JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v24i2e31675 35212635 10.2196/31675 Original Paper Original Paper The 3-Month Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Mavragani Amaryllis Merolli Mark Martin-Pintado Zugasti Aitor Salimi Maryam Pednekar Priti Koppenaal Tjarco PT, MSc 1
Research Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour Department of Health Innovations and Technology Fontys University of Applied Sciences Postbus 347, 5600 AH Eindhoven Netherlands 31 653945086 t.koppenaal@fontys.nl
2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5319-4588 Pisters Martijn F PT, PhD 1 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2875-1709 Kloek Corelien JJ PT, PhD 2 4 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7426-7141 Arensman Remco M PT, MSc 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9462-963X Ostelo Raymond WJG PT, PhD 5 6 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-7210 Veenhof Cindy PT, PhD 2 3 4 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0970-2896 Research Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour Department of Health Innovations and Technology Fontys University of Applied Sciences Eindhoven Netherlands Center for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care Julius Health Care Centers Utrecht Netherlands Physical Therapy Research, Department of Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Science and Sport University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center Utrecht University Utrecht Netherlands Research Group Innovation of Human Movement Care Research Center Healthy and Sustainable Living HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Netherlands Department of Health Sciences Faculty of Science, VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam Movement Sciences research institute Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands Department of Epidemiology and Data Science Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location VUmc Amsterdam Netherlands Corresponding Author: Tjarco Koppenaal t.koppenaal@fontys.nl 2 2022 25 2 2022 24 2 e31675 30 6 2021 12 8 2021 23 12 2021 28 12 2021 ©Tjarco Koppenaal, Martijn F Pisters, Corelien JJ Kloek, Remco M Arensman, Raymond WJG Ostelo, Cindy Veenhof. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 25.02.2022. 2022

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning.

 Objective

This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.

 Methods

The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up.

 Results

Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes.

 Conclusions

The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.

 Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203

 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z

 eHealth nonspecific low back pain physiotherapy blended care mobile phone Introduction

Low back pain (LBP)–related disability and the related socioeconomic burden remain high despite the many treatment options and health care resources available for LBP [1]. LBP can be caused by a specific pathology or trauma; however, in >90% of cases, an underlying disease is absent [2]. The clinical course of this so-called nonspecific LBP varies and, as expected, is often less favorable; some patients recover within a couple of days or weeks, and other patients experience persistent disabling symptoms leading to chronic LBP. Up to 65% of primary care patients with LBP still experience pain 1 year after onset [3,4].

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a patient-centered approach for the management of LBP [5,6]. This approach identifies patients with an increased likelihood of delayed recovery at an early stage and stratifies the treatment accordingly [6-8]. An example of a tool for identifying individuals at risk of delayed recovery is the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool [9,10]. In general, in patients who have a low risk for delayed recovery, early management comprises advice, reassurance, and education about the nonspecific nature of their LBP and encouragement to stay active. For individuals at medium risk for developing persistent LBP, personalized and supervised exercise therapy should be considered. For the high-risk group, this exercise therapy can be supported by a graded activity approach or cognitive behavioral components [8,11]. In addition to a patient-centered and stratified approach, patients’ adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behavior is crucial for the effectiveness of care [12]. Earlier research showed that 45% to 70% of patients do not adhere to prescribed exercises and physical activity recommendations, whereas adherent patients with LBP have a reduced risk of recurrent LBP [13,14].

Within the treatment of patients with LBP, blended care is a promising new and understudied field [15]. Blended care refers to the integration of web-based and offline components within the treatment process and requires that both components contribute equally to the treatment process [16,17]. The integration of web-based components, such as websites and apps, provides new solutions to monitor and coach patients’ individual health behaviors and support the optimization of face-to-face care tailored to the patients’ individual needs [18-20]. Thereafter, web-based components can be an effective means of stimulating adherence to prescribed exercises at home between face-to-face sessions and possibly increase self-management of LBP [21,22]. Until now, evidence on patient-centered and stratified care has not been integrated into blended care. Therefore, we recently developed e-Exercise LBP, a stratified blended intervention in which a smartphone app is integrated within face-to-face physiotherapy treatment, and established its feasibility and proof of concept for the treatment of functional disability and pain [23]. e-Exercise LBP is an adapted version of previously developed and evaluated blended physiotherapy programs [24,25]. Following the promising effects of web-based applications for patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. However, the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison with primary care physiotherapy still needs to be determined. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.

 Methods Design and Ethical Considerations

The e-Exercise LBP study was a prospective multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial. The study protocol was approved by the medical research ethics committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands (18-085/D), and registered at the onset of patient enrollment (ISRCTN 94074203). From January 2018 to June 2018, 122 physiotherapists working in 58 primary care physiotherapy practices were recruited and randomized to either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) or face-to-face physiotherapy. Details of the design and methods of the study have been published previously [26]. This study is reported according to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for cluster randomized trials (Multimedia Appendix 1).

 Recruitment Setting and Randomization

Physiotherapists were recruited by an invitational letter sent to the professional network of the authors and physiotherapists who participated in a previous e-Exercise study [24]. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the web-based newsletter of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy. Physiotherapy practices could participate with ≥1 physiotherapist, regardless of professional experience and education or specialization (eg, manual therapy). Physiotherapists were cluster randomized at the level of practice to avoid contamination. Treatment allocation was concealed and performed by an independent researcher using a computer-generated, a priori created, random sequence table and in a 1:1 allocation ratio. Physiotherapists and patients were not blinded to the group allocation.

The physiotherapists in the stratified blended physiotherapy group received two 4-hour training sessions on e-Exercise LBP and the study procedures. In the face-to-face physiotherapy group, physiotherapists received a 4-hour training session in current best practices according to the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [11] and the study procedures.

 Patients

Patients with LBP who contacted a participating physiotherapy practice were orally informed about the study and invited to participate. Interested patients received a patient information letter by email and an informative phone call by one of the researchers (TK or RMA) before the first appointment. When a patient was willing to participate after the phone call, a face-to-face appointment was scheduled (by TK or RMA) to obtain written informed consent and verify eligibility. The eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) being a patient requesting physiotherapy treatment for nonspecific LBP, defined as pain in the lumbosacral region (sometimes associated with radiating pain to the buttock or leg) [11]; (2) aged ≥18 years; (3) possessing a smartphone or tablet (iOS or Android operating system) with access to the internet; and (4) mastery of the Dutch language. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a specific cause of LBP determined through medical imaging or a medical physician, (2) serious comorbidities (eg, malignancy or stroke), and (3) current pregnancy because of the prevalence of pelvic girdle pain as a specific form of LBP.

