Abstract
Background
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting 60–80% of the general population within their lifetime. Given the large numbers of people affected, self-management approaches have been introduced as a way to manage this condition with endorsement by the national institute for health and care excellence. Interventions are often termed self-management without defining either content or goals. Our study sought to determine the content, characteristics, and evidence for self-management of CLBP.
Methods
This narrative review was conducted using a systematic approach to search journal articles in English that focused on CLBP self-management. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were used to identify publications with terms relating to back pain and self-management from January 2016 until January 2022.
Results
In total, 15 studies were found suitable for inclusion in the review. Core components of self-management strategies include exercise, education, and psychological interventions, but there was a lack of consistency with respect to content. Intervention characteristics were either under-reported or varied. Furthermore, outcome measures used to assess these self-management programmes were diverse, mainly focusing on functional disability and pain intensity.
Conclusions
Inconsistencies in the content of self-management interventions, intervention characteristics, and outcome measures used for assessing self-management programmes were found across the literature. Current self-management approaches do not consider the complex biopsychosocial nature of CLBP. A consensus on the key components of self-management interventions, and how they should be evaluated, will pave the way for research to determine whether self-management can effectively manage CLBP.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a condition characterised by long-term and persistent pain in the lumbosacral area [1]. In more than 90% of CLBP cases, there is no specific cause, and these cases are often referred to as non-specific CLBP [2]. CLBP is one of the most common musculoskeletal problems, with a lifetime prevalence of 40% in the global adult population [3]. More than two-thirds of individuals have a recurrence within 12 months after recovery [4]. In addition to the personal toll, CLBP poses an enormous economic burden on society and presents a considerable challenge for healthcare systems. Total annual healthcare costs associated with back pain were estimated to be approximately £2.8 billion for direct costs and £10.7 billion for indirect costs in the UK [5, 6]. In the past, pharmaceutical and passive interventions, such as electrotherapy, ultrasound, and traction, have been widely recommended to manage CLBP, but with only short-term effects and limited evidence supporting their use [7].
In line with other chronic diseases, CLBP management has shifted from a clinician-led management model to one in which patients play a crucial role in their care, as advocated by the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline [8]. According to the biopsychosocial model [9], CLBP is an interaction of physical, psychological, and social influences as opposed to a monocausal somatic disease [10]. This has resulted in multidisciplinary self-management approaches using a biopsychosocial care model as an approach for managing CLBP problems [11]. Over the past five years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the self-management of CLBP, and it is considered a promising ‘treatment option’ [12]. A self-management approach has been endorsed by many published national and international clinical guidelines to aid in the long-term management of back pain symptoms [13,14,15,16] and by the STarT back screening tool for low risk back pain patients [17].
Although a self-management approach is widely recommended for treating CLBP, its definition and descriptions of its content are vague and unclear [18, 19]. Terms related to the patient’s active involvement in managing their condition, like self-care, self-management, self-help, and multidisciplinary management, are often used interchangeably without clear definitions and presentation of the underlying theory [20, 21]. At the same time, most give only a conceptual or general definition of self-management interventions and lack clear goals and specific contents [8, 13, 15, 16].
Therefore, it is necessary to define what self-management means and what treatments/contents it should encompass. Understanding what evidence exists to support its use as a treatment for managing CLBP is also crucial. Thus, the purpose of this narrative review was to synthesise the findings concerning the content, characteristics, and evidence regarding the effectiveness of self-management interventions for CLBP. More specifically, the review aimed to address the following questions:
-
(i)
What are the components (content) of self-management interventions for CLBP, and what is the evidence for each component?
-
(ii)
What are the key characteristics of self-management interventions for CLBP?
-
(iii)
What outcome measures and metrics have been used for the evaluation of self-management programmes for CLBP?
