Spinal Control During Functional Activities to Improve Low Back Pain Outcomes
Phase: NA
Conditions: Mechanical Low Back Pain, Chronic Low Back Pain
Sponsor: Washington University School of Medicine

 
 
Protocol Summary 
Version (original protocol): 08/20/2013 
Version (summary of changes to protocol and analyses): 05/07/2019 
 
Spinal control during functional activities to improve low back 
pain outcomes 
 
Principal Investigator: 
Linda Van Dillen, PT, PhD 
Professor, Program in Physical Therapy and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery 
Campus Box 8502 
4444 Forest Park Avenue 
St. Louis, MO 63108 
(314) 286-1427 
vandillenl@wustl.edu 
NIH/NICHD/NCMRR R01 HD047709 
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02027623 
 
 
Washington University HRPO#: 201205051 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Table of Contents 
Original Protocol ................................................................................................................................3 
1. Background and Introduction .........................................................................................................3 
2. Specific Aims ..................................................................................................................................6 
3. Approach .......................................................................................................................................6 
3.1 Design .................................................................................................................................................. 6 
3.2 Subjects ............................................................................................................................................... 7 
3.3 Study flow chart .................................................................................................................................. 7 
4. Enrollment of Participants ..............................................................................................................8 
4.2 Inclusion Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 8 
4.3 Exclusion Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 8 
4.4 Recruitment ........................................................................................................................................ 8 
4.4a Clinics/Offices ................................................................................................................................ 9 
4.4b Clinic Enrollment Flowchart .......................................................................................................... 9 
4.5 Initial Screening ................................................................................................................................. 10 
4.5a Screening to Enrollment Flow Chart ........................................................................................... 10 
5. Laboratory Visits .......................................................................................................................... 10 
5.1 Informed Consent ............................................................................................................................. 10 
5.2 Baseline Examination/Laboratory Measures .................................................................................... 11 
5.3 Randomization .................................................................................................................................. 11 
5.4 Laboratory Visit 2 & 3 ....................................................................................................................... 11 
6. Treatment Protocol ...................................................................................................................... 12 
6.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 12 
6.2 Motor Skill Training (MST) ................................................................................................................ 12 
6.3 Strength and Flexibility Exercise (SFE) .............................................................................................. 13 
6.4 Training and monitoring of clinicians providing treatment .............................................................. 14 
7. Treatment Visit Procedures .......................................................................................................... 14 
7.1 Clinic Visit 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 14 
7.2 Follow-up Clinic Visits ....................................................................................................................... 15 
7.3 Final Visit ........................................................................................................................................... 15 
7.4 Booster Phase ................................................................................................................................... 15 
7.5 Reporting Worsening of Status and Procedures ............................................................................... 16 
7.6 Adherence/Non-Adherence During Treatment Period .................................................................... 16 
8. Human Protection (HRPO) ............................................................................................................ 16 

 
 
8.1 Charts ................................................................................................................................................ 16 
8.2 Visit Documentation ......................................................................................................................... 16 
8.3 Blinding, Contamination, and Privacy Issues .................................................................................... 17 
8.4 Log of Adverse Events ....................................................................................................................... 17 
8.5 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................... 17 
9. Assessments and Outcome Measures ........................................................................................... 18 
9.1 Outcome Measures Overview .......................................................................................................... 18 
9.2 Key Self-Report Measures ................................................................................................................. 18 
9.3 Adherence to Home Program ........................................................................................................... 19 
9.4 Descriptions of Self-Report Measures .............................................................................................. 19 
9.4a Time Table for Administration .................................................................................................... 23 
10. Data Management...................................................................................................................... 23 
10.1 Data Management Overview .......................................................................................................... 23 
10.2 Sample Size Estimate ...................................................................................................................... 24 
10.3 Analyses .......................................................................................................................................... 24 
11. References ................................................................................................................................. 26 
 
Changes to planned analyses ............................................................................................................ 32 
Summary of Changes to the Protocol ................................................................................................ 32 
 
Original Protocol 
1. Background and Introduction 
Significance 
At least 60%-80% of adults will experience LBP,1 and almost ½ of them will have had a major 
episode by age 30.2 Chronic LBP is the most common type of chronic pain in adults1,3 and its 
prevalence is increasing.4,5  At least 75% of people who have a LBP episode, fail to recover fully 
within 1 year.6 Pain persists as do limitations in simple movements and complex functional 
activities like self-care, social role, and work.3 Recurrence rates are as high as 78%.7 Thus, for 
many people LBP is a long-term, function-limiting condition rather than a short-term, self-limiting 
condition.6,8-11  LBP-related costs are staggering. Estimated annual costs for LBP-related health-
care are $30.7 billion and are increasing.12  
 
Treatment of chronic LBP  
Exercise is one of the primary non-surgical approaches used worldwide for managing LBP.13-16 
Based on systematic reviews, experts concluded that exercise is as efficacious, if not more 
efficacious for managing chronic LBP than 1) no treatment, 2) usual care, and 3) many other 
treatments, such as massage or laser therapy.13,15-22 Experts also concluded that specific 
characteristics of exercise programs influence their efficacy23 and that the most efficacious 
programs are 1) tailored to the individual, 2) delivered with supervision, and 3) designed to 
achieve high doses by emphasizing adherence.  Despite the evidence for the beneficial effects 

 
 
of exercise in chronic LBP, several issues remain unresolved. First, little is known about which 
exercise is best for which patient.15,22 There is no evidence that any particular type of exercise is 
clearly and consistently more efficacious than any other.13-16,20-22,24,25 Many experts have 
suggested that differences between approaches have been missed because the heterogeneity 
of subjects in samples13,15,16,20-22,26 and variability in the treatments studied have diluted the 
effects.23,27 Second, when exercise is compared to non-exercise approaches, the effects tend to 
be small and inconsistent for outcomes like pain and function14,20,22 and most of the significant 
effects are obtained only at the earliest follow-up.14,22 Third, adherence and tests of the effects 
of adherence on outcomes are rarely examined.16,18,21,23,28 Fourth, few studies examine the 
mechanisms underlying exercise effects,20-22,25,27 so we do not know whether improvements in 
outcome with exercise are consistent with mechanism-based predictions for specific variables.  
The primary recommendation from review groups is that future studies should investigate the 
effect of individualized exercise strategies in well-defined populations of people with LBP.14,21-
24,27 The exercises should be aimed at restoring normal function and facilitating the person’s 
performance of daily activities.13,18,29 Furthermore, they recommend that future studies be 
designed to examine both the 1) specific mechanisms underlying the effect of exercise, and 2) 
effects of adherence on outcomes.16,20-22,25,30 We will address all 3 of the recommendations. 
 
Individualized exercises for restoring normal function and performance of daily activities  
Given the profound impact of LBP on function,3,6,12 a logical approach requires inclusion of 
explicit, individualized practice in performance of functional activities as a form of exercise. 
Interestingly, only physical conditioning programs, such as work hardening, work conditioning, 
and functional restoration include practice of activities as part of treatment.31-36 However, these 
programs are primarily intended for people with disabling, work-related LBP. Thus, many of the 
activities that are practiced are 1) heavy work activities rather than routine functional 
activities,32,33,36-38 and 2) not typically tailored to the individual. Finally, the programs tend to 
include a variety of co-interventions so the effect of any specific component is unclear. 32,35 
 
Neural mechanisms underlying the effect of exercise 
Because both exercise and practice in performance of functional activities are types of motor 
training, studies in the motor training literature can inform our understanding of the mechanisms 
underlying their effects. Motor training induces structural and functional adaptations across a 
variety of motor regions of the nervous system.39-43 In a review of the effects of skill, endurance, 
and strength training on the motor cortex and spinal cord, Adkins et al. emphasized the fact that 
the nature and location of adaptations are dependent on the specific behavioral demands of the 
motor experience.44 Skill training is defined as the acquisition and refinement of novel 
combinations of motor sequences. Skill training results in synaptogenesis, synaptic potentiation, 
and reorganization of movement representations in the motor cortex.44,45 Such adaptations are 
associated with the acquisition of new motor skills and vary with the degree of motor skill a 
person displays.43,46-48 By contrast, strength and endurance exercises do not produce these 
adaptations.49,50 If a goal of LBP rehabilitation is to aid acquisition, retention, and refinement of 
new motor behaviors to improve function, then the use of motor skill training is a necessity. 
 
