The Effectiveness of Combined Exercise and Self-Determination Theory Programmes on Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Navas-Otero, Alba; Calvache Mateo, Andrés; Martín-Núñez, Javier; Valenza Peña, Geraldine; Hernández Hernández, Sofía; Ortiz Rubio, Araceli; Valenza, Marie CarmenEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Chronic Disability Exercise
Date
2024-02-01Referencia bibliográfica
Navas-Otero, A.; Calvache-Mateo, A.; Martín-Núñez, J.; Valenza-Peña, G.; Hernández-Hernández, S.; Ortiz-Rubio, A.; Valenza, M.C. The Effectiveness of Combined Exercise and Self-Determination Theory Programmes on Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis. Healthcare 2024, 12, 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12030382
Sponsorship
FPU (“Formación Profesorado Universitario”) grant (FPU: 22/01543) from the training of university faculty in the University of Granada; Ph.D. thesis conducted in the Clinical Medicine and Public Health Doctoral Studies of the University of Granada, Spain; FPU (“Formación Profesorado Universitario”) grant (FPU: 21/00451) from the training of university faculty in the University of GranadaAbstract
Low back pain is a pervasive issue worldwide, having considerable prevalence and a
significant impact on disability. As low back pain is a complicated condition with many potential contributors,
the use of therapeutic exercise, combined with other techniques such as self-determination
theory programmes, has the potential to improve several outcomes. The aim of this systematic
review was to explore the effectiveness of combined exercise and self-determination theory programmes
on chronic low back pain. This study was designed according to Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A systematic search in three databases
(PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted from September to November
2023. After screening, a total of five random control trials with patients with chronic low back pain
were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results showed significant differences
in disability (SMD = −0.98; 95% CI = −1.86, −0.09; p = 0.03) and in quality of life (SMD = 0.23; 95%
CI = 0.02, 0.44; p = 0.03) in favour of the intervention group versus the control group.