 Intervention Experimental: Stratified Blended Physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP)

Patients allocated to the stratified blended physiotherapy group received blended physiotherapy, comprising a smartphone app integrated within face-to-face physiotherapy treatment [23,26]. Both the contents of the smartphone app and the face-to-face physiotherapy treatment are based on the recommendations of the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [11]. The duration and content of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention were based on the patients’ risk for developing persistent LBP (low, medium, or high) using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool [9,10]. The smartphone app contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises, and a goal-oriented physical activity module. Both the contents of face-to-face care and the smartphone app were tailored by the physiotherapists to the patients’ individual needs and progress (Table 1). Although physiotherapists were recommended to treat according to the stratified blended physiotherapy protocol, they were free to deviate from the protocol with respect to their clinical competence. Print screens of the smartphone app are provided in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Overview of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise low back pain [LBP]).

Mode of delivery Low-risk profile Medium-risk profile High-risk profile
Smartphone app
Duration 3 weeks 12 weeks 12 weeks
Information module Knowledge-based platform with several LBP self-management information themes (directly available) 12 weekly self-management themes, including assignments 12 weekly self-management themes, including assignments, pain education, and psychosocial risk factors
Exercise module 3 to 4 home-based exercises tailored to the patient’s specific functional limitations 3 to 4 home-based exercises tailored to the patient’s specific functional limitations 3 to 4 home-based exercises tailored to the patient’s specific functional limitations
Physical activity module Physical activity recommendations in accordance with the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Association for Physiotherapy A 3-day baseline test to determine the current level of physical activity; an 11-week, 3-times per week, goal-oriented training program to maintain or improve the level of physical activity; in patients avoiding physical activity because of LBP, a graded activity functionality can be activated A 3-day baseline test to determine the current level of physical activity; an 11-week, 3-times per week, goal-oriented training program to maintain or improve the level of physical activity using a graded activity approach
Face-to-face care
Sessions 2 sessions Maximum of 8 sessions Maximum of 12 sessions
Content Reassurance, information about LBP, instruction on self-management options, and the importance of adequate physical activity behavior Content similar to low risk, and in addition, the physiotherapist can consider providing evidence-based interventions (eg, passive or active joint mobilization) as recommended by guideline LBP of the Royal Dutch Association for Physiotherapy Content similar to medium risk, and in addition, the physiotherapist will address the patient’s specific psychosocial risk factors using a cognitive behavioral approach, and pain education will be given
Integration of face-to-face care and smartphone app
First session Provide information about LBP and instructions on home-based exercises addressing patient’s specific functional limitations using the smartphone app Provide information about LBP, instructions on home-based exercises addressing patient’s specific functional limitations, and instructions on 3-day baseline test using the smartphone app Provide information about LBP, instructions on home-based exercises addressing patient’s specific functional limitations, and instructions on 3-day baseline test using the smartphone app
Middle sessions N/Aa Evaluation of progress with the smartphone app and optimizing face-to-face care Evaluation of progress with the smartphone app and optimizing face-to-face care
Final session Evaluate the progress with the smartphone app and give recommendations to prevent recurrent episodes of LBP and maintain or improve the physical activity level Evaluate the progress with the smartphone app and give recommendations to prevent recurrent episodes of LBP and maintain or improve the physical activity level Evaluate the progress with the smartphone app and give recommendations to prevent recurrent episodes of LBP and maintain or improve the physical activity level

aN/A: not applicable.

 Control: Face-to-face Physiotherapy

Patients in the face-to-face physiotherapy group received only face-to-face care following the recommendations of the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [11]. The guideline distinguishes between three different patient profiles based on the clinical course of recovery (ie, normal recovery, abnormal recovery without predominant psychosocial factors, and abnormal recovery with predominant psychosocial factors) but does not use a specific tool to stratify care a priori. The content of face-to-face physiotherapy was the same as the stratified blended care intervention (ie, information, exercises, and recommendations regarding physical activity). However, no recommendations or restrictions were provided with regard to the number of face-to-face sessions. Although web-based applications, such as websites and apps, are not recommended in the guidelines, physiotherapists were instructed to treat people without using any web-based applications to assure contrast between both groups. Practical content considerations were made by the physiotherapists themselves with respect to their clinical expertise.

 Measurements

Patients received a web-based questionnaire and an accelerometer at baseline and after 3 months of follow-up. Baseline measurements were conducted face to face and follow-up measurements through web-based communication (eg, FaceTime) or face to face when requested. No financial incentives were offered to complete the measurements. In the case of an unfilled questionnaire, patients were reminded after 7 and 14 days.

 Outcome Measures Primary Outcome

Physical functioning because of pain was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; version 2.1a) [27,28]. The ODI was derived from the internationally accepted core outcome set for research into patients with nonspecific LBP [28]. A higher score (0-100) indicates increased functional disability.

 Secondary Outcomes

Pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale for the average LBP intensity in the last week (0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain) [28,29].

Physical activity was objectively measured using Activ8 (2M Engineering) [30]. Patients were instructed to wear the Activ8 for 5 consecutive weeks starting at baseline and 8 consecutive days at the 3-month follow-up, except during sleeping, showering, bathing, or swimming. For the purpose of this study, only the first 7 days at both the baseline and 3-month follow-up were used. Accelerometer data were eligible if patients had worn the meter for at least 3 days for ≥10 hours a day [31]. For each patient, the mean time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (all activities >3.0 metabolic equivalents [32]) in minutes per day was computed by summation and divided by the number of eligible wearing days.

Fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity and work were measured using the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire [33]. A higher score (range 0-96) indicates stronger fear and avoidance beliefs about how physical activity and work negatively affect LBP.

Pain catastrophizing was measured using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale [34]. A higher score (range 0-55) indicates a higher level of catastrophizing.

Self-efficacy was measured using the General Self-Efficacy Scale [35,36]. A higher score (range 10-40) indicates greater or stronger perceived self-efficacy.

Self-management ability was assessed using the Dutch version of the short form Patient Activation Measure [37]. A higher score (range 0-100) indicates a higher level of self-management.

Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol-5D-5L [38]. A higher score (range 0-100) indicates a higher health-related quality of life.

Patient self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises was measured using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale [39]. A higher score (range 0-24) indicates better adherence.

 Other Measures

Physiotherapists were asked to complete a registration form about the number of face-to-face sessions and report the applied treatment modalities per session. Patient characteristics and relevant clinical variables were assessed as part of the baseline questionnaire.

 Data Analysis Overview

Descriptive statistics were used to explore baseline comparability and describe patients’ general characteristics, the number of face-to-face physiotherapy sessions, and the treatment modalities. To investigate selective attrition, general characteristics and primary baseline variables of dropouts and nondropouts were compared. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Missing value analyses were performed by assuming the missing at random assumption. Multiple imputation was applied using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching for missing data in all outcomes. A total of 36 imputed data sets were generated, corresponding to the highest missing value percentage [40]. For all analyses, a 2-tailed significance level of P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

 Analyses of Effectiveness

Linear mixed models (LMMs) with random effects to control for correlation within patients and physiotherapy practices [41] were used to determine the short-term effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy compared with face-to-face physiotherapy on primary and secondary outcome measures. Regression coefficients with 95% CIs signifying the differences between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy were estimated. Analyses were adjusted for predefined confounders (eg, age, gender, and duration of pain [42-44]) that changed the between-group estimate by ≥10%. In addition, analyses were also adjusted for variables with a substantial difference at baseline that changed the regression coefficient for the between-group estimate by ≥10%. Potential interaction terms were explored. In the case of a statistically significant interaction term, stratified LMM analyses, controlling for the same variables as the primary analysis, were performed for the effect modifier.