Model for development and course of LBP 
 
The Kinesiopathologic Model (KPM) provides a conceptual basis for understanding the 
development and course of LBP. Specifically, LBP is proposed to be the result of repeatedly 
using direction-specific (flexion, extension, rotation, some combination) stereotypic movement 
and alignment patterns in the lumbar spine. The patterns begin as the result of an interaction 
between an individual’s structural characteristics and the movements and alignments needed to 
perform daily functional activities.51-57 Over time, the same patterns are used repeatedly for 
many different functional activities. The typical stereotypic pattern is characterized by the lumbar 

 
 
spine moving more readily in its available range in a specific direction(s) than the thoracic spine 
or hip.57-61 Because the same patterns are used repeatedly, the loading is always on the same 
spinal tissue and tissue stress is concentrated in specific areas.62 Repetitive loading of the same 
tissue could also alter the tissue’s tolerance over time, accelerate the rate of mechanical injury, 
and potentially lead to tissue degeneration. Thus, the KPM describes a mechanism by which 
repetitive loading during performance of daily functional activities could contribute to the 
development and course of this often long-term, function-limiting condition. 
 
Potential for individualized motor skill training to improve long-term course of LBP 
 
In our recently completed clinical trial, we compared the effects of a classification-specific (Sp) 
treatment to a non-specific (NSp) treatment over a 12 month period. The Movement System 
Impairment (MSI) classification system that we used to classify subgroups of people with LBP is 
based on the KPM.51 People in the various LBP subgroups exhibited direction-specific, 
stereotypic patterns of lumbar movement and alignment that were associated with their LBP. 
The Sp treatment included both exercise and training in functional activities directed at 
modifying the specific pattern(s) associated with the person’s LBP. The NSp treatment included 
strength and flexibility exercise as well as training to maintain a neutral alignment of the lumbar 
spine during functional activities. We found that people in both the Sp and NSp groups had very 
large clinically meaningful improvements (61% at 6 mos) in pain and function63 but differences 
between groups were smaller than expected.64 We attributed the results to 3 related facts: 1) in 
addition to exercise, both groups received training to improve lumbar spine control during 
functional activities, 2) in both groups, adherence levels were higher and more prolonged for 
training in functional activities than for exercise, and 3) outcomes continued to improve for about 
6 months after treatment but then gradually reversed along with declines in adherence to 
functional activity training. Changes in pain and function were much more strongly associated 
with adherence to functional activity training than with adherence to exercise. Thus, training in 
functional activities appears to be the essential active ingredient for improvement in both 
groups. Accordingly, the next important steps are to 1) disentangle the effects of training in 
functional activities and exercise, 2) maximize the effect by providing individualized motor skill 
training during functional activities based on principles of motor skill learning, 3) prolong the 
treatment effects by providing a booster treatment at 6 months, and 4) enhance our 
understanding of the underlying mechanism by testing for predicted differences in the effects of 
the interventions on laboratory measurements of movement and alignment.  
 
Impact on clinical practice  
 
Currently rehabilitation for people with chronic LBP is highly variable and is usually focused only 
on treatment of acute recurrences.28,65-67 Successful completion of this project will provide 
specific recommendations for the use and timing of individualized motor skill training for 
functional activities that can be applied immediately in practice. Because the training is focused 
on how an individual can painlessly perform functional activities that are limited, our findings will 
provide clinicians with an approach to treatment that directly addresses the factors proposed to 
contribute to the costly, long-term course of LBP. Also because the treatment is associated with 
prolonged periods of high levels of adherence, and uses specifically timed, periodic booster 
sessions to reinforce behaviors that minimize the patient’s symptoms and functional limitations, 
our findings will provide the clinician and the person with LBP a feasible approach to long-term 
management of the condition, rather than just treating acute recurrences. Such an approach to 
LBP care could have an important impact on the long-term course (i.e., persistent or recurrent 
symptoms) and associated health-care costs of chronic LBP. 
 
 
Focus on a treatment associated with high levels of adherence  

 
 
The level of adherence during long-term treatment for most chronic diseases is only ~50%.68 
Poor adherence equates with low treatment dosage and consequent diminution of treatment 
effects. Data from our clinical trial demonstrated that 1) adherence levels were higher and more 
prolonged for training in functional activities than for exercise, and 2) changes in pain and 
function were more strongly related to functional activity adherence than to exercise adherence. 
Thus, in the proposed project we are focusing on a treatment to which people are able to 
adhere at high levels for prolonged periods of time.  
 
Booster phase to prolong initial treatment effects 
The purpose of the booster phase is to prolong the initial improvements seen in our clinical trial. 
Others have tested the effect of booster treatments in people with musculoskeletal pain 
conditions, including chronic LBP.69-72 The innovativeness of our approach lies in the basis for 
the criteria we use for determining when to intervene and how much treatment to provide. 
Rather than providing additional treatment arbitrarily, we have scheduled the booster phase to 
start just before the time when outcomes began to reverse in our prior trial. The criterion for the 
number of booster sessions (i.e., how much treatment) is the number needed to attain 
independence in performance of the treatment items.73 
 
2. Specific Aims 
Specific Aim 1: Test if motor skill training results in better outcomes and better adherence than 
strength and flexibility exercise in the 12 months after treatment. 
Compared to the strength and flexibility exercise group, the motor skill training group will  
Hypothesis 1a. report lower LBP intensity, fewer days with LBP, and less frequent LBP 
recurrences. 
Hypothesis 1b. report fewer functional limitations as well as better perceived physical 
health and mental health, work attendance, and productivity. 
Hypothesis 1c. use fewer LBP medications and fewer healthcare services. 
Hypothesis 1d. report higher levels of adherence over longer periods of time. 
Hypothesis 1e. display improved movement and alignment patterns during functional 
activities. 
Specific Aim 2: Test the effect of a booster phase that is provided 6 months after the initial 
phase.  
Hypothesis 2a. The effect of a booster treatment condition will be longer-lasting 
improvement in function and better adherence than a no booster treatment condition. 
Hypothesis 2b. The effect of a booster treatment condition will be greater for the motor 
skill training group than for the strength and flexibility exercise group. 
Specific Aim 3: Examine the relationship between functional limitations and 2 factors 1) 
adherence, and 2) movement and alignment patterns displayed during functional activities. 
Hypothesis 3a. Adherence to motor skill training will be related more strongly to 
functional limitations than will adherence to strength and flexibility exercise.  
Hypothesis 3b. Movement and alignment patterns displayed by the motor skill training 
group will be related more strongly to functional limitations than will patterns displayed 
by the strength and flexibility exercise group. 
 
