Basic Body Awareness Therapy and patient education in hip osteoarthritis: a multiple case study

Basic Body Awareness Therapy versus standard care in hip osteoarthritis. A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Compensational movement patterns in hip osteoarthritis (HOA) are associated with hip dysfunction. Basic Body Awareness Therapy (BBAT) promotes functional movement quality and might, accordingly, be beneficial in HOA.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the outcomes of BBAT compared to standard care in people with HOA after first receiving patient education (PE).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, assessor-blinded, and block-randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Community-living adults with HOA participating in PE were randomly allocated to an intervention group receiving BBAT in groups (12 sessions offered once a week), or a comparison group. Data at baseline (pretest) and at 6 months (posttest) were analyzed. Primary outcomes were pain during walking assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and function by the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, subscale ADL (HOOS A). Secondary outcomes addressed physical capacity, movement quality, and self-reported aspects of function and health.

RESULTS

At pretest, there were no significant differences in demographic and test data between the intervention (n = 51) and the comparison (n = 50) group. Forty-one intervention and 45 comparison participants completed the posttest. At posttest, no significant differences in change between groups were found on NRS (p = 0.694, effect size (ES) = 0.02) or HOOS A (p = 0.783, ES = 0.07). Among secondary outcomes, movement quality improved significantly more (p < 0.001, ES = 0.84) in the intervention group. Compliance with BBAT varied substantially. Per-protocol analysis showed changes in favor of the intervention group for self-efficacy (p = 0.049, ES = 0.36), health (p = 0.037, ES = 0.44), and function (p = 0.029, ES = 0.53) when only intervention participants who completed at least 10 sessions of BBAT were included.

CONCLUSIONS

BBAT was not found to be a more effective treatment modality than self-initiated standard care to reduce pain during walking and improve daily functioning in people with HOA. Movement quality was significantly more improved in participants receiving BBAT, and improvement in other health aspects was associated with sufficient therapy compliance.

Descriptions of movement experiences in the Body Awareness Rating Scale - Movement Quality and Experience evaluation. A qualitative study of patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis

Background: Patients' access to movement experiences is implemented in the evaluation tool Body Awareness Rating Scale - Movement Quality and Experience, with its two intertwined parts: 1) the physiotherapist's observations of movement quality; and 2) the patient's descriptions of immediate movement experiences.Objective: To study movement experiences and reflections described by patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis when guided to explore simple daily-life movements in this particular evaluation context.Design: An explorative qualitative study with open-ended questions following each of the 12 movements integrated into the evaluation.Methods: 35 participants diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis were included; 28 women and 7 men, aged 23-78 years. Their descriptions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed in accordance with qualitative content analysis.Results: The patients described experiences of a dynamic adaptation of movement strategies based on sensations from the moving body. Two interrelated categories of movement awareness were identified: 1) Experienced movement challenges, including three sub-categories; a) Lack of contact, b) Movement changed by symptoms, and c) Compensational movement habits, and 2) Movement components promoting well-being, including three sub-categories; a) Integrating balance, breathing and awareness into movement, b) Small, simple, soft and safe movements, and c) A taste of own movement resources for daily life.Conclusions: The Body Awareness Rating Scale - Movement Quality and Experience provides a platform for patients to become aware of and describe their movement habits and resources in own words, intertwined with the physiotherapist movement observations. Derived descriptions reflect a patient perspective to be implemented in therapy.

Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists

BACKGROUND

The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations.

DESIGN

This study was a cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75% confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa.

RESULTS

Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5%) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from -0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0% of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1% of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24% of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes.

LIMITATIONS

The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapists are basically similar in their treatment orientation or the PABS is not able to detect any differences between them.