 Sample Size

The power calculation was based on the recommendations of Campbell et al [45] for cluster randomized trials and performed for the physical functioning primary outcome at the primary end point of the e-Exercise LBP study (ie, 12-month follow-up). In addition, repeated measures of the primary outcome during follow-up were taken into account [46]. An intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05 was assumed. In addition, to detect a clinically relevant difference between groups at the 12-month follow-up, a difference of >6 points in physical functioning (ODI) [47,48], and an SD of 14.5 [49] were used in the sample size calculation. For the repeated measures of physical functioning, a correlation of 0.5 was estimated between baseline and follow-up measurements until the 12-month follow-up [46]. On the basis of these assumptions (power 80%; α=.05) and an average cluster size of 5, a total of 165 patients were needed. With an expected dropout rate of 20%, a total of 208 participating patients (n=104 per arm) were needed.

 Results Flow of Participants, Therapists, and Centers Through the Study

From June 2018 to December 2019, 434 eligible patients with LBP were asked to participate in 58 physiotherapy practices. In 22 physiotherapy practices allocated to stratified blended physiotherapy and 20 practices allocated to face-to-face physiotherapy, 47.9% (208/434) patients were included (Figure 1).

Baseline characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 2. The stratified blended physiotherapy group comprised more men, more patients with a low level of education, and more patients with a duration of LBP >12 months. No other relevant differences in characteristics were seen between groups. At baseline, complete data on outcome measures were available from 97.1% (101/104) of the patients in the stratified blended physiotherapy group and 99% (103/104) of the patients in the face-to-face physiotherapy group, and eligible accelerometer data were available from 84.6% (88/104) and 83.7% (87/104), respectively. Of the 208 patients, 4 (1.9%) ineligible patients (n=2, 50% in the stratified blended physiotherapy group and 2, 50% in the face-to-face physiotherapy group) were unjustified included, did not receive the allocated intervention and were therefore excluded from all analyses.

At the 3-month follow-up, complete data on outcome measures were available from 86.5% (90/104) of the patients in the stratified blended physiotherapy group and 93.3% (97/104) of the patients in the face-to-face physiotherapy group, and eligible accelerometer data were available from 74% (77/104) and 76% (79/104) of these patients, respectively.

Flow diagram of the e-Exercise low back pain study.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics for patients from the stratified blended physiotherapy group and face-to-face physiotherapy group (N=208).

Characteristics Baseline
Stratified blended physiotherapy (n=104) Face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104)
Gender (female), n (%) 45 (43.3) 57 (54.8)
Age (years), mean (SD) 48.10 (15.08) 47.26 (13.58)
BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD) 25.78 (3.79) 26.31 (5.11)
Presence of comorbidities (yes), n (%) 38 (36.5) 28 (26.9)
Past LBPa surgery, n (%)
None 100 (96.2) 101 (97.1)
Lumbar fusion 0 (0) 1 (1)
Lumbar discectomy 4 (3.9) 2 (1.9)
Central sensitization (score 0-100), mean (SD) 30.88 (13.38) 30.17 (12.19)
Educational level, n (%)
Low 22 (21.2) 13 (12.5)
Middle 33 (31.7) 36 (34.6)
High 49 (47.1) 55 (52.9)
Duration of LBP complaints, n (%)
0 to 6 weeks 37 (35.6) 49 (47.1)
6 to 12 weeks 11 (10.6) 19 (18.3)
12 weeks to 12 months 9 (8.7) 9 (8.7)
>12 months 47 (45.2) 27 (26)
Physical functioning (score 0-100), mean (SD) 19.37 (15.64) 20.38 (13.99)
Pain intensity (average score 7 days 0-10), mean (SD) 5.61 (1.99) 5.36 (2.01)
Physical activity (MVPAb minutes/day), mean (SD) 80.34 (36.75) 74.82 (40.94)
Health-related quality of life (score 0-100), mean (SD) 67.90 (18.08) 69.75 (17.63)
Fear-avoidance beliefs (score 0-96), mean (SD) 27.86 (16.03) 25.08 (16.18)
Pain catastrophizing (score 0-52), mean (SD) 11.06 (9.30) 10.21 (8.75)
Self-efficacy (score 10-40), mean (SD) 32.13 (4.36) 33.12 (3.62)
Patient activation (score 0-100), mean (SD) 62.48 (12.38) 64.75 (12.68)

aLBP: low back pain.

bMVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity.

 Number and Treatment Modalities of Physiotherapy Sessions

In total, 189 physiotherapist registration forms were returned (n=95, 50.3% stratified blended physiotherapy and n=94, 49.7% in face-to-face physiotherapy). Table 3 shows the number and treatment modalities of the face-to-face physiotherapy sessions. Patients in the stratified blended physiotherapy group received an average of 4.81 (SD 2.94) face-to-face sessions. For the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, the average number of sessions was 3.77 (SD 2.54), 5.65 (SD 2.65), and 7.67 (SD 3.54), respectively. Patients in the face-to-face physiotherapy group received an average of 4.94 (SD 2.26) face-to-face sessions. The average number of sessions for the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups was 4.88 (SD 2.02), 5.09 (SD 2.51), and 4.33 (SD 4.16), respectively.

In general, education was the main treatment modality during the face-to-face sessions in both treatment groups. No remarkable differences in treatment modalities were found between the 2 groups or between the different risk groups of developing persistent LBP.

Number and treatment modalities of face-to-face physiotherapy sessions for patients from the stratified blended physiotherapy group and face-to-face physiotherapy group.

Category Stratified blended physiotherapy(risk of developing persistent LBPa) Face-to-face physiotherapy(risk of developing persistent LBP)
Low (n=52) Medium (n=34) High (n=9) Total (n=95) Low (n=57) Medium (n=34) High (n=3) Total (n=94)
Number of sessions, mean (SD) 3.77 (2.54) 5.65 (2.65) 7.67 (3.54) 4.81 (2.94) 4.88 (2.02) 5.09 (2.51) 4.33 (4.16) 4.94 (2.26)
Treatment modalities, n (%)b
Education 42 (81) 24 (71) 6 (67) 72 (76) 43 (75) 25 (74) 2 (67) 70 (74)
Strength exercises 9 (17) 3 (9) 1 (11) 13 (14) 7 (12) 6 (18) 0 (0) 13 (14)
Stability exercises 14 (27) 5 (15) 4 (44) 23 (24) 14 (25) 11 (32) 0 (0) 25 (27)
Endurance training 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 3 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3)
Functional exercises 3 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3) 4 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (4)
Active mobilization 15 (29) 10 (29) 2 (22) 27 (28) 22 (39) 11 (32) 2 (67) 35 (37)
Passive mobilization 12 (23) 16 (47) 3 (33) 31 (33) 15 (26) 9 (26) 1 (33) 25 (27)
Massage 4 (8) 8 (24) 2 (22) 14 (15) 9 (19) 5 (15) 0 (0) 14 (15)

aLBP: low back pain.

bAmount (%) of patients who received the treatment modality as part of the face-to-face physiotherapy session for ≥60% of the total number of face-to-face physiotherapy sessions.