3. Approach 
3.1 Design 
The study is a single-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Figure 1 illustrates 
the organization and flow of events. After we collect baseline self-report and laboratory 
measures, people will be randomized to 1 of 2 treatment conditions, motor skill training (MST) or 
strength and flexibility exercise (SFE). The initial phase will be 6, 1-hour treatment sessions, 

 
 
scheduled once/week for 6 weeks. Post-treatment self-report and laboratory measures will be 
obtained immediately after the initial phase. A select subset of web-based, self-reports will be 
obtained monthly for the next 12 months (9.4a Time Table for Administration). At 6 months after 
treatment, self-report and laboratory measures will be obtained again. Subsequently, people will 
be randomized to a booster treatment condition, booster or no booster. The booster treatment 
will be specific to the person’s initial, condition-specific treatment assignment. The number of 
booster sessions will be limited to the number needed to attain independence in the exercises 
or functional activities prescribed. Independence will be based on a standardized measure used 
in our prior trial.73 The 6-month time point was chosen based on change in the Modified 
Oswestry Disability Questoinnaire (MODQ) scores from our prior trial.  
3.2 Subjects 
We will recruit 154 people between the ages of 18 and 60 years who have had chronic, non-
specific LBP for at least 1 year from the St. Louis metropolitan area. Chronic LBP is defined as 
pain present for at least half the days in a year in the region between T12 and the gluteal fold, 
with or without leg symptoms to the knee.11,74 Non-specific LBP is defined as LBP in which no 
specific pathophysiologic mechanism can be identified to account for the person’s perceived 
pain.75 The goal of this study is to obtain a representative sample of people who have both 
symptoms and disability related to chronic LBP. The target participant population is people with 
chronic LBP, with or without recurrences. The goal is to examine the generalizability of the 
effects seen in the previous clinical trial to people who have more LBP-related limitation than 
people previously studied. This will be accomplished by recruiting participants from the 
Washington University School of Medicine Physical Therapy Clinic (WUPT Clinic) and local 
outpatient clinics and offices. Only participants who report a specific criterion level of disability 
and difficulty with a specific number of functional activities will be enrolled. Both genders and all 
races and ethnicities will be included in the study population. 
3.3 Study flow chart 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Enrollment of Participants 
4.2 Inclusion Criteria 
The inclusion criteria are 1) people ages 18-60 with chronic LBP for a minimum of 12 months, 2) 
currently experiencing LBP symptoms but not in a recurrence or an acute flare-up, 3) MODQ 
score of ≥ 20%, 4) 3 or more functional activities (simple or complex) limited due to LBP, 5) able 
to stand and walk without assistance, and 6) able to understand and sign a consent form. 
4.3 Exclusion Criteria 
The exclusion criteria are 1) BMI >30, 2) any structural spinal deformity including scoliosis, 
kyphosis, or stenosis, 3) spinal fracture or dislocation, 4) low back pain due to trauma, 5) 
osteoporosis, 6) ankylosing spondylitis, 7) rheumatoid arthritis, 8) disc herniation (i.e. diagnosis 
with symptoms below the knee), 9) spondylolisthesis, 10) serious spinal complications such as 
tumor or infection, 11) previous spinal surgery, 12) frank neurological loss, i.e., weakness or 
sensory loss, 13) pain or paresthesia below the knee, 14) etiology of LBP other than the lumbar 
spine, e.g., hip joint, 15) history of neurologic disease which required hospitalization, 16) active 
treatment for cancer, 17) history of unresolved cancer, 18) pregnancy, 19) worker’s 
compensation or disability case, and 20) in litigation for the LBP problem.  
4.4 Recruitment  
People with LBP will be recruited from the WUPT clinic, local clinics and offices, and local 
advertisements and health fairs. In all clinics, a list of the inclusion/exclusion criteria and 

 
 
possible diagnoses will be available. Flyers will also be placed in all office areas and given to 
clinic staff for reference. 
4.4a Clinics/Offices 
Study flyers will be placed in all area clinics/offices that see potential LBP participants and are 
willing to assist with study recruitment. Patients that are being referred for physical therapy 
treatment of their LBP also will be asked if they are interested in the study. If they are interested, 
their information can be given to the research coordinator (RC) or research assistant (RA) or the 
patient can contact the RC or RA directly. If the person is not interested, the person will be 
scheduled as usual. The RA or RC will log everyone she contacts on the Telephone Screening 
Log. If the person does not qualify for the study, he will be told to schedule his appointment with 
the clinic. If a person exceeds three callbacks, he will no longer be contacted. 
4.4b Clinic Enrollment Flowchart 
 

 
 
4.5 Initial Screening 
The RA will speak with interested individuals via phone. The RA will briefly describe the trial and 
the procedures the person will participate in. Informed consent for a telephone screening will be 
obtained. The RA will then interview the individual using a series of screening questions to 
determine eligibility for the trial. If the person is deemed ineligible by phone screening, then the 
RA will explain the reason why he does not qualify (DQ). If the person is deemed eligible by 
phone screening, he then will be scheduled for a baseline laboratory visit where additional 
screening will be performed. All individuals who are screened will be entered into a database 
indicating their eligibility/ineligibility for the trial. 
 
4.5a Screening to Enrollment Flow Chart 
 
5. Laboratory Visits 
5.1 Informed Consent 
If the person is eligible, he will be scheduled to come in for examination with the Research 
Physical Therapist (RPT). On the first visit to the laboratory the Principal Investigator (PI), RPT, 
RC, or RA will explain the informed consent process to the person. The person will then be 
taken through the specific details on the informed consent form approved by Washington 
University’s Human Research Protection Office (HRPO). In particular, the person will be told the 
procedures he will participate in, the potential risks and benefits of participation, and his right to 

 
 
refuse participation at any time without any effect on his subsequent health care. The person 
then will be given an opportunity to read the consent form. The PI, RPT, RC, or RA will be 
available to answer any specific questions, highlight the important details of the study again, 
and remind the person of his rights as a participant. The person will then be asked to sign the 
consent form. A copy of the form and a brochure explaining the person’s rights under the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations will be given to the person for 
his records. The signed consent form will then be signed by the person administering consent. 
The consent form will be filed in a locked cabinet separate from the person’s data.  
5.2 Baseline Examination/Laboratory Measures  
Participants who are eligible for participation in the study and provide informed consent will be 
examined. At the initial visit, height and weight will be collected from each participant with 
clothing on and shoes off using a manual scale. Height will be collected to the nearest ¼” and 
weight will be collected to the nearest pound. The participant will then complete a 
Demographics and LBP history questionnaire, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), and the 
MODQ. Participant eligibility of MODQ ≥ 20% score and at least 3 functional activities limited 
due to LBP will be confirmed. Next, the participant will be examined by a licensed, trained RPT 
who will use a standardized exam to classify the participant’s LBP based on the MSI 
classification system.51,76-79 The participant then will complete additional self-report measures 
and laboratory testing. Because all baseline testing occurs before randomization, research 
personnel involved in testing will be blinded to the participant’s treatment assignment throughout 
the study. 
 
Laboratory Measures 
Participants will perform functional activity tests that (1) parallel activities reported as 
problematic for the majority of participants in prior studies, and (2) have been examined 
previously. Retroreflective markers will be taped to the skin at predetermined locations on the 
participant’s trunk, pelvis and legs. Data from 3 trials of each test will be captured. LBP will be 
recorded during each trial.  
5.3 Randomization 
The sample will be stratified based on LBP classification. After baseline assessment, a 
participant will be assigned randomly, within his strata, to either the (1) MST with no booster, (2) 
MST with booster, (3) SFE with no booster, or (4) SFE with booster condition. The purpose of 
stratification by LBP classification is to ensure similar representation of LBP subgroups in the 
treatment conditions and eliminate any confounding of classification and treatment. Note that it 
is not our goal to determine if LBP classification moderates treatment impact; there will not be a 
sufficient number of subjects in some LBP classifications to address that issue with adequate 
power. Randomization will be conducted using a computer-generated list of random numbers 
provided by the biostatistics team. The randomization scheme will be prepared before initiation 
of the trial and will be adhered to throughout the trial. Assignments will be performed within the 
REDCap system once the Screening & Randomization form is completed. When the participant 
with LBP is enrolled, and assigned a group, the RC will print the computer-generated group 
assignment and schedule the participant with the appropriate therapist for all 6 clinic visits. The 
first clinic visit should be scheduled within one week of the laboratory visit. The participant will 
not be blinded to treatment assignment, but will be blinded to his assignment to booster/no 
booster until completion of Laboratory Visit 3 (the 6 month visit). 
5.4 Laboratory Visit 2 & 3 
All measures and procedures used during Laboratory Visit 1 will be used again for the post-
treatment follow-ups. All participants will be reminded not to discuss the details of their 
treatment with blinded research personnel so that blinding to treatment assignment is 

 
 
maintained. Laboratory Visit 2 will be scheduled within one week after discharge from the 
treatment phase. Laboratory Visit 3 will be scheduled 6 months following Laboratory Visit 2.  
 