Main text
Study design
A narrative approach was taken to synthesise the literature on CLBP subsequent to the NICE guidance published in 2016 [8]. This involves a thoughtful, in-depth, and critically reflective process, with the aim of improving the understanding of current concepts of CLBP self-management [22]. In this narrative review, an inclusive search strategy was developed, encompassing both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Search strategy
A systematic approach was used to search literature using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO with the following keywords: chronic low back pain, low back pain, self-management, self-care, multidisciplinary, multicomponent, mobile applications, patient education, exercise, and cognitive behavioural therapy (Online Appendix A). An iterative approach to searching the literature was used, where the research team and a specialist librarian helped refine the search terms until a final strategy was decided.
An initial search was conducted on January 2021 and limited to articles published since January 2016 to capture those published since the updated NICE guidelines [8], until December 2020. The search was repeated in March 2022 to ensure that any relevant new publications were incorporated into the review.
Eligibility criteria
Criteria for inclusion in the review were: (i) report of at least one self-management approach that encouraged patients to be actively involved in the management of their condition, such as unsupervised exercise programs or patient education, (ii) evaluation of a self-management intervention, (iii) adult participants (> 18 years) with LBP of greater than or equal to 12-week duration, and (iv) English language publications since 2016. Exclusion criteria were: (i) case reports or conference abstracts, (ii) low back pain with specific pathologies, such as infection, neoplasm, fracture, inflammatory disease, radiculopathy, and sciatica, (iii) CLBP management involving passive physical modalities, such as manual therapy and physical modality, (iv) intervention was delivered by face-to-face session or occurred at healthcare or public setting without using the terms ‘self-management’ or ‘self-care’.
Study selection
Firstly, title and abstract selection were performed by one of the reviewers (TZ) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following a discussion with the research team, the same reviewer screened full-text papers from the abstract selection with the same eligibility criteria in the second stage. Any doubts were resolved through discussion with the other two reviewers (AM and DS).
Data extraction
The theoretical rationale, delivery mode, intervention provider, location of the evaluation of the intervention, intervention schedule and intensity, theme and content of treatment and control groups were extracted independently from included articles by one reviewer (TZ). In addition, we also extracted data on which outcome measures and metrics were used to evaluate the interventions. When there were doubts, a consensus was reached within the review team.
Results
Search process
An initial search for the period January 2016 to December 2020 was conducted on January 2021 and identified 8152 potential publications. A total of 7977 articles were excluded after removal of duplicates and after a review of their title and abstracts, leaving 175 articles. The remaining studies were subsequently read and evaluated according to the inclusion criteria, and a further 163 studies were excluded. The main reasons for excluding articles: the topic was irrelevant to our subject, the intervention was not defined using the terms “self-management”, and the study design was a case report, review, or study protocol. Finally, 12 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and were considered in the review. The subsequent and updated search for the period from January 2021 to January 2022 was conducted on March 2022 to gather the most up-to-date evidence. A total of 1603 studies were found, of which three studies were included in the review after screening. Finally, 15 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and were considered in the review [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Figure 1 shows the cumulative search results at each stage of selection and the main reasons for exclusion. The characteristics of each selected trial are described in Online Appendix B.
Self-management intervention contents
The range of the different self-management components identified across included studies are summarised in Table 1. Although there are different self-management components, the main self-management components are broadly classified as (i) exercise, (ii) education, and (iii) psychological interventions.
Each of these components has a number of subcomponents. Exercise encompassed core stabilisation exercises (n = 6/12), stretching (n = 6/12), strengthening exercises (n = 4/12), aerobic exercises (n = 4/12), aquatic exercises (n = 2/12), and yoga (n = 1/12). Education included information on CLBP mechanisms (n = 4/7), ergonomics (n = 4/7), lifestyle change (n = 3/7), and medication use (n = 2/7). Psychological interventions consisted of CBT (n = 1/2) and mindfulness and meditation (n = 1/2).