 Is Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Effective Compared With Face-to-face Physiotherapy?

In the mixed model analyses, log likelihood ratios of naive models and models that included a random intercept for both physiotherapy practice and physiotherapist were similar. Therefore, physiotherapy practice or physiotherapist was not included as a level in the LMM analyses. At 3 months, LMM analyses showed no clinically relevant or statistically significant between-group difference in the primary outcome of physical functioning (mean difference [MD] −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, a statistically significant between-group difference was found in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy for fear-avoidance beliefs (MD −4.29, 95% CI −7.22 to −1.37) and patients’ self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises (MD 0.73, 95% CI 0.06-1.39). Within-group analyses showed clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in physical functioning (MD −11.48, 95% CI −15.06 to −7.91), average pain intensity (MD −2.38, 95% CI −3.00 to −1.76), and fear-avoidance beliefs (MD −5.14, 95% CI −9.22 to −1.06) in the stratified blended physiotherapy group. In the face-to-face physiotherapy group, clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in physical functioning (MD −11.22, 95% CI −14.64 to −7.80) and average pain intensity (MD −2.51, 95% CI −3.11 to −1.90) were found (Table 4).

As indicated by a statistically significant interaction term, the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP was an effect modifier of the between-group differences on the primary outcome of physical functioning. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP, the stratified analysis showed a statistically significant between-group difference in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy on physical functioning (MD –16.39, 95% CI –27.98 to –4.79), average pain intensity (MD –3.43, 95% CI –6.55 to –0.31), and fear-avoidance beliefs (MD –14.51, 95% CI –28.21 to –0.81). In patients with a medium risk of developing persistent LBP, a statistically significant between-group difference was found in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy on fear-avoidance beliefs (MD –5.93, 95% CI –11.45 to –0.40). In patients with a low risk of developing persistent LBP, no statistically significant between-group differences were found (Table 5).

Unadjusted and adjusted primary and secondary outcome measures: improvements and differences within and between groups (N=204).

Stratified blended physiotherapy (n=102) Face-to-face physiotherapy (n=102) Between group differencesa
Measurements,mean (SD) Unadjusted within-group differences Measurements, mean (SD) Unadjusted within-group differences Unadjusted Adjustedb
Baseline 3months Mean(95% CI) Pvalue Baseline 3months Mean(95% CI) Pvalue Mean(95% CI) Pvalue Mean(95% CI) Pvalue
Physical functioning (range 0-100)
19.39 (15.56) 7.91 (9.64) −11.48 (−15.06 to −7.91) <.001 20.20 (13.90) 8.97 (10.75) −11.22 (−14.64 to −7.80) <.001 −0.83 (−3.43to 1.77) .53 −1.98 (−4.49to 0.53) .12
Pain intensity (average score 7 days; range 0-10)
5.67 (1.94) 3.29 (2.42) −2.38 (−3.00to −1.75) <.001 5.40 (2.00) 2.90 (2.36) −2.51 (−3.11to −1.90) <.001 0.31 (−0.35to 0.98) .36 0.08 (−0.57to 0.74) .80
Physical activity (MVPAc min/day)
81.97 (38.52) 78.58 (44.45) −3.37 (−15.63to 8.88) .59 75.70 (41.89) 71.24 (40.34) −4.42 (−16.91to 8.07) .49 3.49 (−8.38to 15.36) .56 3.62 (−8.27to 15.51) .55
Fear-avoidance beliefs (range 0-96)
27.92 (16.01) 22.77 (13.38) −5.14 (−9.25to −1.04) .01 25.51 (16.24) 24.82 (16.92) −0.70 (−5.26to 3.87) .77 −3.73 (−6.63to −0.82) .01 −4.29 (−7.22to −1.37) <.001
Pain catastrophizing (range 0-52)
11.02 (9.30) 8.97 (8.05) −2.04 (−4.50to 0.43) .11 10.33 (8.76) 9.16 (9.84) −1.17 (−3.74to 1.40) .37 −0.63 (−2.58to 1.32) .53 −0.96 (−2.95to 1.02) .34
Self-efficacy (range 10-40)
32.05 (4.38) 32.02 (4.27) −0.03 (−1.24to 1.19) .97 33.12 (3.63) 32.58 (3.99) −0.54 (−1.59to 0.52) .32 0.12 (−0.82to 1.06) .81 0.14 (−0.82to 1.10) .77
Health-related quality of life (range 0-100)
67.70 (18.09) 71.44 (20.07) 3.73 (−1.68to 9.14) .18 69.75 (17.71) 72.57 (21.06) 2.82 (−2.56to 8.20) .31 −0.65 (−6.38to 5.08) .82 0.95 (−4.80to 6.69) .75
Patient activation (range 0-100)
62.43 (12.37) 62.45 (11.89) 0.02 (−3.42to 3.46) .99 64.72 (12.65) 64.39 (12.71) −0.33 (−3.84to 3.18) .85 −0.83 (−3.94to 2.27) .60 −0.79 (−3.95to 2.36) .62
Adherence to prescribed home exercises (range 0-24)d
N/Ae 11.96 (2.43) N/A N/A N/A 11.18 (2.17) N/A N/A 0.78 (0.13to 1.44) .02 0.73 (0.06to 1.39) .03

aDifference between baseline and 3 months in stratified blended physiotherapy versus face-to-face physiotherapy.

bAdjusted for baseline and duration of low back pain complaints (<12 vs >12 weeks).

cMVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity.

dPatient self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises could only be measured after the treatment period.

eN/A: not applicable.

Adjusted primary and secondary outcome measures: improvements and differences between groups stratified for the risk of developing persistent low back pain (LBP; N=204).

Outcome measure Risk of developing persistent LBP
Low risk (n=120) Medium risk (n=71) High risk (n=13)
Between-group difference, mean (95% CI)a P value Between-group difference, mean (95% CI)a P value Between-group difference, mean (95% CI)a P value
Physical functioning(range 0-100) −0.82 (−2.92 to 1.27) .44 −3.48 (−8.99 to 2.03) .22 −16.39 (−27.98 to −4.79) .01
Pain intensity(average score 7 days; range 0-10) 0.30 (−0.52 to 1.13) .47 0.01 (−1.08 to 1.11) .98 −3.43 (−6.55 to −0.31) .03
Physical activity(MVPAb minutes/day) 3.80 (−12.05 to 19.65) .64 1.08 (−16.70 to 18.86) .91 39.50 (−1.24 to 80.24) .06
Fear-avoidance beliefs(range 0-96) −2.70 (−6.22 to 0.82) .13 −5.93 (−11.45 to −0.40) .04 −14.51 (−28.21 to −0.81) .04
Pain catastrophizing(range 0-52) 0.28 (−2.03 to 2.59) .81 −2.66 (−5.73 to 0.41) .09 −14.47 (−31.89 to 2.94) .10
Self-efficacy(range 10-40) −0.58 (−1.76 to 0.60) .33 0.85 (−0.92 to 2.62) .35 1.50 (−4.02 to 7.02) .60
Health-related quality of life(range 0-100) 1.26 (−7.15 to 9.68) .77 0.84 (−6.47 to 8.15) .82 15.84 (−3.92 to 35.61) .12
Patient activation(range 0-100) −2.22 (−6.38 to 1.93) .29 1.85 (−3.27 to 6.97) .48 7.49 (−1.35 to 16.34) .10
Adherence to prescribed home exercises (range 0-24) 0.82 (−0.01 to 1.65) .05 0.86 (−0.35 to 2.08) .16 −1.19 (−3.37 to 0.99) .28

aDifference between baseline and 3 months in stratified blended physiotherapy versus face-to-face physiotherapy per risk group and adjusted for baseline and duration of low back pain complaints (<12 vs >12 weeks).

bMVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity.

 Discussion Principal Findings

This study evaluated the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. In contrast to our expectations, the study results showed no statistically significant between-group difference in physical functioning and most of the secondary outcome measures. Only fear-avoidance beliefs and patient self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises improved significantly in patients who were allocated to stratified blended physiotherapy. When looking at the different prognostic risk groups in patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP, a statistically significant between-group difference in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy on physical functioning, average pain intensity, and fear-avoidance beliefs was found; however, these results come with some uncertainty.

 Interpretation of the Findings

The results of this study complement the findings from previous systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that showed that in the short term, web-based applications could reduce LBP-related pain and disability; however, when compared with other interventions, the results are inconclusive [15,22,50]. A possible explanation for these inconclusive findings is the considerable heterogeneity in the studied characteristics and comparators, which hampers a clear comparison. For example, in our study, we integrated a web-based application within face-to-face guidance and compared it with face-to-face physiotherapy. Previous studies in this research area have focused predominantly on web-based applications as a stand-alone intervention without the face-to-face guidance of a health care professional [15,22,50]. Only a few studies have investigated web-based applications as an adjunct to face-to-face guidance, and the results regarding the added value of these combined interventions have been inconclusive [15,51]. Similar to our study, Sandal et al [51] investigated a smartphone app as an adjunct to face-to-face guidance. The app was tailored using artificial intelligence and did not influence face-to-face guidance. In this study, the reported between-group difference was statistically significant in favor of the combined intervention when compared with face-to-face guidance alone; however, the difference was small and of uncertain clinical significance.

Another example of heterogeneity in research on web-based applications is the large variation in delivery modes and duration. Similar to e-Exercise LBP, most web-based applications tailored the content of the intervention using patient characteristics and focused on self-management support, home-based exercise, and physical activity prescription [15,22,50]. However, the e-Exercise LBP app provided this content in weekly information modules and daily reminders to exercise and physical activity recommendations during a 3- or 12-week duration [26]; the duration in other studies ranged from 3 weeks to 1 year. In addition, the delivery modes showed large variation; that is, from no specific recommendations to multiple web- or telephone-based coaching sessions [15,22,50].

Thus, looking at the different characteristics of web-based applications, such as the role of the health care professional within the intervention and the delivery mode and duration, future research needs to focus on the comparison of web-based applications with different characteristics to obtain a better understanding of which elements work the best.

In our study, the short-term within-group improvements in physical functioning and average pain intensity of stratified blended physiotherapy were comparable with face-to-face physiotherapy, both of which were statistically significant and clinically meaningful. Patients in the stratified blended physiotherapy group improved on average 11.48 (95% CI −15.06 to −7.91) points (59.5%) in physical functioning, and patients in the face-to-face physiotherapy group improved by an average of 11.22 (95% CI −14.64 to −7.80) points (56%). For average pain intensity, these improvements were 2.38 (95% CI −3.00 to −1.76) points (42.8%) and 2.51 (95% CI −3.11 to −1.90) points (46.9%), respectively. As physical functioning and average pain intensity decreased by >30%, the improvements in both groups were considered clinically meaningful [52]. At the moment, e-Exercise LBP cannot be considered an alternative to face-to-face physiotherapy as this study was conducted as a superiority trial. To be able to value the true potential of e-Exercise LBP, the meaningful within-group improvements must be considered from the perspective of the additional effort and costs needed to implement such an intervention in daily physiotherapy practice. Future cost-effectiveness analyses will provide more insight into the long-term economic benefits of stratified blended physiotherapy. On the other hand, given the additional effort and costs, the potential of e-Exercise LBP needs to be considered from the perspective of future health care. It is expected that technology will be increasingly integrated into care for patients who are suitable to use it. Future studies need to determine which patients benefit most from a stratified blended physiotherapy approach.

The e-Exercise LBP intervention significantly increased patients’ self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises, as hypothesized. In addition, it resulted in a significant reduction of fear-avoidance beliefs when compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. The between-group difference in patients’ self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises was 3.3% points in favor of the e-Exercise LBP intervention. For fear-avoidance beliefs, the between-group difference was −4.6% points in favor of the e-Exercise LBP intervention. Although there are no established cutoffs for the minimum clinically important between-group differences in these outcomes, we consider the between-group differences as small. The difference in adherence might be explained by the benefits of integrating a smartphone app. The 24/7 availability of the app and functionality to remind the patient to perform scheduled exercises might have stimulated the patients to adhere to their prescribed home exercises in a better way than in the face-to-face physiotherapy group [18,53]. Further research on the long-term clinical relevance of adherence to home exercises as prescribed in e-Exercise LBP is ongoing.

The reduction of fear-avoidance beliefs complements evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis that concluded that patient education provides reassurance for patients with acute or subacute LBP [54]. In our study, this reduction in the stratified blended physiotherapy group might be explained by the information module of the smartphone app. As the information module provides the patient with self-management information about LBP, the patient can reread the advice and reassurance given in the face-to-face sessions by the physiotherapist about their LBP at all times. As a result, the harmless and nonspecific nature of LBP is possibly remembered in a better way [55]. Long-term results should indicate whether this reduction in fear-avoidance beliefs also influences physical functioning, the handling of recurrent complaints, and costs a patient incurs because of LBP.

