Physical Therapy to Treat Chronic Pain in Survivors of Trauma

September 27, 2021 updated by: Justine Dee, University of Vermont

Physical Therapy for Individuals With Chronic Pain Due to Physical and/or Emotional Trauma: A Comparison of Physical Therapy Interventions

This study will assess the effects of physical therapy (PT) for individuals who are survivors of trauma (SOT) and have chronic pain. While much has been studied about the psychological effects and treatment of trauma, little is known about the PT management of chronic pain and loss of function SOT experience. With over 24 million people in the U.S. suffering from chronic pain there are potentially high numbers of individuals living with resultant disability associated with that pain. Physical therapists are well versed in treating pain and restoring function. However, choice of PT can vary based on therapist years of experience and type or lack of PT specialization. Physical therapy has traditionally focused on a bio-medical (BIOM) approach. Some believe that the BIOM approach is ineffective in reducing chronic pain and functional loss, and that PT requires a biopsychosocial (BPS) approach, targeting central nervous system changes that occur with chronic pain. Pain education (PE) and Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) are PT interventions thought to address these brain changes, and are used by physical therapists to treat patients with phantom limb pain and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Most of the studies examining the effects of GMI and PE have methodological issues. Exercise is another common PT treatment and is beneficial in promoting improved function and decreasing disability for many conditions. Although PTs in clinical practice can offer all of these modalities, there is little high quality evidence to support the choice among them. This study will compare two varieties of PT: BIOM-based versus BPS-based care. Individuals with chronic pain who are referred to PT by their primary care provider or self-referred will be screened for trauma history by the PI. SOT who are seen at a community psychology center who experience chronic pain and disability will be referred to PT. Upon referral, SOT who meet the inclusion criteria will be invited to participate. SOT who consent to the study will be randomized to either the BIOM-based or the BPS-based group. All participants will undergo baseline assessment. Participants will complete 6 one-hour PT sessions once a week following their randomly assigned plan. All baseline measures will be repeated by the blinded assessor after the 6th visit; scores will be assessed to determine if there is a difference in the change in functional outcomes between the BIOM- and BPS-based groups after completion of the 6 PT sessions.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The purpose of this study is to compare two usual PT programs to determine if one is more effective than the other in reducing disability and pain in individuals who are survivors of physical and or emotional trauma. Numerous studies have assessed the mental health issues of SOT and the psychological interventions used to address these issues, but there has been little research on interventions that address the somatic pain and disability complaints in SOT in spite of the fact that 78-83% of survivors report chronic pain.

There is large variability in physical therapy management of painful conditions, representing an opportunity to improve patient care and outcomes. Choice of physical therapy intervention can vary based on the individual therapist's years of experience or type of PT practice specialization, or lack of specialization. The biomedical model (BIOM) of physical therapy (PT) management addresses pain problems by targeting treatment towards the physiologic structures or tissues in the region where the patient is reporting the pain sensations. This model follows the premise that pain is due to tissue damage and localized inflammation due to faulty biomechanics and movement patterns, injury, disease or disuse. The Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapists Low Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend manual therapy, targeted spine strengthening, endurance and flexibility exercises to treat patients with acute, sub-acute, and chronic back pain, and follows this BIOM approach. Additionally, there are a variety of exercise methods and manual therapies touted by practitioners leading to heterogeneous interventions given for similar patient conditions. A 2014 study compared the outcomes of two different types of targeted spine interventions for the treatment of low back pain, and found the results to be equivocal, with approximately half the subjects in each treatment group demonstrating significant improvement. A biopsychosocial (BPS) PT approach of pain neuroscience education, Graded Motor Imagery and general conditioning exercises encompassing the health and skill related components of fitness has also been found to reduce pain and improve function in patients with chronic low back pain, in patients with complex regional pain syndrome and in patients with phantom limb pain. These conditions involve central brain changes due to the experience of chronic pain; pain neuroscience education and Graded Motor Imagery are purported to address these central changes. These studies, however, had methodologic issues, such as lack of a control group or small sample sizes. Exercise helps address the fear avoidance component of chronic low back pain, and helps to improve strength, endurance and tolerance for daily functional activities. Furthermore, pain education was found to decrease pain and improve function in SOT in a small pilot study. Patient education is a major component of any PT intervention.

There are a few small studies that have examined the effects of a BPS approach with promising results for specific chronic pain conditions, and there are studies that support the BIOM approach in treating musculoskeletal pain conditions but BPS- and BIOM-based treatments have not previously been compared in a large randomized controlled trial, nor described in the treatment of chronic pain in STT.