Key characteristics of self-management interventions
Theoretical underpinning
Of the 15 included articles, four studies were theoretically driven, with two studies adopting a biopsychosocial model [23, 25], that considers multidisciplinary rehabilitation interventions, including biological, psychological, and social factors, to address the complex nature of CLBP. One study adopted the self-regulatory model of illness cognitions [24], where an individual confronts a potential illness via symptom perception and social messages. Also, one study utilised the Alignment, Core muscles, and Endogenous activation (ACE) concept [32], which consists of 3 types of exercise therapy for CLBP: Alignment-optimising postural alignment; Core muscles-strengthening deep muscles; and Endogenous activation-activating endogenous substances in the body.
Delivery mode
Eight (53%) of the 15 included studies described the modes of intervention delivery. Of these, four studies delivered self-management interventions using the internet [34,35,36,37], and two provided written information (e.g. booklet and leaflet) [26, 32]. In addition, two studies reported using a hybrid model of both face-to-face sessions and written information to deliver self-management interventions [24, 25].
Intervention provider
Only three studies reported explicit information about who developed the intervention: two of these interventions involved a multidisciplinary team [23, 24], and one intervention was provided by a physiotherapist [25].
The location of the evaluation of the intervention
Apart from 2 of the included articles, 13 studies showed explicit information about where and how the outcomes were obtained. Self-management evaluation metrics for the included studies were delivered in two settings: the clinic or a remote environment. Outcome measurements in 6 included articles were performed in the laboratory or clinic by an assessor who was either a trained and experienced physiotherapist, physician or healthcare professional [24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33]. In contrast, 7 of the included articles assessed outcome measures remotely using questionnaires distributed via the internet, mail, or telephone [23, 26, 29, 34,35,36,37].
Intervention duration, frequency, and duration of session
Intervention duration varied greatly, with two studies lasting less than eight weeks [24, 31] and four studies lasting eight weeks or more [23, 28, 29, 32]. The intervention dose prescribed among articles ranged from the equivalent of 6 sessions to the equivalent of 24 sessions. Each session ranged in duration from 30 min to 2 h.
Outcome measures and metrics of CLBP self-management
The majority of outcomes were evaluated using measures of functional disability and pain intensity, followed by quality of life, and fear-avoidance beliefs (Fig. 2). All outcome measures can be classified under the broad categories of (i) clinical measures, (ii) health status measures, (iii) psychological measures, and (iv) physical function measures. Details associated with metrics for each outcome are summarised in Table 2.
Primary outcomes
Only 7 of the 15 studies defined their primary outcomes; functional disability was used as the primary outcome in 4/7(57%) studies [24, 34, 35, 37], and pain intensity was chosen as the primary outcome in 4/7(57%) studies [32, 34,35,36]. Some less common primary outcomes were noted in this review, including achieving educational objectives 1/7(14%) [23] and the condition of care-seeking 1/7(14%) [34]. The evaluation of educational objectives focuses on returning to work, resuming physical activities, or better pain management, and improved body knowledge. The number of LBP consultations was used to assess the condition of care-seeking, included visiting a GP, a physiotherapist, a chiropractor, emergency department, surgical procedure or seek self-management (e.g. medication, heat pack).
Evidence of each component for CLBP self-management
Reviewing evidence for each component of management was beyond the scope of this review. In this section, we seek to highlight the current existing evidence level for supporting each component of care. A literature search was therefore conducted to find the most recent highest quality systematic review for each LBP self-management component. Systematic reviews published in the last five years (from 2018 to 2022) focusing on general and chronic LBP were searched. If no systematic reviews were found within the past 5 years, the search date was extended to the past 7 years. If more than one systematic review was found regarding a specific treatment component in the past 5 years, the assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool based on identification of critical domains [38] was used to assess the highest quality paper. The process of AMSTAR is described in Online Appendix C. The results showed that almost all self-management components reported in the management of CLBP were supported by high level of evidence, apart from the use of progressive muscle techniques. Table 3 summarises key systematic reviews and meta-analysis pertinent to the management of CLBP and the self-management components identified.