6. Treatment Protocol 
6.1 Overview 
Both treatment groups will participate in a 1-hour treatment, once a week for six weeks. Each 
group will also be given a home program to perform during the entire 12-month study period. All 
treatments will be provided by licensed physical therapists trained in the respective treatments. 
The therapists cannot be blinded to treatment assignment, but are blinded to booster/no booster 
assignment until the participant completes Laboratory Visit 3. None of the therapists, however, 
will be involved in either (1) collecting baseline or follow-up data, or (2) laboratory meetings with 
research personnel. In the initial phase of treatment, both groups will be provided the same 
amount of time in treatment. Documentation of treatment prescription and progress is 
standardized (including harm). This documentation will be used to track treatment fidelity. Rules 
for prescribing and instructions for performing treatment items are standardized and 
documented; instructions with photos will be available in hard copy.  
6.2 Motor Skill Training (MST) 
The motor skill training involves supervised, massed practice of novel, challenging functional 
activities. The overarching principle of training is that the participant needs to practice 
performing the functional activities in ways that (1) minimize use of the participant’s specific, 
stereotypic lumbopelvic movement and alignment patterns (based on the participant’s LBP 
classification), and (2) encourage use of other joints (thoracic spine, hips, knees) to complete 
the activity painlessly. The lumbopelvic patterns related to the participant’s specific LBP 
classification identified during the laboratory examination (flexion, extension, rotation, extension 
& rotation, or flexion & rotation) will be targeted. We will use information about the participant’s 
LBP classification to guide the training because (1) our data suggest there is added benefit to 
classification-based training, (2) a meta-analysis of treatment studies showed that individualized 
treatment provides added benefit to outcome, and (3) there is evidence supporting the existence 
of LBP subgroups. Participants will be educated that the primary contributors to their LBP 
symptoms are repeated movements and prolonged positions of the lumbopelvic movement 
patterns related to their specific LBP classification. Additionally, participants will be educated 
that the emphasis of treatment is to learn how to modify or change how they perform their daily 
activities so that they do not use these patterns repeatedly throughout the day. During practice, 
the participant will be given cues for using the trunk muscles needed to facilitate a correct 
lumbopelvic pattern. Thus, rather than prescribing exercises for individual trunk muscles, we will 
attempt to modify how the participant uses multiple trunk muscles within the context of the 
activity in which they will be used. Such an approach should facilitate the use of these muscles 
in daily functional activities and contribute to enhanced adherence.  
 
Specific activities are selected for a participant to practice if performing them is painful or difficult 
because of his LBP. To enhance salience, the participant will be involved in selection of the 
activities to be practiced. In addition, a pre-determined set of activities will be included for all 
participants because we know from prior studies that those activities are difficult for most people 
with chronic LBP to perform. The set of activities parallels the functional activities that will be 
tested in the laboratory. Three activities will be practiced for ~15-20 minutes each. Rest will be 
provided, as requested. All activities will have 3 essential components: (1) contraction of groups 
of specific trunk muscles, (2) earlier and greater movement of the hip, knee, and/or thoracic 
spine relative to the lumbar spine, (3) later and less movement of the lumbar spine relative to 
other regions. The muscles that need to be activated and the directions of movement and 

 
 
alignment that need to be modified will be specific to the participant’s LBP classification. Within 
each activity, the conditions of practice will vary. For example, sit ↔ stand will involve practicing 
with various (1) seat surface heights, (2) seating materials, and (3) constraints of surroundings. 
The order in which activities are practiced will be randomized. All participants will practice 
simple activities (e.g., moving in bed) before complex activities (e.g., gardening). The level of 
difficulty of the activity will be graded to match the motor capabilities of the participant and 
progressed based on ability to (1) verbalize the key concept for that skill (2) appropriately modify 
the movement or alignment and (3) control LBP symptoms during performance of 5 repetitions 
of the skill. We use a highly reliable measure to assess these characteristics and decide if the 
participant can be progressed to a higher level of difficulty.73 Participants need to practice 
activities without reproduction of their LBP for three reasons. First, in experimentally-induced 
pain conditions, researchers have shown that motor learning and related neuroplasticity can be 
hindered. Second, if the stereotypic patterns do contribute to the participant’s LBP, modification 
of the patterns should alleviate the LBP. Inability to perform the activity without pain could mean 
the pattern has not been fully modified. Third, increased pain levels during exercise are 
associated with poor adherence. A home program will be prescribed of 1-2 sets of 5-10 
repetitions of formal practice of the activities practiced in treatment sessions. 
 
An abdominal brace or tape can be used with any skill as indicated based on the participant’s 
LBP classification and severity level. The use of a brace or tape is optional. Performing the skill 
without the brace or tape would make the skill more difficult. The decision to use or not use a 
brace or tape can be used in grading the skill. Some participants may need to always use a 
brace or tape for performance of specific skills. If the patient sits for prolonged periods of time, 
has anatomy that makes him vulnerable to poor positioning or any other factors that would 
contribute to making adherence to the positioning recommendation difficult, providing 
positioning devices is appropriate and should be considered.  
6.3 Strength and Flexibility Exercise (SFE) 
Exercises for trunk strength and trunk and lower extremity flexibility commonly cited in the 
literature as being appropriate for people with chronic LBP and included in the previous trial will 
be used. The overall goals of treatment will be to increase the participant’s trunk strength and 
trunk and lower limb flexibility; if necessary, equipment will be provided. Participants will be 
educated on possible contributors to pain, including poor posture, stress, loss of strength and 
flexibility, and general decline in physical fitness. The therapist will be blinded to the LBP 
classification to avoid any potential bias in the prescription of exercise or education, and 
participants will not be educated about their LBP classification. Additionally, participants will be 
educated about the benefits of strength and flexibility exercises and the expectation that 
performance of these exercises will improve performance in daily activities limited by LBP. 
Participants will be instructed that muscle soreness is expected with performance of new 
exercises. 
 
Strengthening exercises will target all trunk muscles. Flexibility exercises will target all trunk and 
lower limb motions. Treatment is divided into 3 phases with each phase being progressively 
more difficult. All participants will start with Phase 1 exercises regardless of strength or previous 
experience with back pain exercises. All participants will be instructed to perform a home 
program of stretching every other day and strengthening every other day. At each treatment 
session, the therapist will assess the participant’s independence in performance of the 
exercises and if the participant has met the criteria to advance to the next phase. Progression of 
exercise will be based on independence in: knowledge of the key concept (purpose of the 
exercise), correct performance without cues, and performance of the maximum number of 

 
 
repetitions of each of the exercises (4 repetitions of 30 second holds for stretching and 3 sets of 
10 repetitions for strengthening).  
6.4 Training and monitoring of clinicians providing treatment 
Clinicians administering treatment in both conditions will be trained before data collection 
begins. SFE clinicians will be trained by the PI. MST clinicians will be trained by the PI and a co-
investigator with expertise in motor learning. Clinicians will be provided with training manuals 
describing the treatment procedures in detail for each condition. Clinician proficiency in 
delivering the treatment will be assessed with practical examinations administered yearly by the 
co-investigator (MST) or the RPT (SFE). Clinician knowledge of treatment protocols will be 
assessed yearly with written examinations. Treatment fidelity will also be monitored by regular 
review of clinician documentation. The PI will hold monthly meetings with the treating clinicians 
in each condition to discuss any questions about the treatment protocol or implementation. The 
treating clinicians will not discuss any participants’ names or other identifying information during 
these meetings to maintain blinding. 
 
7. Treatment Visit Procedures 
7.1 Clinic Visit 1 
Duration 
The initial treatment is 1 hour in duration. This does not include the time the participant is 
completing outcome measures or the therapist’s documentation of the visit. It is acceptable if 
the participant requires more time this first visit for initial education and instruction, the therapist 
should record the amount of time spent in treatment on the Clinic Visit 1 form. 
 
Before the participant arrives for his first visit, the therapist should review the participant’s Clinic 
Visit 1 folder that includes all of the information from Laboratory Visit 1. This includes the 
following forms: (1) Medical Screening, (2) Demographics, LBP and medical history, (3) NRS, 
(4) SF-36, (5) MODQ, (6) Absenteeism & Presenteeism, (7) FABQ, and (8) Clinical Examination 
Data (History and Physical). The clinical examination data related to a participant’s LBP 
classification is deleted from the forms for the clinicians providing the SFE treatment. This is 
done to maintain blinding of a clinician to a participant’s LBP classification. There should also be 
a Clinic Visit 1 form and a Treatment Progress Table appropriate to the participant’s treatment 
group. The therapist will receive an additional folder that includes all of the paperwork for the 
follow-up clinic visits. 
 
Initial Interaction 
While the participant is waiting for treatment to be initiated, the therapist should give the 
participant the following forms to complete: (1) the NRS, and (2) the MODQ. The participant’s 
progress since Laboratory Visit 1 should be reviewed. The therapist will then (1) provide the 
overview of the trial and the specific treatment condition and (2) explain the overall goals of the 
treatment condition. 
 
Treatment 
Treatment during Clinic Visit 1 will consist of (1) an explanation of Educational 
Concepts/Principles, and (2) treatment based on the treatment condition assignment. At the end 
of Visit 1 the participant is provided with (1) handouts for initiation of the home exercise program 
(HEP), (2) the Daily Treatment Adherence Log to be filled out during the days between visits, (3) 
an explanation of how to the complete the Daily Treatment Adherence Log, and (4) the 
therapist’s contact information in case the participant needs to reschedule a visit, has any 
questions, or experiences a worsening of status. The therapist records the events of Visit 1 in 

 
 
the participant’s chart on the Clinic Visit 1 documentation form and Treatment Progress Table. 
The time spent in treatment should be recorded on the Clinic Visit 1 documentation form.  
7.2 Follow-up Clinic Visits 
All treatment visits should be 1 hour in duration. This does not include the time the participant is 
completing outcome measures. The time spent in treatment should be recorded on the Clinic 
Follow-Up Visit documentation form. The participant should come to the reception area of the 
clinic. The therapist should take the participant to a clinic treatment room upon arrival to keep 
the participant from spending time in the reception area where discussion of treatment with 
other participants may occur, potentially contributing to contamination of treatment. At this time 
the therapist should provide the participant with the (1) NRS, (2) MODQ, and (3) Educational 
Principles quiz to be completed before treatment is initiated. The therapist reviews the NRS, 
MODQ, Daily Treatment Adherence Log and Educational Principles quiz as well as events since 
the last visit. The participant’s questions are answered and treatment is reviewed and 
progressed. Education is focused on principles not understood based on quiz performance. The 
majority of time should be spent on the exercises. The participant is given updated handouts of 
the HEP as needed, a Daily Treatment Adherence Log, and is reminded of the next visit date 
and time. The therapist records the events of the visit in the participant’s chart on the Clinic 
Follow-Up Visit documentation form (including the time spent in treatment) and the Treatment 
Progress Table.  
 
Each clinic visit needs to be at least 5 calendar days to no more than 2 weeks after the previous 
clinic visit.  If a participant is up to 30 minutes late to his/her clinic visit and the clinician cannot 
treat for the full hour, he/she should treat for 30 minutes and schedule an additional treatment 
visit as soon as possible for the additional 30 minutes. The clinician should also inform the PI 
within 24 hours of the late visit. Clinic visits should be split no more than 2 times, for a maximum 
of 8 clinic visits for a participant. If the participant is more than 30 minutes late, it is the 
discretion of the therapist as to whether the visit will be completed or rescheduled.  
7.3 Final Visit  
On the final visit, the participant’s HEP should be reviewed so that the participant knows what 
he is expected to continue upon discharge. The therapist should encourage the participant to 
continue to be active and continue with exercises regularly as prescribed. The therapist should 
make sure the participant has scheduled his follow-up laboratory visit. The participant should be 
reminded that he will be receiving monthly follow-up surveys via email which he will be paid to 
complete. The therapist should provide his current contact information if the participant has 
questions or has a status change after discharge. The participant’s follow-up laboratory visit 
should be within the week after discharge from the treatment phase. 
7.4 Booster Phase 
The booster phase will occur 6 months after discharge from the initial treatment. Participants will 
be randomized to a booster condition (their original condition-specific treatment) or a no booster 
condition at the initial laboratory visit. The participant is told his assignment to boosters 
(booster/no booster) at completion of Laboratory Visit 3 (the 6 month visit). Each booster 
session will be 1 hour. The content of the booster treatment will consist of review/practice of the 
home program from the initial treatment phase. The number of sessions will be based on the 
number needed to attain independence in the prescribed treatment items, with a maximum of 3 
visits. Participants will see the same treating therapist during the treatment phase and all 
booster sessions. If a participant is randomized to the booster condition, the RPT will contact 
the referring provider and inform him/her that the participant will be receiving additional 
treatment sessions. 

 
 
7.5 Reporting Worsening of Status and Procedures  
For both MST and SFE, a worsening of symptoms is defined as an increase in the intensity of 
LBP symptoms or peripheralization of symptoms (symptoms located more laterally and/or 
distally from the original location) that lasts for greater than 4 hours after performance of the 
treatment items and has not fully resolved after 24 hours. The participant should call the 
therapist if there is a worsening of status (worsened symptoms or red flags are present) or if the 
participant is concerned for any reason about his status. If the participant reports a worsening of 
symptoms (as operationally defined), the therapist should discuss the possible causes of 
worsening such as a change in activity level, specific activities, work conditions, sleeping habits, 
etc. If worsening appears to be caused by the HEP the participant should be instructed to stop 
exercising for 24 hours and encouraged to use pain relieving techniques. These include using 
medications as prescribed by his physician, and application of cold if within 48 hours of 
worsening or heat if greater than 48 hours since worsening. After the 24 hours has passed, the 
participant should begin the exercises/skills being practiced, starting with 1 exercise/skill the first 
day. The participant should add 1 exercise/skill per day and report to the therapist if any specific 
exercise/skill increases his symptoms. In the SFE condition an increase in symptoms during 
exercise is not contraindicated and the participant should continue. If a particular exercise/skill 
appears to cause a worsening, the participant should be instructed not to perform that specific 
exercise/skill until the next visit. Performance will then be reviewed and modified as needed. If 
the participant feels that certain exercises/skills are worsening his symptoms, these should be 
stopped until the next visit. These, however, typically would not be expected to worsen the 
participant’s status if performed correctly, so these exercises should specifically be reviewed for 
correct performance at the treatment visit. If red flags are present, the participant should contact 
his physician for follow-up and contact his therapist once he has communicated with the 
physician. The therapist should complete the adverse event form and follow the procedure for 
reporting an adverse event. 
7.6 Adherence/Non-Adherence During Treatment Period  
All participants should be encouraged to actively participate in their treatment program across 
the 6 visits as well as after discharge. If the participant is having difficulty adhering, the therapist 
should discuss strategies for adhering with treatment. If adherence becomes a problem, the 
therapist should discuss this in the regularly scheduled meetings with the PI or contact her 
directly to discuss strategies, making sure to not identify the participant so that blinding can be 
maintained. 
 
8. Human Protection (HRPO) 
8.1 Charts 
All paperwork in charts will have the participant’s ID number. No names or identifying 
information will be on the paperwork or the chart when the participant’s chart is filed away for 
the day. In the instance there is a name provided, the treating therapist should mask the name 
by crossing out with a black marker. Charts will be kept in a locked file drawer that is only 
accessible to the therapist treating the participant. 
8.2 Visit Documentation 
All documentation for each visit will be completed the day of the visit. This includes the clinic 
visit form and the Treatment Progress Table. Chart audits will be conducted throughout the 
study period to ensure adherence to the protocols and complete data sets per participant per 
measure. For this reason, the charts should always be up to date and locked in the designated 
filing area. 

