Efficacy of Comprehensive Rehabilitation Programs and Back School for Patients With Low Back Pain: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of back school as a treatment for low back pain is widespread, but determining the efficacy of this approach is complicated by variations in back schools and study methods across clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to synthesize existing evidence on the efficacy of back school as either a primary intervention or a part of a comprehensive rehabilitation program for patients with low back pain. METHODS: The results of 19 prospective randomized controlled trials were evaluated. Quantitative reviewing procedures were used to calculate the effect sizes that compared patients receiving back school with those in a control or comparison group. Effect sizes were computed for 206 hypothesis tests involving 2,373 patients. RESULTS: The average effect size for comprehensive rehabilitation programs that included back school (d = 0.28) was larger than the average effect size for programs that offered back school as the primary intervention (d = -0.14). When effect sizes were stratified by program type and outcome, the comprehensive programs were superior to primary back school programs with respect to pain reduction, increased spinal mobility, and increased strength. Both types of programs showed reasonable success with education/compliance outcomes (d = 0.27-0.28). Lower effect sizes were found among the types of programs for disability and work/vocational outcomes (d < or = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: Back schools were most efficacious when coupled with a comprehensive rehabilitation program. Efficacy was supported for the treatment of pain and physical impairments and for education/compliance outcomes. Work/vocational and disability outcomes, however, were not improved substantially beyond control levels in comprehensive or primary back school programs. [Di Fabio RP. Efficacy of comprehensive rehabilitation programs and back school for patients with low back pain: a meta-analysis.