Several explanations are possible to clarify why the additional benefits of stratified blended physiotherapy were not found. A first explanation is that the added value of a stratified approach in itself must be critically evaluated. Although clinical practice guidelines have adopted and advocated a stratified care approach for several years to improve patient outcomes, the added value of this approach is, at present, unclear. On the basis of previous recommendations, we decided to use the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool to create a matched web-based application [10]. Our results show that, after specific training, treatment intensity (ie, the number of face-to-face sessions) in the e-Exercise LBP group was in line with the patient’s risk profile, which was not the case in our control group. However, this difference in treatment intensity did not lead to relevant between-group differences. This seems to be in line with more recent studies evaluating the stratified approach according to the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The results from these studies are not convincing regarding the added value of such a stratified approach [56,57]. Future research should focus on determining whether this concerns the added value of the tool itself or the added value of a stratified care approach in general.

In addition, stratified blended physiotherapy might not be suitable for every patient. Earlier research has shown that it is difficult to determine what works best for each individual patient [22,50]. In our study, we did not take into account the patient’s suitability for blended care to determine the optimal personalized blended treatment [58]. As a result, patients might have received stratified blended physiotherapy without being suitable for it; for example, a lack of motivation or digital literacy skills. Consequently, this could have resulted in the suboptimal effectiveness of our stratified blended physiotherapy intervention when compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. For future studies on blended care, it is recommended to use patients’ suitability for blended care as inclusion criteria or criteria to match treatment. The Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist [58] could be a useful aid in this process.

A third explanation might be the relatively high proportion of patients with a low risk of developing persistent LBP in this study. For this group, earlier research has shown that providing advice as a single intervention is likely to reassure the patient with LBP but does not result in different management of pain and disability in the short term [54,59]. In addition, for this group, a stratified approach is beneficial from an economic perspective rather than in terms of clinical outcomes, as many of these patients recover completely within 2 to 3 weeks but nevertheless receive unnecessary treatment [57,60,61].

A final explanation is the timing of our follow-up measurement at 3 months only. Given the favorable course of LBP [62] and the rationale that stratified blended physiotherapy will stimulate patients’ self-management and adherence [21,22], patients in the stratified blended physiotherapy group might recover faster, which is not captured by a single follow-up measurement at 3 months. Therefore, for future studies that aim to investigate postintervention effectiveness, it is recommended to measure the clinical outcomes immediately after the intervention is completed and to monitor the time to recovery.

 Strengths and Limitations

This study had several important strengths. It is the next step in a multiphase development and implementation process based on the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap [63]. After developing a prototype and testing its feasibility in a pilot study [23], this study determined the short-term effectiveness of the final stratified blended physiotherapy protocol and showed its potential compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. The pragmatic, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial design allowed for the evaluation of stratified, blended physiotherapy in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in a real-world situation. The baseline characteristics of both treatment groups and the distribution of the different prognostic risk groups of developing persistent LBP reflect the characteristics of patients with LBP normally being treated in primary care physiotherapy [60], which enhances the generalizability of our results. The use of measurement instruments recommended in the core outcome set for research into patients with nonspecific LBP [28] and a low dropout rate (10.1%) guaranteed the internal validity of the results.

Nevertheless, this study also had a few limitations. First, the results seem to suggest that patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP could be an effect modifier of the between-group differences on the primary outcome. Especially in the highest risk group, consistent between-group differences were seen in both the primary and secondary outcomes, supporting the rationale for stratified blended physiotherapy. As it was not the primary aim of this study, the sample size calculation did not take interaction into account, the numbers were small, and therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Second, as we conducted a pragmatic study, the experiences of physiotherapists in either using web-based applications or treating patients with nonspecific LBP were not considered inclusion criteria for physiotherapy practices. However, given both the complexity of blended care [17] and the complexity of treating patients with nonspecific LBP [4], it can be expected that more experienced physiotherapists are able to deliver better treatment than less experienced physiotherapists. Therefore, experience might have influenced our analysis. Finally, 4 included patients were excluded from the analysis after being diagnosed with specific LBP. As this number is low and occurred equally in both treatment groups (2 in each group), we expect that this has not influenced the results [64].

 Conclusions

The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.

CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth; version 1.6) checklist.

Print screens of the smartphone app.

 Abbreviations CONSORT

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

 LBP

low back pain

 LMM

linear mixed model

 MD

mean difference

 ODI

Oswestry Disability Index

This study was cofunded by the Taskforce for Applied Research SIA (RAAK.PRO02.063), part of the Dutch Research Council. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors are grateful for the invaluable help provided by Loes Kolenberg in the analysis of the physical activity data.

TK participated in the development of the design of the study, conducted the study, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. MFP was the principal investigator, developed the design of the study, and participated in the writing and revision of the manuscript. CJJK participated in the development of the design of the study and participated in the writing and revision of the manuscript. RMA participated in the design of the study, conducted the study, and participated in revising the manuscript. RWJGO supervised the project, advised the design of the study and statistical analysis, and participated in revising the manuscript. CV supervised the project, advised the design of the study and statistical analysis, and participated in revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

None declared.

 GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet 2018 11 10 392 10159 1789 858 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 30496104 S0140-6736(18)32279-7 PMC6227754 Koes BW van Tulder MW Thomas S Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain BMJ 2006 06 17 332 7555 1430 4 10.1136/bmj.332.7555.1430 16777886 332/7555/1430 PMC1479671 Itz C Geurts J van Kleef M Nelemans P Clinical course of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies set in primary care Eur J Pain 2013 01 17 1 5 15 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00170.x 22641374 Hartvigsen J Hancock MJ Kongsted A Louw Q Ferreira ML Genevay S Hoy D Karppinen J Pransky G Sieper J Smeets RJ Underwood M Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2356 67 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X 29573870 S0140-6736(18)30480-X Lin I Wiles L Waller R Goucke R Nagree Y Gibberd M Straker L Maher CG O'Sullivan PP What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review Br J Sports Med 2020 01 54 2 79 86 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878 30826805 bjsports-2018-099878 Foster NE Anema JR Cherkin D Chou R Cohen SP Gross DP Ferreira PH Fritz JM Koes BW Peul W Turner JA Maher CG Buchbinder R Hartvigsen J Cherkin D Foster NE Maher CG Underwood M van Tulder M Anema JR Chou R Cohen SP Menezes Costa L Croft P Ferreira M Ferreira PH Fritz JM Genevay S Gross DP Hancock MJ Hoy D Karppinen J Koes BW Kongsted A Louw Q Öberg B Peul WC Pransky G Schoene M Sieper J Smeets RJ Turner JA Woolf A Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions The Lancet 2018 06 391 10137 2368 83 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30489-6 Maher C Underwood M Buchbinder R Non-specific low back pain Lancet 2017 02 18 389 10070 736 47 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9 27745712 S0140-6736(16)30970-9 Wong J Côté P Sutton D Randhawa K Yu H Varatharajan S Goldgrub R Nordin M Gross D Shearer H Carroll L Stern P Ameis A Southerst D Mior S Stupar M Varatharajan T Taylor-Vaisey A Clinical practice guidelines for the noninvasive management of low back pain: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Eur J Pain 2017 02 21 2 201 16 10.1002/ejp.931 27712027 Hill JC Whitehurst DG Lewis M Bryan S Dunn KM Foster NE Konstantinou K Main CJ Mason E Somerville S Sowden G Vohora K Hay EM Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial Lancet 2011 10 378 9802 1560 71 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9 Hill JC Dunn KM Lewis M Mullis R Main CJ Foster NE Hay EM A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment Arthritis Rheum 2008 05 15 59 5 632 41 10.1002/art.23563 18438893 Staal JB Hendriks EJ Heijmans M Kiers H Rutten AM Tulder MW KNGF-richtlijn Lage rugpijn KNGF-richtlijn Lage rugpijn 2013 7 Friedrich M Gittler G Halberstadt Y Cermak T Heiller I Combined exercise and motivation program: effect on the compliance and level of disability of patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial Archives Physical Med Rehab 1998 05 79 5 475 87 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90059-4 van Gool CH Penninx BW Kempen GI Rejeski WJ Miller GD van Eijk JT Pahor M Messier SP Effects of exercise adherence on physical function among overweight older adults with knee osteoarthritis Arthritis Rheum 2005 02 15 53 1 24 32 10.1002/art.20902 15696558 Mannion AF Helbling D Pulkovski N Sprott H Spinal segmental stabilisation exercises for chronic low back pain: programme adherence and its influence on clinical outcome Eur Spine J 2009 12 18 12 1881 91 10.1007/s00586-009-1093-7 19609785 PMC2899434 Dario AB Moreti Cabral A Almeida L Ferreira ML Refshauge K Simic M Pappas E Ferreira PH Effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions in the management of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis Spine J 2017 09 17 9 1342 51 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.008 28412562 S1529-9430(17)30142-0 van der Vaart R Witting M Riper H Kooistra L Bohlmeijer ET van Gemert-Pijnen LJ Blending online therapy into regular face-to-face therapy for depression: content, ratio and preconditions according to patients and therapists using a Delphi study BMC Psychiatry 2014 12 14 14 355 10.1186/s12888-014-0355-z 25496393 s12888-014-0355-z PMC4271498 Wentzel J van der Vaart R Bohlmeijer ET van Gemert-Pijnen JE Mixing online and face-to-face therapy: how to benefit from blended care in mental health care JMIR Ment Health 2016 02 09 3 1 e9 10.2196/mental.4534 26860537 v3i1e9 PMC4764785 Lustria ML Cortese J Noar SM Glueckauf RL Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the web: review and analysis of key components Patient Educ Couns 2009 02 74 2 156 73 10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.023 18947966 S0738-3991(08)00469-2 Noar SM Benac CN Harris MS Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions Psychol Bull 2007 07 133 4 673 93 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673 17592961 2007-09203-006 Wantland DJ Portillo CJ Holzemer WL Slaughter R McGhee EM The effectiveness of web-based vs. non-web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes J Med Internet Res 2004 11 10 6 4 e40 10.2196/jmir.6.4.e40 15631964 v6e40 PMC1550624 Bennell KL Marshall CJ Dobson F Kasza J Lonsdale C Hinman RS Does a web-based exercise programming system improve home exercise adherence for people with musculoskeletal conditions?: a randomized controlled trial Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2019 10 98 10 850 8 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001204 31021823 Nicholl BI Sandal LF Stochkendahl MJ McCallum M Suresh N Vasseljen O Hartvigsen J Mork PJ Kjaer P Søgaard K Mair FS Digital support interventions for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic review J Med Internet Res 2017 05 21 19 5 e179 10.2196/jmir.7290 28550009 v19i5e179 PMC5466697 Kloek C van Tilburg M Staal J Veenhof C Bossen D Development and proof of concept of a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain Physiotherapy 2019 12 105 4 483 91 10.1016/j.physio.2018.12.006 31031023 S0031-9406(19)30005-7 Kloek CJ Bossen D Spreeuwenberg PM Dekker J de Bakker DH Veenhof C Effectiveness of a blended physical therapist intervention in people with hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, or both: a cluster-randomized controlled trial Phys Ther 2018 07 01 98 7 560 70 10.1093/ptj/pzy045 29788253 4998860 PMC6016690 Kloek CJ van Dongen JM de Bakker DH Bossen D Dekker J Veenhof C Cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomized controlled trial BMC Public Health 2018 08 31 18 1 1082 10.1186/s12889-018-5975-7 30170586 10.1186/s12889-018-5975-7 PMC6119267 Koppenaal T Arensman RM van Dongen JM Ostelo RW Veenhof C Kloek CJ Pisters MF Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy in patients with non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020 04 22 21 1 265 10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z 32321492 10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z PMC7175532 Fairbank JC Pynsent PB The Oswestry disability index Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000 11 15 25 22 2940 52; discussion 2952 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 11074683 Chiarotto A Terwee CB Ostelo RW Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2016 12 30 6 1003 20 10.1016/j.berh.2017.07.001 29103546 S1521-6942(17)30006-2 Dworkin RH Turk DC Wyrwich KW Beaton D Cleeland CS Farrar JT Haythornthwaite JA Jensen MP Kerns RD Ader DN Brandenburg N Burke LB Cella D Chandler J Cowan P Dimitrova R Dionne R Hertz S Jadad AR Katz NP Kehlet H Kramer LD Manning DC McCormick C McDermott MP McQuay HJ Patel S Porter L Quessy S Rappaport BA Rauschkolb C Revicki DA Rothman M Schmader KE Stacey BR Stauffer JW von Stein T White RE Witter J Zavisic S Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations J Pain 2008 02 9 2 105 21 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 18055266 S1526-5900(07)00899-1 Horemans H Kooijmans H van den Berg-Emons R Bussmann H The Activ8 activity monitor: validation of posture and movement classification J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2020 7 2055668319890535 10.1177/2055668319890535 32206335 10.1177_2055668319890535 PMC7079304 Quante M Kaplan ER Rueschman M Cailler M Buxton OM Redline S Practical considerations in using accelerometers to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep Sleep Health 2015 12 1 4 275 84 