Discussion
Self-management intervention content
Exercise, education, and psychological interventions were identified as core components for the self-management of CLBP. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consistency in describing the specific contents of self-management programmes. Variation in content is possible due to differences in the definition of self-management, leading to different management strategies [18]. In addition, self-management interventions reported in the literature are frequently poorly defined. The extent of descriptions of the intervention content varied across studies, but the details provided were generally sparse: descriptions were either brief or completely lacking in the included studies. This leaves self-management open and difficult to interpret and replicate [53]. A systematic review also found that people with LBP strongly desire clear and consistent information on self-management strategies [54]; however, in the scientific literature such information is not readily available.
Use of theoretical underpinnings
The theoretical underpinnings for using self-management interventions for CLBP were poorly reported and were rarely explicitly mentioned across the included studies. This finding is in line with a review in 2015 where only three of their 22 included studies were classified as ‘theory informed’ [20]. The lack of a rationale is considered a significant setback in developing effective interventions [55, 56], which may explain some of the heterogeneity in effectiveness observed. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) advocates drawing on theory for developing and evaluating complex interventions [57]. Interventions developed using a theoretical framework contribute to understanding how and why interventions work, allowing researchers to focus on understanding the mechanisms of change and enabling theories to be empirically tested and ultimately improved [55, 58].
CLBP is a complex multifactor pathology that causes physical pain and impaired functioning and impacts psychological health and social or work-related behaviours [59]. Complex multidisciplinary treatments underpinned by a biopsychosocial framework are generally accepted for the self-management of CLBP [60] and have been strongly recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) for guiding CLBP management [9, 61]. In terms of intervention content, however, there are few studies identified in this review of self-management interventions that were developed based on a complex intervention framework using a bio-psycho-social model. Most of the self-management interventions in this review were based on a traditional biomedical model with the intervention focused on exercise only. Some recent reviews also found that a mechanistic paradigm (e.g. muscle strength, flexibility, stabilisation and motor control) was the most commonly proposed treatment target for interventions in people with CLBP [62, 63]. It appears that people tend to develop self-management strategies including individual components of care that they can deliver remotely rather than a contextual approach which considers how different components of care interact to enable a comprehensive care package for complex problems such as CLBP.
Self-management characteristics
In terms of other aspects of the self-management intervention, intervention characteristics were either under-reported or varied. Under-reporting and inconsistency in the intervention provider, mechanism of delivery, intervention schedule and intensity were evident in most studies of self-management for CLBP. Inadequate and inconsistent intervention descriptions are a common problem, particularly in complex interventions that include multiple components and techniques [53, 64]. However, researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings without a clear and consistent description of the intervention, and it confuses clinicians, patients, and other decision-makers on how to implement the intervention specifically [65]. Furthermore, under-reporting and wide variations in the content of interventions will impact outcomes.
Mode of delivery also varied, some delivered self-management interventions merely via the internet and written information, and some used a hybrid mode to deliver self-management interventions including face-to-face workshops and written materials. The face-to-face workshop approach provides support and guidance from healthcare professionals to ensure participants understand self-management materials and allows patient doubts and questions to be answered. With hybrid mode attention has to be given as it is not a thorough autonomic self-care model, the communication between clinicians and patients usually gives participants additional advice and support. The clinician–patient interaction thus will have potentially implications on the effectiveness of care [66].
Furthermore, despite some articles calling their intervention “self-management”, some of aspects of these interventions were carried out in a healthcare setting, e.g. an assessor performing outcome measurements in the laboratory or clinic. Physical interactions with the clinician and assessor even if only at assessment point may provide a level of reassurance, potentially impacting on outcomes [67] and subsequent translation of effectiveness.
Outcome measures
The outcome measures used in the literature to assess CLBP self-management programmes were varied, covering a wide range of domains from clinical, health status, and psychological measurements, to measures of physical function. Most studies evaluated the programmes through improvements in health status, psychological status, and physical function. However, behaviour changes specific to the aims of the intervention were not assessed, nor were metrics of engagement, such as participation or dropout rates. Self-management interventions aim to help people to manage their symptoms by learning and adopting health behaviours [18]. It is therefore important to assess clinical and health-status outcomes, which can reflect the effectiveness of intervention content, and behaviour outcomes, which can assess self-management adherence [68].
Most studies focused on measuring changes in clinical improvements. Regardless of what self-management interventions consist of in the literature, functional disability and pain intensity have been the most common outcome measures used to date. However, these outcomes may not have been specifically relevant to the intervention and may not reflect their effectiveness. For example, when the self-management strategy consists of educational or psychological interventions, the outcome measures often focus on pain and disability rather than other immediate process outcomes, such as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, anxiety, and depression. Outcome measures highly associated with the clinical event data (content and goals of the intervention) can better evaluate the effectiveness of interventions [69]. Additionally, included studies did not generally use outcome metrics relevant to the biopsychosocial model. There is strong evidence that a multidimensional assessment may be warranted as psychosocial factors were important determinants of response to therapy in CLBP [69]. Thus, the current studies fail to reveal whether an intervention works in the sense of achieving the desired outcome.
Evidence of effects of CLBP self-management intervention
We found a range of different components across studies used to construct self-management interventions. Although the evidence supporting individual interventions is varied, most components of CLBP self-management are evidence-based in isolation. Therefore, no evidence was found for them as a complex multidisciplinary treatment in the form of a self-management program. Moreover, there was a lack of consistency in the description of intervention content and characteristics, such as theoretical rationale, delivery and format, and intervention schedule and intensity. The outcomes and metrics for evaluating self-management programmes also differ across included studies. This suggests that there is no agreement in the existing literature on the definition and goal of CLBP self-management, making comparisons of different interventions difficult.
Implication
Consensus regarding recommendations, characteristics of the intervention, and measurement of outcomes in self-management programmes cannot be reached from the available literature. This may have arisen from difficulty recognising what alterations and achievements professional healthcare practitioners want patients to make in self-management. It also suggests confusion in the profession about what is meant by self-management, creating a barrier to effective implementation and use of self-management strategies in the future [70]. Another reason for the heterogeneity is that a self-management approach as reported in the current literature does not form a comprehensive package of care, but rather a series of individual components of care. In addition, the current packages do not consider frameworks for developing and evaluating complex interventions as described by the MRC [71]. Future research needs to consider self-management as a complex multicomponent intervention using the MRC framework and applying the biopsychosocial model for CLBP.
Conclusion
The literature findings revealed substantial heterogeneity in self-management interventions with respect to intervention contents, theoretical underpinnings, other characteristics, and measurement of outcomes. This makes it difficult to produce adequate evidence to prove the effect of self-management interventions of CLBP for widespread implementation. Despite its routine prescription, there is no accepted concept and goal for CLBP self-management interventions across the literature. Future research should consider developing and evaluating self-management strategies for CLBP as complex interventions using the MRC framework.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new datasets were generated or analysed in this study.
References
Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal J, Ursin H (2006) European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J 15:s192
Russo M, Deckers K, Eldabe S, Kiesel K, Gilligan C, Vieceli J, Crosby P (2018) Muscle control and non-specific chronic low back pain. Neuromodul: Technol Neural Interface 21:1–9
Kahere M, Ginindza T (2021) The prevalence and risk factors of chronic low back pain among adults in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: an observational cross-sectional hospital-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22:1–10
da Silva T, Mills K, Brown BT, Pocovi N, de Campos T, Maher C, Hancock MJ (2019) Recurrence of low back pain is common: a prospective inception cohort study. J Physiother 65:159–165
Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S (2008) A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 8:8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005
Hong J, Reed C, Novick D, Happich M (2013) Costs associated with treatment of chronic low back pain: an analysis of the UK general practice research database. Spine 38:75–82
Ketenci A, Zure M (2021) Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches to chronic lumbar back pain. Turkish J Phys Med Rehabil 67:1
UK NGC (2016) Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management.
