Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/11076
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCoppack, RJ-
dc.contributor.authorKristensen, J-
dc.contributor.authorKarageorghis, CI-
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-29T13:30:41Z-
dc.date.available2012-11-
dc.date.available2015-06-29T13:30:41Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Rehabilitation, 26(11): 1032 - 1041, (2012)en_US
dc.identifier.issn0269-2155-
dc.identifier.issn1477-0873-
dc.identifier.urihttp://cre.sagepub.com/content/26/11/1032-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/11076-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To examine the effects of a goal setting intervention on self efficacy, treatment efficacy, adherence and treatment outcome in patients undergoing low back pain rehabilitation. Design: A mixed-model 2 (Time) x 3 (Group) randomized controlled trial. Setting: A residential rehabilitation centre for military personnel. Subjects: UK military personnel volunteers (N=48); mean age was 32.9 (SD 7.9) with a diagnosis of non-specific low back pain. Interventions: Subjects were randomly assigned to either a goal setting experimental group (Exp, n=16), therapist-led exercise therapy group (C1, n=16), or non-therapist-led exercise therapy group (C2, n=16). Treatment duration for all groups was 3 weeks. Main measures: Self-efficacy, treatment efficacy and treatment outcome were recorded before and after the treatment period. Adherence was rated during regularly scheduled treatment sessions using the Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (SIRAS). The Biering-Sørensen test was used as the primary measure of treatment outcome. Results: ANCOVA results showed that adherence scores were significantly higher in the experimental group (13.70 ± 1.58) compared with C2 (11.74 ± 1.35), (P<0.025). There was no significant difference for adherence between the experimental group and C1 (P=0.13). Self-efficacy was significantly higher in the experimental group compared to both C1 and C2 (P<0.05), whereas no significant difference was found for treatment efficacy. Treatment outcome did not differ significantly between the experimental and two control groups. Conclusions: The findings provide partial support for the use of goal setting to enhance adherence in clinical rehabilitation.en_US
dc.format.extent1032 - 1041-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.subjectExercise therapyen_US
dc.subjectPerformance profilingen_US
dc.subjectSelf-efficacyen_US
dc.subjectTreatment efficacyen_US
dc.titleUse of a goal setting intervention to increase adherence to low back pain rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215512436613-
dc.relation.isPartOfClinical Rehabilitation-
pubs.issue11-
pubs.issue11-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
pubs.volume26-
pubs.volume26-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf513.03 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.