 
 
8.3 Blinding, Contamination, and Privacy Issues 
Blinding 
There can be no discussion of participants’ names when interacting with research personnel. All 
research personnel are to remain blinded across the study period to all participants’ treatment 
condition assignment. Research personnel include the following: (1) the Principal Investigator, 
(3) the Research Physical Therapist, and (3) the Research Assistant. All paperwork associated 
with the treatment of the participant must be coded with a participant ID number. The Research 
Coordinator is unblinded to the participant’s treatment condition assignment, and can be 
contacted with regard to any participant issues. 
 
Privacy Issues 
Risks of confidentiality: All participants will be informed of HIPAA and will be given written 
information reiterating HIPAA regulations. All people at the clinic and laboratory sites have been 
trained in HIPAA regulations and procedures. All people interacting with the participant will be 
reminded of the HIPAA procedures across the study period so that confidentiality is maintained. 
The clinical and laboratory sites have also been set up to comply with HIPAA regulations. All 
data forms (hard copy or electronic) will be immediately coded and personal identification 
information will be removed. All hard copy data forms are stored in a locked cabinet. Only 
research personnel authorized to access data for the proposed project will have access to the 
locked cabinet. Informed consent forms will be kept in the PI’s office in a locked cabinet 
separate from the data forms. All data collected at the clinical site will be coded and identifying 
information removed immediately. Data will be stored in a locked file cabinet at the site. A 
member of the research personnel will pick up clinical data from the clinical site when the 
participant has completed the treatment phase and bring it back to the laboratory to be stored 
with the laboratory data. Only the participating therapists and the RC will have access to this file 
cabinet in the clinic. Therapists who participate in the study will also sign an agreement not to 
discuss the treatments or progress of any of the participants in the study with other therapists in 
the clinic, with other participants in the study, or with research personnel blinded to treatment 
condition assignment. In addition, the institution in which the clinic is housed has agreed to 
adhere to all guidelines for protection of human subjects outlined by the NIH. 
8.4 Log of Adverse Events 
All adverse events (AE) should be documented on the AE form. Serious adverse events (SAE) 
should be immediately reported to the research personnel. The research personnel will report 
the SAE directly to the IRB using the following protocol set forth by the Human Research 
Protection Office at Washington University School of Medicine: a) death within 24 hours, and b) 
all other internal events within 10 days. Should any adverse events deemed to increase risks to 
participants be identified, the study will stop immediately and an investigation will be conducted. 
A report indicating the findings will be produced prior to study resumption. 
8.5 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan 
In addition to ensuring the safety of research subjects, the PI will be responsible for ensuring 
data safety and confidentiality. This will be accomplished by keeping all identifying information 
about research data or health identification data in a locked cabinet that can be accessed only 
by authorized research personnel. In addition to the daily safety procedures outlined, a 
committee of 3 health professionals at Washington University School of Medicine who are 
independent of the study have agreed to act as an internal Data and Safety Monitoring 
Committee (DSMC) to monitor the progress of the study and the procedures for maintaining the 
integrity and safety of data collection, processing, and analysis procedures as well as the 
reporting of adverse events. A professor in the Program in Occupational Therapy and the 
Department of Neurological Surgery and a professor in the Program in Physical Therapy and 

 
 
the Department of Radiology will provide expertise in the area of the overall integrity of the 
research process, and in particular, maintenance of the integrity of the data collection and 
analysis process. A physician and associate professor in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery 
and the Department of Neurology with a specialty in spine disorders and board certification in 
pain management will provide expertise with regard to spinal conditions, function as the medical 
monitor, and guide the committee with regard to actions necessary for dealing with and 
reporting any adverse events. The PI, and other Co-Investigators as appropriate, will meet with 
the DSMC two times a year to review progress of the data collection process, evaluate any 
unanticipated or anticipated side effects of participation in the study, and monitor the integrity 
and the accuracy of the data generated from the study. The biostatistics team will be 
responsible for overseeing the presentation of data at the DSMC meetings. In particular, The PI, 
the biostatistics team and other members of the research team will present recruitment and data 
issues and analyses at each meeting. Reports will be kept of each meeting and kept on record 
in the PI’s laboratory. The PI and the research personnel will be responsible for implementing 
any procedures recommended by the DSMC. In addition to data and safety monitoring by the 
DSMC, adverse events will be reported to the Washington University Human Research 
Protection Office (HRPO) by the Principal Investigator within 24 hours of the event. Serious 
adverse events will also be reported to the funding institute. The Washington University HRPO 
will also monitor the progress of the study, the safety and privacy compliance of the recruitment 
and data collection procedures, and the proper reporting of adverse events through required 
yearly progress reports. The yearly progress reports include cumulative reports of any 
unanticipated or adverse events, yearly renewals of our informed consent document, and 
approval of all recruitment materials used for the study. If a serious adverse event occurs, the 
Washington University HRPO will be contacted immediately and the forms accessible through 
the HRPO website will be accessed to document the circumstances of the event. Changes in 
the consent form or protocol will be made if indicated based on the nature of the unanticipated 
or adverse event. 
 
9. Assessments and Outcome Measures 
9.1 Outcome Measures Overview 
There will be an array of measures to assess outcomes, examine potential treatment effect 
modifiers, prescribe and progress treatment, and describe the sample. The measures were 
chosen to capture the important dimensions recommended for the study of people with LBP. All 
self-report measures will be collected using the automated, web-based system. The Time Table 
for Administration includes information about the time points of administration. The total 
administration time for all study measures is ~3 hours. All participants will receive a subset of 
self-report measures monthly that require ~30 minutes to complete.  
9.2 Key Self-Report Measures 
Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ): The primary outcome variable is the 10-
item MODQ, a disease-specific measure that provides an index of a participant’s perceived 
LBP-related functional limitation. The scale for the MODQ ranges from 0-100; 100 represents 
the highest level of limitation. The MODQ is reliable, valid, and sensitive to change. 
 
Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS): An 11-point scale (0-10) will be used to measure current 
pain, as well as average and worst pain over the prior 7 days; larger numbers indicate more 
intense pain. NRS measurements are reliable, valid, can be treated as ratio scale data, and 
provide sufficient levels of discrimination to describe pain intensity at varying levels of acuity.  

 
 
9.3 Adherence to Home Program 
During both the initial treatment phase and the booster phase, a standardized self-report 
measure of daily treatment adherence will be used. Participants will use a Visual Analog Scale 
(VAS) to indicate the percentage of the treatment they were able to perform as prescribed within 
a specific time interval (e.g., daily). The scale ranges from 0-100% with higher values indicating 
higher adherence. This measure will also be used to quantify adherence as part of the monthly, 
web-based, self-reports. 
9.4 Descriptions of Self-Report Measures 
Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to give the therapist information as to 
how LBP has affected a participant’s ability to manage in everyday life. It is a 10-item, disease-
specific measure that provides an index of the patient’s perceived LBP-related functional 
limitation. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Clinic Visits 1-6, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-
up months 1-12, Booster Sessions 
Procedure: Participants will answer each of the 10 questions by placing a mark in the one box 
that best describes his current condition.  Since a participant may feel that 2 of the statements 
describe his condition, he is instructed to mark only the box that most closely describes his 
current condition. 
Scoring: Each item is given a value from 0-5. The total score is the sum of all questions divided 
by 50, multiplied by 100 to get a percent. 100 represents the highest level of limitation. The 
minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the MODQ for people with chronic LBP is 4-6 
points.63 
 
Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to give the therapist information on the 
intensity of a participant’s LBP symptoms. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Clinic Visits 1-6, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-
up months 1-12, Booster Sessions 
Procedure: Participants will rate their LBP symptoms on a numeric scale of 0-10 where 0 
represents no symptoms and 10 represents symptoms as bad as can be. They will rate their 
average symptoms over the prior 7 days, and worst symptoms over the prior 7 days. 
Scoring: The score for each item is the rating the participant provides for each symptom 
category (average and worst). The MCID for the NRS is 280,81 points or 30%80 change from 
baseline. 
 
Acute Flare-Ups of LBP in Past 6 Months   
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to give the therapist information about 
the history of a participant’s LBP flare-ups in the past 6 months. 
Definition: A flare-up is an increase in symptoms of at least 2 points on the NRS above a 
person’s typical low back pain and lasts for at least 2 consecutive days82 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 3, follow-up month 12 
Procedure: Participants will fill in information on how many acute flare-ups they have had over 
the past 6 months, how many days each flare-up averaged in length, and the average pain 
intensity during the flare-ups.   
Scoring: The score for each item will be the number the participant provides for each flare-up 
category: (1) Number of acute flare-ups over the last 6 months, (2) Average length in days of 
acute flare-ups, (3) Average intensity of acute flare-ups. 
 
LBP Recurrences 

 
 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to give the therapist information about 
the history of a participant’s LBP recurrences in the past 6 months. 
Definition: A recurrence is an increase in LBP symptoms of at least a 2/10 that lasts for at least 
24 hours and is preceded and followed by at least 30 days of no symptoms74 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 3, follow-up month 12 
Procedure: Participants will fill in how many recurrences of LBP they have had over the past 6 
months, how many days each recurrence averaged in length, and the average pain intensity 
during the recurrences.  
Scoring: The score for each item will be the number the participant provides for each 
recurrence category: (1) Number of recurrences over the last 6 months, (2) Average length in 
days of recurrences, (3) Average intensity of recurrences. 
 
36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to assess information about a 
participant’s mental and physical health, and how well he is able to do his usual activities. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, Laboratory Visit 3, follow-
up month 12 
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking the answer as indicated. If 
participants are unsure how to answer a question, they are instructed to choose the best answer 
they can. 
Scoring: Using a scoring application, the SF-36 provides 8 scales: a Physical Functioning, 
Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, and a 
Mental Health score. Each score is transformed to a 0-100 scale. The scores also are combined 
to provide a Physical Component (PCS) and Mental Component (MCS) Summary score. For the 
PCS and the MCS, norm-based scores are scaled and normalized to have a mean of 50 and a 
standard deviation of 10 based on the 1998 population norms.83 
 
Absenteeism from Usual Activities  
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to assess the number of days a 
participant has been kept from his usual activities (work, school or housework) because of 
LBP.84,85  
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-up months 1-12  
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking the answer as indicated.  
Scoring: Quantified as number of days the participant did not participate in usual activities over 
the past 4 weeks. Range is from 0-28 days. Higher numbers indicate more days kept from 
activity/more affected by LBP.  
 
Stanford Presenteeism Scale 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to assess how a participant’s LBP 
affected his participation in usual activities and the impact of LBP on his ability to do his job over 
the past 4 weeks. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-up months 1-12  
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking the answer as indicated.  
Scoring: Presenteeism is indexed in 3 ways. First, a Work Impairment Score (WIS) is 
calculated as the sum of answers on the questions regarding how LBP has affected job ability 
over the past 4 weeks. Each of the WIS questions is ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. All scores 
are 1-5, with questions 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10 reverse scored (5-1). The score ranges from 10-50 
with 50 indicating the highest degree of impairment. Second, a Work Output Score (WOS) is 
quantified using the participant’s estimate of the percentage of his usual productivity level during 
work over the past 4 weeks (1-100%). Third, a Work Absenteeism Score (WAS) is quantified 

 
 
using the participant’s response to the number of work hours (1-40+) he missed in the past 4 
weeks.86 
 
Current Medication Use for LBP 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to provide general information on the 
use of medication for a participant’s LBP. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-up months 1-12 
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking if they are taking non-
prescription medication and prescription medication for their LBP. If yes, participants will 
indicate which medications they are taking and how many pills per day they are taking. For 
Laboratory Visit 1 and Laboratory Visit 2, the participant will answer regarding medications he is 
currently taking. At follow-up months 1-12, the participant will answer regarding the past 4 
weeks. 
 
Health Professional Care Seeking for LBP 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to provide general information on the 
use of additional treatments for a participant’s LBP. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-up months 1-12 
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking yes or no for a list of other 
healthcare professionals they are seeing for treatment of their LBP. At Laboratory Visit 2 and 
follow-up months 1-12, if participants mark yes for a healthcare professional, they are 
subsequently asked how many times they saw that healthcare professional in the past 4 weeks. 
 
Equipment Use for LBP 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to provide general information on the 
use of equipment for a participant’s LBP. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, follow-up months 1-12 
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking yes or no for a list of equipment 
they are using to treat their LBP. At Laboratory Visit 1 and Laboratory Visit 2 participants will 
answer regarding equipment they are currently using. At follow-up months 1-12, participants will 
answer if they obtained additional equipment in the past 4 weeks. 
 
Satisfaction with Care 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire assesses information about how satisfied a 
participant feels with the physical therapist and treatment he was provided.  
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 2 
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking the answer as indicated. They 
may only check off one answer per item. 
Scoring: Each question is ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. All scores are 1-5, with questions 1, 
3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 13 reverse scored (5-1). The total score is the sum of all of the answers (15-
75). 
 
Adherence to Home Program 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to provide information about how often a 
participant performs his treatment as it was prescribed. For the MST participants, the adherence 
is a combination of their prescribed exercises and the amount they applied the principles 
learned in treatment and performed the activities as prescribed across their day. For the SFE 
participants, the adherence is a combination of their prescribed strengthening and flexibility 
exercises. 
Time points of administration: Clinic Visits 2-6, follow-up months 1-12, Booster Sessions 2-3 
Clinic Visits (Daily Adherence) 

 
 
Procedure: Participants will use a VAS to indicate for each day the percentage of the treatment 
they were able to perform as prescribed. At each clinic visit the therapist will ask the participant 
to provide an estimate of the average percentage of the treatment he was able to perform as 
prescribed in the interval of time between 2 clinic visits. 
Scoring: Average adherence is calculated by averaging the participants’ daily adherence. 
Scores range from 0-100%. Higher values indicate higher adherence to treatment.64  
Follow-up months 1-12 (Monthly Adherence) 
Procedure: Participants will use a VAS to indicate an average percent adherence to 
performance of the treatment as prescribed over the past month. 
Scoring: Value (percentage of treatment performed) provided by the participant on each 
monthly survey. Scores range from 0-100%. Higher values indicate higher adherence to 
treatment.64 
 
Demographics and LBP and Medical History 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to provide general information about the 
participant’s demographics, LBP and medical history. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1 
Procedure: Participants will provide information about each of the following items: age, 
handedness, gender, race, ethnicity, occupation, employment situation, marital status, 
education, LBP history, medical history. 
 
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to assess a participant’s fear of pain and 
beliefs about how work and physical activity affect his LBP. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, Laboratory Visit 2, Laboratory Visit 3  
Procedure: Participants will answer each question by marking the answer as indicated. 
Scoring: Each question is ranked on a 7-point Likert scale (0-6). Higher scores indicate higher 
fear-avoidance. Two subscale scores are calculated. The physical activity subscale score 
(FABQ-PA) is the sum of questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 and ranges from 0-24. The work subscale 
score (FABQ-W) is the sum of items 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 and ranges from 0-42.  
 