Waddell G (2004) The back pain revolution. Elsevier Health Sciences
Werber A, Schiltenwolf M (2016) Treatment of lower back pain—the gap between guideline-based treatment and medical care reality. In: Healthcare MDPI 4(3):44
Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJ, Ostelo RW, Guzman J, van Tulder M (2015) Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h444
Du S, Hu L, Dong J, Xu G, Chen X, Jin S, Zhang H, Yin H (2017) Self-management program for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns 100:37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.029
Pangarkar SS, Kang DG, Sandbrink F, Bevevino A, Tillisch K, Konitzer L, Sall J (2019) VA/DoD clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. J Gen Intern Med 34:2620–2629
Bussières AE, Stewart G, Al-Zoubi F, Decina P, Descarreaux M, Haskett D, Hincapié C, Pagé I, Passmore S, Srbely J (2018) Spinal manipulative therapy and other conservative treatments for low back pain: a guideline from the Canadian chiropractic guideline initiative. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 41:265–293
MPHQ (2020) THE MANAGEMENT OF LOW BACK PAIN IN ADULTS. https://www.moph.gov.qa.
SIGN (2019) Management of chronic pain. https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign136.pdf.
Hill J, Garvin S, Chen Y, Cooper V, Wathall S, Saunders B, Lewis M, Protheroe J, Chudyk A, Dunn K (2020) Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract 21:1–18
Mansell G, Hall A, Toomey E (2016) Behaviour change and self-management interventions in persistent low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 30:994–1002
Toomey E, Currie-Murphy L, Matthews J, Hurley DA (2015) The effectiveness of physiotherapist-delivered group education and exercise interventions to promote self-management for people with osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain: a rapid review part I. Man Ther 20:265–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2014.10.013
Keogh A, Tully MA, Matthews J, Hurley DA (2015) A review of behaviour change theories and techniques used in group based self-management programmes for chronic low back pain and arthritis. Man Ther 20:727–735
Godfrey CM, Harrison MB, Lysaght R, Lamb M, Graham ID, Oakley P (2011) Care of self–care by other–care of other: the meaning of self-care from research, practice, policy and industry perspectives. Int J Evid Based Healthc 9:3–24
Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K (2018) Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European J Clin Invest 48(6):e12931
Figueiredo IT, Dupeyron A, Tran B, Duflos C, Julia M, Herisson C, Coudeyre E (2016) Educational self-care objectives within a functional spine restoration program. Retrospective study of 104 patients. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 59:289–293
Igwesi-Chidobe CN, Kitchen S, Sorinola IO, Godfrey EL (2020) Evidence, theory and context: using intervention mapping in the development of a community-based self-management program for chronic low back pain in a rural African primary care setting-the good back program. BMC Public Health 20:1–21
Rios JCS, Hua FY, Safons MP (2020) Posture-focused self-management programme improves pain and function in older people with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Therapy Rehabil 27:1–10
Kanas M, Faria RS, Salles LG, Sorpreso ICE, Martins DE, Cunha RAd, Wajchenberg M (2018) Home-based exercise therapy for treating non-specific chronic low back pain. Rev Assoc Med Bras 64:824–831
Fahmy E, Shaker H, Ragab W, Helmy H, Gaber M (2019) Efficacy of spinal extension exercise program versus muscle energy technique in treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain. Egyptian J Neurol, Psychiatry Neurosurg 55:1–6
Bello B, Adeniyi AF (2018) Effects of lumbar stabilisation and treadmill exercise on function in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain. Int J Ther Rehabil 25:493–499
Akodu AK, Akindutire OM (2018) The effect of stabilization exercise on pain-related disability, sleep disturbance, and psychological status of patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Korean J Pain 31:199–205
Sawant RS, Shinde SB (2019) Effect of hydrotherapy based exercises for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Indian J Physiother Occup Therapy 13:133–138
