Self-efficacy and embodiment associated with Alexander Technique lessons or with acupuncture sessions: A longitudinal qualitative sub-study within the ATLAS trial

Background and purpose

A large randomised controlled trial found that the provision of either Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture, for those with chronic neck pain, resulted in significantly increased self-efficacy when compared with usual care alone. In turn, enhanced self-efficacy was associated with significant reductions in neck pain at 6 and 12 months. In this analysis we explore the perspectives of participants within the trial, with the aim of gaining a better understanding of how these interventions had an impact.

Methods

We used a longitudinal qualitative approach; in-depth interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted with a sample of the trial population. Participants were interviewed twice: at around six months (n = 30) and twelve months (n = 26) after trial entry. Analysis was guided by the principles of grounded theory, and key themes were developed.

Results

Five key themes emerged: pre-trial experiences of biomedical treatment against which subsequent interventions were compared; emergence of tangible benefits from the interventions; factors that contributed to the observed benefits, notably growing self-care and self-efficacy; a developing sense of embodiment as an integral part of the transformative process; and contribution of these factors to sustaining benefits over the longer term.

Conclusions

In-depth interviews revealed a rich array of experiences. They gave insight into the positive impact of the interventions on development of self-care, self-efficacy and embodiment. These findings complement the quantitative trial data, providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors that underpin the previously quantified improvement in self-efficacy and its association with longer-term reductions in pain.

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS)

Objectives

To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients.

Methods

An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was measured using the generic EQ-5D to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as using a specific neck pain measure–the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ).

Results

In the base case analysis, incremental QALY gains were 0.032 and 0.025 in the acupuncture and Alexander groups, respectively, in comparison to usual GP care, indicating moderate health benefits for both interventions. Incremental costs were £451 for acupuncture and £667 for Alexander, mainly driven by intervention costs. Acupuncture was likely to be cost-effective (ICER = £18,767/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI £4,426 to £74,562) and was robust to most sensitivity analyses. Alexander lessons were not cost-effective at the lower NICE threshold of £20,000/QALY (£25,101/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI -£150,208 to £248,697) but may be at £30,000/QALY, however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in all tested scenarios.

Conclusions

In comparison with usual care, acupuncture is likely to be cost-effective for chronic neck pain, whereas, largely due to higher intervention costs, Alexander lessons are unlikely to be cost-effective. However, there were high levels of missing data and further research is needed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Alexander Technique Lessons or Acupuncture Sessions for Persons With Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic neck pain may benefit from additional active self-care-oriented approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture versus usual care for persons with chronic, nonspecific neck pain.

DESIGN

Three-group randomized, controlled trial. (Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN15186354).

SETTING

U.K. primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons with neck pain lasting at least 3 months, a score of at least 28% on the Northwick Park Questionnaire (NPQ) for neck pain and associated disability, and no serious underlying pathology.

INTERVENTION

12 acupuncture sessions or 20 one-to-one Alexander lessons (both 600 minutes total) plus usual care versus usual care alone.

MEASUREMENTS

NPQ score (primary outcome) at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months (primary end point) and Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale score, quality of life, and adverse events (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

517 patients were recruited, and the median duration of neck pain was 6 years. Mean attendance was 10 acupuncture sessions and 14 Alexander lessons. Between-group reductions in NPQ score at 12 months versus usual care were 3.92 percentage points for acupuncture (95% CI, 0.97 to 6.87 percentage points) (P = 0.009) and 3.79 percentage points for Alexander lessons (CI, 0.91 to 6.66 percentage points) (P = 0.010). The 12-month reductions in NPQ score from baseline were 32% for acupuncture and 31% for Alexander lessons. Participant self-efficacy improved for both interventions versus usual care at 6 months (P < 0.001) and was significantly associated (P < 0.001) with 12-month NPQ score reductions (acupuncture, 3.34 percentage points [CI, 2.31 to 4.38 percentage points]; Alexander lessons, 3.33 percentage points [CI, 2.22 to 4.44 percentage points]). No reported serious adverse events were considered probably or definitely related to either intervention.

LIMITATION

Practitioners belonged to the 2 main U.K.-based professional associations, which may limit generalizability of the findings.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture sessions and Alexander Technique lessons both led to significant reductions in neck pain and associated disability compared with usual care at 12 months. Enhanced self-efficacy may partially explain why longer-term benefits were sustained.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Arthritis Research UK.

Continuity, commitment and context: adult siblings of people with autism plus learning disability

Sibling relationships are usually lifelong and reciprocal. They can assume particular significance when a brother or sister has a learning disability. Until recently, adult siblings of people with disabilities such as severe autism have been ignored by policy, practice and research. This qualitative study contributes to an emerging literature by exploring how adult siblings, who have a brother or sister with autism (plus learning disability) and living in England, give meaning to their family (and caring) relationships and engage with service delivery. We spoke to 21 adult siblings using semi-structured interviews and met with 12 of their siblings with autism. Our analysis, using a broad narrative approach, demonstrates the continuity of the sibling relationship and an enduring personalised commitment. The nature of this relationship, however, is sensitive to context. How non-disabled adult siblings relate to their childhood experience is fundamental when making sense of this, as is their need to fulfil other social and family obligations, alongside their 'sense of duty' to support their disabled brother or sister. Sibling experience was further mediated by negotiating their 'perceived invisibility' in social care policy and practice. Our work concludes that by understanding the way relationships between siblings have developed over time, adult siblings' contribution to the lives of their brother or sister with autism can be better supported for the benefit of both parties. Such an approach would support current policy developments.

Alexander Technique Lessons, Acupuncture Sessions or usual care for patients with chronic neck pain (ATLAS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic neck pain is a common condition in the adult population. More research is needed to evaluate interventions aiming to facilitate beneficial long-term change. We propose to evaluate the effect of Alexander Technique lessons and acupuncture in a rigorously conducted pragmatic trial with an embedded qualitative study.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will recruit 500 patients who have been diagnosed with neck pain in primary care, who have continued to experience neck pain for at least three months with 28% minimum cut-off score on the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). We will exclude patients with serious underlying pathology, prior cervical spine surgery, history of psychosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoporosis, haemophilia, cancer, HIV or hepatitis, or with alcohol or drug dependency currently or in the last 12 months, or actively pursuing compensation or with pending litigation.The York Trials Unit will randomly allocate participants using a secure computer-based system. We will use block randomisation with allocation to each intervention arm being unambiguously concealed from anyone who might subvert the randomisation process.Participants will be randomised in equal proportions to Alexander Technique lessons, acupuncture or usual care alone. Twenty 30-minute Alexander Technique lessons will be provided by teachers registered with the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique and twelve 50-minute sessions of acupuncture will be provided by acupuncturists registered with the British Acupuncture Council. All participants will continue to receive usual GP care.The primary outcome will be the NPQ at 12 months, with the secondary time point at 6 months, and an area-under-curve analysis will include 3, 6 and 12 month time-points. Adverse events will be documented. Potential intervention effect modifiers and mediators to be explored include: self-efficacy, stress management, and the incorporation of practitioner advice about self-care and lifestyle. Qualitative material will be used to address issues of safety, acceptability and factors that impact on longer term outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide robust evidence on whether there are significant clinical benefits to patients, economic benefits demonstrating value for money, and sufficient levels of acceptability and safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15186354.