Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (The CINS Trial): A Randomized Controlled, Multicenter Trial Comparing a Brief Intervention With Additional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seal Oil, and Soy Oil for Sick-Listed Low Back Pain Patients
- PMID: 27760062
- DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001596
Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (The CINS Trial): A Randomized Controlled, Multicenter Trial Comparing a Brief Intervention With Additional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seal Oil, and Soy Oil for Sick-Listed Low Back Pain Patients
Abstract
Study design: A randomized controlled trial.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a tailored and manualized cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) or nutritional supplements of seal oil and soy oil had any additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention (BI) on return to work (RTW).
Summary of background data: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial and cost-effective for patients with low back pain (LBP). CBT is recommended for LBP, but evidence on RTW is lacking. Seal oil has previously been shown to have a possible effect on muscle pain, but no randomized controlled trials have so far been carried out in LBP patients.
Methods: Four hundred thirteen adults aged 18 to 60 years were included. Participants were sick-listed 2 to 10 months due to LBP. Main outcome was objectively ascertained work participation at 12-month follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to BI (n = 100), BI and CBT (n = 103), BI and seal oil (n = 105), or BI and soy oil (n = 105). BI is a two-session cognitive, clinical examination program followed by two booster sessions, while the CBT program is a tailored, individual, seven-session manual-based treatment.
Results: At 12-month follow-up, 60% of the participants in the BI group, 50% in the BI and CBT group, 51% in the BI and seal oil group, and 53% in the BI and soy oil group showed reduced sick leave from baseline, and had either partly or fully RTW. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (χ = 2.54, P = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups at any of the other follow-up assessments either, except for a significantly lower sick leave rate in the BI group than the other groups during the first 3 months of follow-up (χ = 9.50, P = 0.02).
Conclusion: CBT and seal oil had no additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention on sick leave. The brief cognitive intervention alone was superior in facilitating a fast RTW.
Level of evidence: 2.
References
-
- Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 1999; 354:581–585.
-
- Waddell G, Burton AK. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work: evidence review. Occup Med (Lond) 2001; 51:124–135.
-
- Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380:2163–2196.
-
- NAV. Sickness Absence Statistics, First Quarter 2005–2014. Oslo: Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV); 2014.
-
- Brox JI, Storheim K, Grotle M, et al. Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with back schools, brief education, and fear-avoidance training. Spine J 2008; 8:28–39.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