Narouei S, Hossein Barati A, Akuzawa H, Talebian S, Ghiasi F, Akbari A, Hossein Alizadeh M (2020) Effects of core stabilization exercises on thickness and activity of trunk and hip muscles in subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain. J Bodyw Mov Ther 24:138–146
Jinnouchi H, Matsudaira K, Kitamura A, Kakihana H, Oka H, Hayama-Terada M, Yamagishi K, Kiyama M, Iso H, Investigators C (2021) Effects of brief self-exercise education on the management of chronic low back pain: a community-based, randomized, parallel-group pragmatic trial. Mod Rheumatol 31:890–898
Valenza M, Rodríguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I, Díaz-Pelegrina A, Aguilar-Ferrándiz M, Castellote-Caballero Y (2017) Results of a Pilates exercise program in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 31:753–760
Amorim AB, Pappas E, Simic M, Ferreira ML, Jennings M, Tiedemann A, Carvalho-e-Silva AP, Caputo E, Kongsted A, Ferreira PH (2019) Integrating Mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20:1–14
Chhabra H, Sharma S, Verma S (2018) Smartphone app in self-management of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 27:2862–2874
Kazemi SS, Tavafian SS, Hiller CE, Hidarnia A, Montazeri A (2021) The effectiveness of social media and in-person interventions for low back pain conditions in nursing personnel (SMILE). Nurs Open 8:1220–1231
Sandal LF, Bach K, Øverås CK, Svendsen MJ, Dalager T, Jensen JSD, Kongsvold A, Nordstoga AL, Bardal EM, Ashikhmin I (2021) Effectiveness of app-delivered, tailored self-management support for adults with lower Back pain–related disability: a selfBACK randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 181:1288–1296
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Smrcina Z, Woelfel S, Burcal C (2022) A systematic review of the effectiveness of core stability exercises in patients with non-specific low back pain. Int J Sports Phys Ther 17:766
Pourahmadi M, Hesarikia H, Keshtkar A, Zamani H, Bagheri R, Ghanjal A, Shamsoddini A (2019) Effectiveness of slump stretching on low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Med 20:378–396
Tataryn N, Simas V, Catterall T, Furness J, Keogh JW (2021) Posterior-chain resistance training compared to general exercise and walking programmes for the treatment of chronic low back pain in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med-Open 7:1–17
Pocovi NC, de Campos TF, Christine Lin C-W, Merom D, Tiedemann A, Hancock MJ (2022) Walking, cycling, and swimming for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 52:85–99
Anheyer D, Haller H, Lauche R, Dobos G, Cramer H (2022) Yoga for treating low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 163:e504–e517
Shi Z, Zhou H, Lu L, Pan B, Wei Z, Yao X, Kang Y, Liu L, Feng S (2018) Aquatic exercises in the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of eight studies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 97:116–122
Tegner H, Frederiksen P, Esbensen BA, Juhl C (2018) Neurophysiological pain education for patients with chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain 34:778–786
Ainpradub K, Sitthipornvorakul E, Janwantanakul P, van der Beek AJ (2016) Effect of education on non-specific neck and low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Man Ther 22:31–41
Alzahrani H, Mackey M, Stamatakis E, Zadro JR, Shirley D (2019) The association between physical activity and low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Sci Rep 9:1–10
Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Eschweiler J, Betsch M, Catalano G, Driessen A, Tingart M, Baroncini A (2021) The pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother 22:109–119
Yang J, Lo WLA, Zheng F, Cheng X, Yu Q, Wang C (2022) Evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy on improving pain, fear avoidance, and self-efficacy in patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Res Manage. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4276175
Anheyer D, Haller H, Barth J, Lauche R, Dobos G, Cramer H (2017) Mindfulness-based stress reduction for treating low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 166:799–807
Soares LO, Ferreira GE, Costa LO, Nogueira LC, Meziat-Filho N, Reis FJ (2022) Meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Pain 22:26–39
Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS (2000) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone
