Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 May 29;20(1):805.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08566-z.

Effectiveness of a theory-based back care intervention on spine-related behavior among pupils: a school-based randomised controlled trial (T-Bak study)

Zahra Akbari-Chehrehbargh  1 , Sedigheh Sadat Tavafian  2 , Ali Montazeri  3   4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of a theory-based back care intervention on spine-related behavior among pupils: a school-based randomised controlled trial (T-Bak study)

Zahra Akbari-Chehrehbargh et al. BMC Public Health. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Children's health and welfare have a special place in research and policy in many countries. One of the most important concerns is the increasing rate of backache in children due to many of behavioral risk factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational program on promoting back-related behavior as well as knowledge, skills, beliefs, and self-efficacy among fifth grade girls.

Methods: The theory-based back care (T-Bak) study was a school-based randomised controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the effectiveness of developing a back care training program based on the social cognitive theory (SCT). A total of 104 schoolchildren aged 11 ± 1.0 years were assigned to intervention (n = 52) and control (n = 52) groups. The intervention group received six sessions training on proper lifting and carrying techniques, having proper posture during daily activities, and correct backpack wearing techniques with a 1-week interval while the control group received nothing. Then, the two groups were assessed for knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, beliefs, and behavior at four points in time: baseline, immediate, three and six-months post-intervention. The changes of the outcomes investigated using univariate repeated measures analysis of variance. Partial eta squared measure (ηp2) was used to calculate effect sizes.

Results: A positive change was found for the intervention group back-related behavior from baseline to immediate post-intervention and follow-ups (F = 78.865, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.22). Overall there were 36.4% improvement for knowledge (ηp2 = 0.21), 53.2% for the skills (ηp2 = 0.25), 19.5% for the self-efficacy (ηp2 = 0.11), and 25.6% for the beliefs (ηp2 = 0.14) scores from baseline to 6 months' follow-up assessments among the intervention group (p < 0.001). The results also showed a significant interaction effect between group and time.

Conclusion: The T-Bak intervention was effective in improving back-related behavior in pupils. It is now available and could be evaluated further in back-care related studies.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials IRCT20180528039885N1, 30th Oct 2018, 'Prospectively registered'. https://www.irct.ir/trial/31534.

Keywords: Backache; Behavior; Educational programme; Schoolchildren; Social cognitive theory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework of the T-Bak study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Practice stations for skills-related tasks and self-efficacy improvement
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The T-Bak intervention participation flow diagram
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Back care behavior over 6 months
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Back care knowledge over 6 months
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Back care skills over 6 months
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Back care self-efficacy over 6 months
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Beliefs over 6 months
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specifi c low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389:736–747. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clark BC, Russ DW, Nakazawa M, France CR, Walkowski S, Law TD, et al. A randomized control trial to determine the effectiveness and physiological effects of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization compared to each other and a sham condition in patients with chronic low back pain : Study protocol for The RELIEF Study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;70:41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.05.012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dullien S, Grifka J, Jansen P. Cluster-randomized, controlled evaluation of a teacher led multi factorial school based back education program for 10 to 12-year old children. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(312):1–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khanzada S, Khanzada SK, Khan MS, Shaikh S, Mirza RA, Naaz E, et al. Revalence of backache among school going children of hyderabad, sindh. Int J Theor Phys. 2016;3(1):11–4.
    1. Subbarayalu Arun V., Ameer Mariam A. Relationships among head posture, pain intensity, disability and deep cervical flexor muscle performance in subjects with postural neck pain. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2017;12(6):541–547. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.07.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types