From protection to non‐protection: A mixed methods study investigating movement, posture and recovery from disabling low back pain. (5th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wernli, Kevin; Smith, Anne; Coll, Fiona; Campbell, Amity; Kent, Peter; O'Sullivan, Peter
• Is Part Of: European journal of pain. Volume 26:Number 10(2022)
• Page Start: 2097
• Page End: 2119
• Publication Date: 2022-09-05
• Subjects: Pain -- Periodicals; Pain -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Pain -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; 616.0472
• DOI: 10.1002/ejp.2022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1090-3801

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Movement and posture are commonly believed to relate to low back pain (LBP). Yet, we know little about how people make sense of the relationship between their LBP, movement and posture, particularly after recovery. We aimed to qualitatively explore this understanding, how it changes and how it relates to quantitative changes. Methods: A mixed method study in the context of an existing single‐case design involving 12 people with disabling non‐specific LBP. Interviews were conducted before and after a 12‐week physiotherapy‐led Cognitive Functional Therapy intervention, and qualitative findings from these were integrated with individualized, quantitative measures of movement, posture, psychological factors, pain and activity limitation. Results: Strong beliefs about movement and posture were identified during the baseline interviews. Lived experiences of tension and stiffness characterized the embodiment of 'nonconscious protection', while healthcare and societal messages prompted pain‐related fear and 'conscious protection'. Through varied journeys, most participants reported improvements over time with less protective movement and postural strategies. For some, being less protective required focused attention ('conscious non‐protection'), but most returned to automatic, normal and fearless patterns ('nonconscious non‐protection'), forgetting about their LBP. One participant reported no meaningful shift, remaining protective. Greater spinal range, faster movement, more relaxed postures and less back muscle EMG accompanied positive changes in self‐report factors. Conclusion: The findings offer a framework for understanding how people make sense of movement and posture during the process of recovery from persistent, disabling non‐specific LBP. This involved a re‐conceptualisation of movement and posture, from threatening, to therapeutic. Significance: Findings from qualitative interviews before and after a Cognitive Functional Therapy intervention in 12 people with disabling low back pain highlighted an individualized recovery journey from conscious and nonconscious protection to conscious non‐protection for some, and nonconscious non‐protection for many. Pre and post‐quantitative measures of movement, posture, psychological factors, pain and activity limitation integrated well with the qualitative findings. The findings suggest movement and posture may form part of a multidimensional pain schema.