Researchers have sought to determine PT methods that are most beneficial in reducing chronic pain and disability, but studies to date have been inconclusive. The investigators objective is to compare the BIOM and BSP methods of PT to identify best treatment for individuals who have experienced physical and/or emotional trauma and have resultant disabling chronic pain due to this trauma. Findings from this work could help physical therapists provide targeted, effective treatment to help ameliorate the effects of chronic pain and disability in this population. With 78-83% of SOT living with chronic pain, the study findings will help therapists choose appropriate interventions to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

98

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Vermont
      • South Burlington, Vermont, United States, 05403
        • Dee Physical Therapy

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • definition of trauma/torture as defined by the United Nations (UN) HUR 03051 determined by referring clinical psychologist
  • definition of trauma as identified through screening via the Life Events Check List by the PI
  • chronic spine and or extremity pain of greater than 6 months duration
  • able to attend and participate in six, 60-minute intervention sessions
  • ambulatory, with or without assistive devices for a minimum of 20 feet

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to walk a minimum of 20 feet
  • inability to afford any insurance fee for the 6 visits needed for the research study.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Biomedical (BIOM) physical therapy
Six 60 minute PT sessions consisting of 15 minutes of education on topics such as ideal postural alignment (sitting, sleeping), maintenance of normal spinal curves, body mechanics, proper lifting techniques, home pain control via anti-inflammatory modalities such as ice; 15 minutes of manual therapy to region of pain (soft tissue and/or joint mobilization); 30 minutes of region specific exercises to address identified muscle imbalances -stretching and strengthening of the muscles local to the area of pain.
Other: Physical Therapy
Physical therapy modalities to treat chronic pain
Active Comparator: Biopsychosocial (BPS) physical therapy

Six 60 minute PT sessions consisting of 15 minutes of pain neuro-science education, 15 minutes of Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) techniques, (a progressive program of visual and mental exercises consisting of laterality exercises, motor imagery and mirror therapy); 30 minutes of a general conditioning exercise program individualized for each participant based on initial examination findings and participant presentation consisting of:

A cardiovascular component which may include walking on a treadmill, stationary cycling, or a seated stepping machine.

A muscle strengthening component for extremities and trunk. A flexibility component for upper and lower extremity musculature.
Other: Physical Therapy
Physical therapy modalities to treat chronic pain

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT)
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6
Self report tool assessing physical function using a 5 point scale ranging from "1 Unable to do" to "5 Without any difficulty". Values are summed into a raw score, which is converted into a T-score. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT)
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6
Self report tool assessing how pain interferes and hinders engagement with social, cognitive, emotional, physical and recreational activities using a 5 point scale ranging from "1 Not at All", "2 A little bit", "3 Some what", "4 Quite a bit", "5 very much". Values are summed into a raw score, which is converted into a T-score. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6
Change in Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Self report tool assessing physical, mental, social health and wellbeing domains. Domains are scored on a 1-5 scale. Physical function scale ranges from "1 Unable to do" to "5 Without any difficulty"; anxiety, depression and ability to participate in social roles domain scales ranges from "1 Never" to "5 Always"; Fatigue, Sleep and Pain Interference domain scales range from "1 Not at all" to "5 Very Much" Values are summed into a raw score, which is converted into a T-score The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Change in Brief Pain Inventory
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6
Self report tool assessing pain intensity on an 11 point scale ranging from "0 No Pain" to "10 Pain as bad as you can imagine" and pain interference on an 11 point scale ranging from "0 Does not interfere" to "10 Completely Interferes". The 4 Pain intensity scores are used singly to represent pain severity. The Pain Interference is scored as the mean of the 7 items.
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6
Change in Central Sensitization Inventory
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Self report screening tool to identify central sensitization syndromes, measuring a participants self reported sensitivity to stimuli such as light, sounds, smells, muscle input and activity, on a 5 point scale ranging from "0 Never" to "4 Always". Values are summed into a total score, with higher score being worse sensitivity.
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Change in Pain pressure threshold sensory testing
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Quantitative sensory assessment of an individuals threshold to an applied pressure
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Change in Two-point discrimination sensory testing
Time Frame: Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.
Quantitative sensory assessment of an individuals ability to discern one or two points of sensory input
Baseline (pre-PT, week 0) and after completion of the 6th PT visit, at week 6.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

University of Vermont

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Justine Dee, MS, University of Vermont

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 18, 2019

Primary Completion (Actual)

July 30, 2021

Study Completion (Actual)

July 30, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 24, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 27, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

May 1, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 29, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 27, 2021

Last Verified

September 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 00000128

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Chronic Pain

Clinical Trials on Physical Therapy

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Denmark

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe