clin Psychiatry (São Paulo). 2005;32(4):202-10.. |
T1
|
| Kinesiophobia |
Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia - Composed of 17 statements with four response options each, whether totally agree, partially agree, totally disagree or partially disagree. Its score ranges from 17 to 68 points3434 Siqueira FB, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Magalhães LC. Análise das propriedades psicométricas da versão brasileira da escala tampa de cinesiofobia. Acta Ortop Bras. 2007;15(1):19-24.. |
T1
|
| Level of physical activities |
International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). It consists of eight questions about days and time spent in the last week doing moderate and vigorous activities and walking. The time spent sitting on a normal weekday and at the weekend is verified. The score for each activity is given in Metabolic Equivalents of Tasks (MET) and individuals are classified as insufficiently active, moderately active, or very active. The result of the time spent sitting is given in minutes. This variable does not affect the individual’s physical activity level results.3535 Matsudo S, Araújo T, Marsudo V, Andrade D, Andrade E, Braggion G. Questionário internacional de atividade física (IPAQ): estudo de validade e reprodutibilidade no Brasil. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde. 2001;5-18.
|
T1
|
| Trunk mobility |
Fingertip-to-floor Test (FFT). Quantifies the trunk mobility of an individual during an anterior trunk flexion using a tape measure, measuring the distance in cm between the finger and the floor. The higher the result in cm, the lower the mobility3636 Perret C, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J, Lefèvre Colau MM, Mayoux Benhamou MA, Revel M. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the fingertip-to-floor test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(11):1566-70.. |
T1
|
| Prognosis of recovery |
START Back Screening Tool (SBST). Assess the risk of poor prognosis of recovery from LBP, composed of 9 questions: questions 1 to 4 are related to pain and disability, and questions 5 to 9 are related to psychosocial factors. The score ranges from 0 to 9 and classifies the individual into high, medium, or low risk for poor recovery prognosis.3737 Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Marcondes FB, Lodovichi SS, Mello W, Grossi DB. The Brazilian version of STarT Back Screening Tool - translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18(5):453-61.
|
T1
|
Thumbnail
