Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain

Gemma Mansell, Kjersti Storheim, Ida Løchting, Erik L. Werner, Margreth Grotle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background
Many interventions for the treatment of low back pain exist, but the mechanisms through which such treatments work are not always clear. This situation is especially true for biopsychosocial interventions that incorporate several different components and methods of delivery.

Objective
The study objective was to examine the indirect effects of the Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) intervention via illness perceptions, back pain myths, and pain catastrophizing on disability outcome.

Design
This study was a secondary analysis of the COPE randomized controlled trial.

Methods
Mediation analysis techniques were employed to examine the indirect effects of the COPE intervention via residualized change (baseline – posttreatment) in the 3 variables hypothesized to be targeted by the COPE intervention on posttreatment disability outcome. Pain intensity at baseline, pain duration, clinician type, and a treatment-mediator interaction term were controlled for in the analysis.

Results
Preliminary analyses confirmed that changes in pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions (not back pain myths) were related to both allocation to the intervention arm and posttreatment disability score. The treatment exerted statistically significant indirect effects via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability score (illness perceptions standardized indirect effect = 0.09 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.16]; pain catastrophizing standardized indirect effect = 0.05 [95% CI = 0.01 to 0.12]). However, the inclusion of an interaction term led to the indirect effects being significantly reduced, with the effects no longer being statistically significant.

Limitations
This study presents a secondary analysis of variables not identified a priori as being potentially important treatment targets; other, unmeasured factors could also be important in explaining treatment effects.

Conclusions
The finding that small indirect effects of the COPE intervention via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability could be estimated indicates that these variables may be viable treatment targets for biopsychosocial interventions; however, this finding must be viewed in light of the adjusted analyses, which showed that the indirect effects were significantly reduced through the inclusion of a treatment-mediator interaction term.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1138-1146
JournalPhysical Therapy
Volume97
Issue number12
Early online date6 Sep 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

Fingerprint

Patient Education
Low Back Pain
Catastrophization
Therapeutics
Back Pain
Pain
Randomized Controlled Trials

Bibliographical note

© Crown copyright 2015

Cite this

Mansell, G., Storheim, K., Løchting, I., Werner, E. L., & Grotle, M. (2017). Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain. Physical Therapy, 97(12), 1138-1146. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx091
Mansell, Gemma ; Storheim, Kjersti ; Løchting, Ida ; Werner, Erik L. ; Grotle, Margreth. / Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain. In: Physical Therapy. 2017 ; Vol. 97, No. 12. pp. 1138-1146.
@article{57f19cef3fe34452a9049e3fd4981590,
title = "Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain",
abstract = "BackgroundMany interventions for the treatment of low back pain exist, but the mechanisms through which such treatments work are not always clear. This situation is especially true for biopsychosocial interventions that incorporate several different components and methods of delivery.ObjectiveThe study objective was to examine the indirect effects of the Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) intervention via illness perceptions, back pain myths, and pain catastrophizing on disability outcome.DesignThis study was a secondary analysis of the COPE randomized controlled trial.MethodsMediation analysis techniques were employed to examine the indirect effects of the COPE intervention via residualized change (baseline – posttreatment) in the 3 variables hypothesized to be targeted by the COPE intervention on posttreatment disability outcome. Pain intensity at baseline, pain duration, clinician type, and a treatment-mediator interaction term were controlled for in the analysis.ResultsPreliminary analyses confirmed that changes in pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions (not back pain myths) were related to both allocation to the intervention arm and posttreatment disability score. The treatment exerted statistically significant indirect effects via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability score (illness perceptions standardized indirect effect = 0.09 [95{\%} CI = 0.03 to 0.16]; pain catastrophizing standardized indirect effect = 0.05 [95{\%} CI = 0.01 to 0.12]). However, the inclusion of an interaction term led to the indirect effects being significantly reduced, with the effects no longer being statistically significant.LimitationsThis study presents a secondary analysis of variables not identified a priori as being potentially important treatment targets; other, unmeasured factors could also be important in explaining treatment effects.ConclusionsThe finding that small indirect effects of the COPE intervention via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability could be estimated indicates that these variables may be viable treatment targets for biopsychosocial interventions; however, this finding must be viewed in light of the adjusted analyses, which showed that the indirect effects were significantly reduced through the inclusion of a treatment-mediator interaction term.",
author = "Gemma Mansell and Kjersti Storheim and Ida L{\o}chting and Werner, {Erik L.} and Margreth Grotle",
note = "{\circledC} Crown copyright 2015",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ptj/pzx091",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "1138--1146",
number = "12",

}

Mansell, G, Storheim, K, Løchting, I, Werner, EL & Grotle, M 2017, 'Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain', Physical Therapy, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 1138-1146. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx091

Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain. / Mansell, Gemma; Storheim, Kjersti; Løchting, Ida; Werner, Erik L.; Grotle, Margreth.