10.1016/j.sleh.2015.09.002 29073403 S2352-7218(15)00147-3 Ainsworth BE Haskell WL Herrmann SD Meckes N Bassett DR Tudor-Locke C Greer JL Vezina J Whitt-Glover MC Leon AS 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011 08 43 8 1575 81 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31821ece12 21681120 Waddell G Newton M Henderson I Somerville D Main C A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability Pain 1993 02 52 2 157 68 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B 8455963 00006396-199302000-00005 Sullivan MJ Bishop SR Pivik J The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation Psychol Assessment 1995 7 4 524 32 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524 Teeuw B Schwarzer R Jerusalem M Dutch adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale Berlin 1994 2022-02-10 http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/dutch.htm Scholz U Dona B Sud S Schwarzer R Is general self- efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries Eur J Psychol Assess 2002 18 3 42 51 10.1027/1015-5759.18.3.242 Rademakers J Nijman J van der Hoek L Heijmans M Rijken M Measuring patient activation in The Netherlands: translation and validation of the American short form Patient Activation Measure (PAM13) BMC Public Health 2012 07 31 12 577 10.1186/1471-2458-12-577 22849664 1471-2458-12-577 PMC3490810 Herdman M Gudex C Lloyd A Janssen M Kind P Parkin D Bonsel G Badia X Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res 2011 12 20 10 1727 36 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x 21479777 PMC3220807 Newman-Beinart NA Norton S Dowling D Gavriloff D Vari C Weinman JA Godfrey EL The development and initial psychometric evaluation of a measure assessing adherence to prescribed exercise: the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) Physiotherapy 2017 06 103 2 180 5 10.1016/j.physio.2016.11.001 27913064 S0031-9406(16)30480-1 Sullivan TR Salter AB Ryan P Lee KJ Bias and precision of the "Multiple imputation, then deletion" method for dealing with missing outcome data Am J Epidemiol 2015 09 15 182 6 528 34 10.1093/aje/kwv100 26337075 kwv100 Goldstein H Multilevel Statistical Models 1987 Hoboken, New Jersey, United States Wiley Dunn KM Jordan K Croft P Contributions of prognostic factors for poor outcome in primary care low back pain patients Eur J Pain 2011 03 15 3 313 9 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.07.008 20728385 S1090-3801(10)00174-6 PMC3062783 Hayden J Chou R Hogg-Johnson S Bombardier C Systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis had variable methods and results: guidance for future prognosis reviews J Clin Epidemiol 2009 08 62 8 781 96.e1 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.004 19136234 S0895-4356(08)00263-1 Grotle M Foster N Dunn K Croft P Are prognostic indicators for poor outcome different for acute and chronic low back pain consulters in primary care? Pain 2010 12 151 3 790 7 10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.014 20932646 00006396-201012000-00033 PMC3398128 Campbell MK Piaggio G Elbourne DR Altman DG CONSORT Group Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials BMJ 2012 09 04 345 e5661 10.1136/bmj.e5661 22951546 Vickers AJ How many repeated measures in repeated measures designs? Statistical issues for comparative trials BMC Med Res Methodol 2003 10 27 3 22 10.1186/1471-2288-3-22 14580266 1471-2288-3-22 PMC280679 Fritz JM Irrgang J A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale Phys Ther 2001 02 81 2 776 88 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776 11175676 Resnik L Dobrzykowski E Guide to outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain syndromes J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2003 06 33 6 307 16; discussion 317 10.2519/jospt.2003.33.6.307 12839205 Apeldoorn AT Ostelo RW van Helvoirt H Fritz JM Knol DL van Tulder MW de Vet HC A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a classification-based system for subacute and chronic low back pain Spine 2012 37 16 1347 56 10.1097/brs.0b013e31824d9f2b Du S Liu W Cai S Hu Y Dong J The efficacy of e-health in the self-management of chronic low back pain: a meta analysis Int J Nurs Stud 2020 06 106 103507 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103507 32320936 S0020-7489(19)30314-1 Sandal LF Bach K Øverås CK Svendsen MJ Dalager T Stejnicher Drongstrup Jensen J Kongsvold A Nordstoga AL Bardal EM Ashikhmin I Wood K Rasmussen CD Stochkendahl MJ Nicholl BI Wiratunga N Cooper K Hartvigsen J Kjær P Sjøgaard G Nilsen TI Mair FS Søgaard K Mork PJ Effectiveness of app-delivered, tailored self-management support for adults with lower back pain-related disability: a selfBACK randomized clinical trial JAMA Intern Med 2021 10 01 181 10 1288 96 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4097 34338710 2782459 PMC8329791 Ostelo RW Deyo RA Stratford P Waddell G Croft P Von Korff M Bouter LM de Vet HC Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain Spine 2008 33 1 90 4 10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e3a10 Kelders SM Kok RN Ossebaard HC Van Gemert-Pijnen JE Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions J Med Internet Res 2012 11 14 14 6 e152 10.2196/jmir.2104 23151820 v14i6e152 PMC3510730 Traeger AC Hübscher M Henschke N Moseley GL Lee H McAuley JH Effect of primary care-based education on reassurance in patients with acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA Intern Med 2015 05 175 5 733 43 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0217 25799308 2204032 Michie S Richardson M Johnston M Abraham C Francis J Hardeman W Eccles MP Cane J Wood CE The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions Ann Behav Med 2013 08 46 1 81 95 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 23512568 Cherkin D Balderson B Wellman R Hsu C Sherman KJ Evers SC Hawkes R Cook A Levine MD Piekara D Rock P Estlin KT Brewer G Jensen M LaPorte A Yeoman J Sowden G Hill JC Foster NE Effect of low back pain risk-stratification strategy on patient outcomes and care processes: the MATCH randomized trial in primary care J Gen Intern Med 2018 08 33 8 1324 36 10.1007/s11606-018-4468-9 29790073 10.1007/s11606-018-4468-9 PMC6082187 Delitto A Patterson CG Stevans JM Freburger JK Khoja SS Schneider MJ Greco CM Freel JA Sowa GA Wasan AD Brennan GP Hunter SJ Minick KI Wegener ST Ephraim PL Beneciuk JM George SZ Saper RB Stratified care to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: the TARGET trial. A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized trial EClinicalMedicine 2021 04 34 100795 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100795 33870150 S2589-5370(21)00075-4 PMC8040279 Kloek CJ Janssen J Veenhof C Development of a checklist to assist physiotherapists in determination of patients' suitability for a blended treatment Telemed J E Health 2020 08 26 8 1051 65 10.1089/tmj.2019.0143 31804904 Jones CM Shaheed CA Ferreira GE Kharel P Christine Lin C Maher CG Advice and education provide small short-term improvements in pain and disability in people with non-specific spinal pain: a systematic review J Physiother 2021 10 67 4 263 70 10.1016/j.jphys.2021.08.014 34518145 S1836-9553(21)00094-1 Bier JD Sandee-Geurts JJ Ostelo RW Koes BW Verhagen AP Can primary care for back and/or neck pain in the Netherlands benefit from stratification for risk groups according to the STarT back tool classification? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018 01 99 1 65 71 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.011 28709881 S0003-9993(17)30456-2 Deyo RA Mirza SK Turner JA Martin BI Overtreating chronic back pain: time to back off? J Am Board Fam Med 2009 22 1 62 8 10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.080102 19124635 22/1/62 PMC2729142 Williams CM Maher CG Latimer J McLachlan AJ Hancock MJ Day RO Lin CC Efficacy of paracetamol for acute low-back pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial The Lancet 2014 11 384 9954 1586 96 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60805-9 van Gemert-Pijnen JE Nijland N van Limburg M Ossebaard HC Kelders SM Eysenbach G Seydel ER A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies J Med Internet Res 2011 12 05 13 4 e111 10.2196/jmir.1672 22155738 v13i4e111 PMC3278097 Fergusson D Aaron S Guyatt G Hébert P Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis BMJ 2002 09 21 325 7365 652 4 10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652 12242181 PMC1124168