Hall A, Richmond H, Copsey B, Hansen Z, Williamson E, Jones G, Fordham B, Cooper Z, Lamb S (2018) Physiotherapist-delivered cognitive-behavioural interventions are effective for low back pain, but can they be replicated in clinical practice? A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 40:1–9
Lim YZ, Chou L, Au RT, Seneviwickrama KMD, Cicuttini FM, Briggs AM, Sullivan K, Urquhart DM, Wluka AE (2019) People with low back pain want clear, consistent and personalised information on prognosis, treatment options and self-management strategies: a systematic review. J Physiother 65:124–135
Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M (2008) From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol 57:660–680
Prestwich A, Webb TL, Conner M (2015) Using theory to develop and test interventions to promote changes in health behaviour: evidence, issues, and recommendations. Curr Opin Psychol 5:1–5
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M (2008) developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
Painter JE, Borba CP, Hynes M, Mays D, Glanz K (2008) The use of theory in health behavior research from 2000 to 2005: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med 35:358–362
Koes BW, Van Tulder M, Thomas S (2006) Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ 332:1430–1434
Klyne DM, Moseley GL, Sterling M, Barbe MF, Hodges PW (2019) Are signs of central sensitization in acute low back pain a precursor to poor outcome? J Pain 20:994–1009
Organization WH (2011) World report on disability 2011. World Health Organization
Wood L, Foster NE, Lewis M, Bishop A (2021) Exercise interventions for persistent non-specific low back pain–does matching outcomes to treatment targets make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain 22:107–126
Wun A, Kollias P, Jeong H, Rizzo RR, Cashin AG, Bagg MK, McAuley JH, Jones MD (2021) Why is exercise prescribed for people with chronic low back pain? A review of the mechanisms of benefit proposed by clinical trialists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 51:102307
Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S (2008) What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 336:1472–1474
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
May S (2010) Self-management of chronic low back pain and osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:199–209
Hasenbring MI, Pincus T (2015) Effective reassurance in primary care of low back pain: what messages from clinicians are most beneficial at early stages? Clin J Pain 31:133–136
Lee H, Mansell G, McAuley J, Kamper S, Hübscher M, Moseley G, Wolfenden L, Hodder R, Williams C (2016) Causal mechanisms in the clinical course and treatment of back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 30:1074–1083
Grotle M, Foster NE, Dunn KM, Croft P (2010) Are prognostic indicators for poor outcome different for acute and chronic low back pain consulters in primary care? PAIN® 151:790–797
Stenner P, Cross V, McCrum C, McGowan J, Defever E, Lloyd P, Poole R, Moore AP (2015) Self-management of chronic low back pain: four viewpoints from patients and healthcare providers. Health Psychol Open 2:2055102915615337
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E (2021) A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Rebecca Jones (Library Manager in Imperial College London) who offered advice and support for building the search strategy and screening process. We also wish to thank Matthew Banger, Biranavan Sivapuratharasu, Fasten Huang, and Baoru Huang for their valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. Without these people, the study would have been impossible.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Imperial College London is the sponsor for the study and does not influence the direction or content of the work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TZ, DS, and AM conceived and designed the study. TZ takes responsibility for the acquisition of the data and the analysis of the data. TZ drafted the manuscript. DS and AM revised critically the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, T., Salman, D. & McGregor, A.H. What do we mean by ‘self-management’ for chronic low back pain? A narrative review. Eur Spine J 32, 4377–4389 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07900-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07900-4