In: Physical Therapy, Vol. 97, No. 12, 01.12.2017, p. 1138-1146.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identification of Indirect Effects in a Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) Intervention for Low Back Pain

AU - Mansell, Gemma

AU - Storheim, Kjersti

AU - Løchting, Ida

AU - Werner, Erik L.

AU - Grotle, Margreth

N1 - © Crown copyright 2015

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - BackgroundMany interventions for the treatment of low back pain exist, but the mechanisms through which such treatments work are not always clear. This situation is especially true for biopsychosocial interventions that incorporate several different components and methods of delivery.ObjectiveThe study objective was to examine the indirect effects of the Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) intervention via illness perceptions, back pain myths, and pain catastrophizing on disability outcome.DesignThis study was a secondary analysis of the COPE randomized controlled trial.MethodsMediation analysis techniques were employed to examine the indirect effects of the COPE intervention via residualized change (baseline – posttreatment) in the 3 variables hypothesized to be targeted by the COPE intervention on posttreatment disability outcome. Pain intensity at baseline, pain duration, clinician type, and a treatment-mediator interaction term were controlled for in the analysis.ResultsPreliminary analyses confirmed that changes in pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions (not back pain myths) were related to both allocation to the intervention arm and posttreatment disability score. The treatment exerted statistically significant indirect effects via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability score (illness perceptions standardized indirect effect = 0.09 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.16]; pain catastrophizing standardized indirect effect = 0.05 [95% CI = 0.01 to 0.12]). However, the inclusion of an interaction term led to the indirect effects being significantly reduced, with the effects no longer being statistically significant.LimitationsThis study presents a secondary analysis of variables not identified a priori as being potentially important treatment targets; other, unmeasured factors could also be important in explaining treatment effects.ConclusionsThe finding that small indirect effects of the COPE intervention via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability could be estimated indicates that these variables may be viable treatment targets for biopsychosocial interventions; however, this finding must be viewed in light of the adjusted analyses, which showed that the indirect effects were significantly reduced through the inclusion of a treatment-mediator interaction term.

AB - BackgroundMany interventions for the treatment of low back pain exist, but the mechanisms through which such treatments work are not always clear. This situation is especially true for biopsychosocial interventions that incorporate several different components and methods of delivery.ObjectiveThe study objective was to examine the indirect effects of the Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) intervention via illness perceptions, back pain myths, and pain catastrophizing on disability outcome.DesignThis study was a secondary analysis of the COPE randomized controlled trial.MethodsMediation analysis techniques were employed to examine the indirect effects of the COPE intervention via residualized change (baseline – posttreatment) in the 3 variables hypothesized to be targeted by the COPE intervention on posttreatment disability outcome. Pain intensity at baseline, pain duration, clinician type, and a treatment-mediator interaction term were controlled for in the analysis.ResultsPreliminary analyses confirmed that changes in pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions (not back pain myths) were related to both allocation to the intervention arm and posttreatment disability score. The treatment exerted statistically significant indirect effects via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability score (illness perceptions standardized indirect effect = 0.09 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.16]; pain catastrophizing standardized indirect effect = 0.05 [95% CI = 0.01 to 0.12]). However, the inclusion of an interaction term led to the indirect effects being significantly reduced, with the effects no longer being statistically significant.LimitationsThis study presents a secondary analysis of variables not identified a priori as being potentially important treatment targets; other, unmeasured factors could also be important in explaining treatment effects.ConclusionsThe finding that small indirect effects of the COPE intervention via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability could be estimated indicates that these variables may be viable treatment targets for biopsychosocial interventions; however, this finding must be viewed in light of the adjusted analyses, which showed that the indirect effects were significantly reduced through the inclusion of a treatment-mediator interaction term.

UR - https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/97/12/1138/4107111

U2 - 10.1093/ptj/pzx091

DO - 10.1093/ptj/pzx091

M3 - Article

C2 - 29186635

VL - 97

SP - 1138

EP - 1146

IS - 12

ER -