Treatment Preference Assessment Measure (TPA) 
Background/Purpose: This questionnaire is designed to provide information about a 
participant’s treatment preferences and the participant’s perceptions of four attributes of each 
treatment: effectiveness, acceptability, suitability/appropriateness, and convenience. The 
questionnaire is modified from a preference questionnaire designed by Sidani et al87 to reflect 
the treatments provided in the trial. 
Time points of administration: Laboratory Visit 1, before randomization 
Procedure: The two treatment descriptions will be given in a random order to each participant. 
First, the RA will inform the participant that she is interested in learning about his perception of 
each treatment. Second, the RA will read the description of the first treatment option. The RA 
will read the description slowly, clearly, and in an unbiased manner, in order to facilitate 
understanding. Third, the RA will ask the participant to rate the attributes of the treatment option 
just described. Fourth, the RA will repeat the three steps as they relate to the second treatment 
option. Fifth, the RA will ask the participant if he has a preference for either of the two treatment 
options, and if so, which one.  
Scoring: The four treatment attributes (effectiveness, acceptability, suitability/appropriateness, 
and convenience) will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4). A total scale score for each 
treatment will be computed as the mean of the four attribute ratings. Whether the participant 
prefers one of the two treatments will be recorded as yes/no. If the participant has a preference, 
then his preferred treatment will be recorded as MST or SFE. 

 
 
 
9.4a Time Table for Administration 
 
 
Measures  
Laboratory 
Visit 1 
(Baseline) 
Clinic 
Visits 
1-6 
Laboratory 
Visit 2 
(Post-
Treatment) 
Follow-up 
months 1-12 
(Web-Based) 
Laboratory 
Visit 3 
(Follow-Up 
Month 6) 
Booster 
Session (At 
Month 6) 
MODQ 
X 
X 
(paper) 
X 
X 
 
X 
(paper) 
NRS 
(average & worst in 
prior 7 days) 
X 
X 
(paper) 
X 
X 
 
X 
(paper) 
Acute Flare-Ups of 
LBP  
X 
 
 
X 
(12 month only) 
X 
 
LBP Recurrences 
X 
 
 
X 
(12 month only) 
X 
 
SF-36 
X 
 
X 
X 
(12 month only) 
X 
 
Absenteeism from 
Usual Activities 
X 
 
X 
X 
 
 
Stanford 
Presenteeism Scale 
X 
 
X 
X 
 
 
Use of LBP-related 
medications  
& Additional 
treatment for LBP  
X 
 
X 
X 
 
 
Satisfaction with care 
 
 
X 
 
 
 
Adherence to Home 
Program  
 
X 
(paper) 
 
X 
(electronic) 
 
X 
(paper) 
Demographics/LBP & 
medical history  
X 
 
 
 
 
 
FABQ 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
TPA 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Contact Information 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Email Confirmation 
 
 
X 
 
X 
 
Clinical examination 
to classify LBP  
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
Clinic visit 
documentation  
 
X 
 
 
 
X 
 
10. Data Management 
10.1 Data Management Overview 
The biostatistics team will oversee all activities. The PI and the Research Biostatistician will 
supervise data management. The research biostatistician will prepare web-based forms for data 
entry and editing, oversee data entry, write programs for data validation, manage the security 
and privacy of the electronic forms and data sets, prepare data sets for analysis, create 
progress reports, and provide for regular, secure back up of data. We will use a secure 
database created using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tools hosted by 
Washington University Biostatistics.  

 
 
10.2 Sample Size Estimate 
A power analysis88 was conducted to determine adequate sample size for detecting a minimally 
important clinical difference of 6 on the MODQ.89 Because power procedures for HLM models 
are not yet well developed, we used a multiple regression approach,90 a reasonable alternative 
given both HLM and multiple regression are similar in form and intent. Furthermore, we took the 
conservative approach of powering the study for detection of a difference within a given time 
point. A study adequately powered to detect within-time differences will then have equal or 
greater power to detect differences over time to the extent that measures over time are 
correlated. This is a reasonable assumption, and in fact, analyses of data from our prior trial 
indicate correlations among the MODQ scores collected at different times averaged .49. The 
calculations based on a single time period thus provide a conservative estimate and “worst 
case” approach to determining sample size. 90 The power analysis assumed 1) the basic 4 
group (Treatment x Booster) design (3 df), 2) inclusion of 3 additional predictors (e.g., age, 
adherence, classification; 3 df), 3) an interaction component reflecting how the effect of 
treatment could depend on other predictors (9 df), 4) attrition of 20%, 5) a .05 level of 
significance (two-tailed), and 6) minimum power of .80. The chosen power value is the common 
standard used in most power analyses. Using the target effect of 6 on the MODQ and variability 
estimates from the prior trial, the power analysis indicated that 154 participants would need to 
be enrolled. Note that although examining moderation of treatment impact by LBP classification 
is not a specific aim, we will be able to explore such moderation by including dummy codes 
representing classification as additional predictors in the model. Note also that there are a large 
number of potential moderators that could be included in the statistical model (Tab.1), but we 
made provisions for including 3 additional predictors in any given analysis because of the likely 
intercorrelations that will exist among candidate predictors. Preliminary analyses will identify 
relative independent predictors or create composite predictors from highly correlated measures. 
10.3 Analyses 
Data analyses will proceed in several stages.  Stage 1. Preliminary analyses will examine the 
distributional characteristics of variables to detect the presence of outliers or the need for 
transformations. Resampling procedures (e.g., bootstrapping) will be used if appropriate 
transformations are not possible.91-93 Basic descriptive statistics for each measure and the inter-
correlations among variables will provide a simple initial view of the sample characteristics. 
Similarly, simple univariate analyses (e.g., t-tests, chi-square) will be used to examine simple 
group differences. Major analyses to examine the specific aims will use hierarchical linear 
modeling, described in detail later.  Stage 2. To ensure that subjects are representative, the 
baseline characteristics (e.g., age, gender) of the sample will be compared to those eligible to 
participate in the study, but who refused to participate.  Stage 3. To determine if the 
randomization scheme provided a balanced sample, the baseline sociodemographic and 
medical characteristics will be compared across treatment groups. These comparisons will be 
made in 2 ways to reflect the 2-stage nature of the treatment. One set of analyses will examine 
differences between subjects randomly assigned to the 2 treatment groups following collection 
of baseline measures. A 2nd set of analyses will compare subjects that reach the booster phase 
of the study. These analyses will examine differences between subjects randomly assigned to 
the 2 booster conditions on measures collected prior to the booster randomization. The prior 
assignment to treatment condition will also be considered in this 2nd set of analyses. If random 
assignment to booster groups is balanced there should be neither significant main effect 
differences between booster conditions nor any significant Treatment Group x Booster Group 
interactions.  Stage 4. Because of the large number of outcome measures, steps will be taken to 
control inflation of the Type I error rate. Primary hypotheses will be tested with an uncorrected 
alpha level of .05, as is warranted by their a priori nature.94 Other hypotheses will be examined 
using Bonferroni corrected alpha levels.  Stage 5. The primary analyses will be based on the 

 
 
intention to treat approach. In this approach, all subjects who are randomized to a particular 
treatment condition will be analyzed as part of that treatment group, regardless of subsequent 
events (e.g., lost to follow-up).95  Stage 6. Missing data can be handled in a variety of ways 
(e.g., last value forward, multiple imputation), but each method has potential biases and makes 
assumptions about the underlying basis for the missing data and other features of the data that 
are present. Without prior knowledge of the missing data process, we will explore the 
implications of applying different strategies.96-98  
 
The major statistical approach for testing the Specific Aims will be hierarchical linear 
modeling (HLM).99-101 This approach is well suited to longitudinal data that contain spacing of 
measures that can vary across subjects, missing data patterns that can vary across time and 
subjects, inclusion of time-varying covariates (e.g., adherence), and outcomes that can be either 
continuous (e.g., MODQ) or categorical (e.g., use of medication). These complexities limit the 
use of standard repeated measure analyses (e.g., ANOVA) that require fixed spacing of 
measures and complete data or are designed for particular kinds of outcomes (e.g., normally 
distributed continuous variables). 
For longitudinal data, HLM models the data at 2 levels: change over time at the level of the 
individual, and, between-individual moderators of the change trajectories. These are referred to 
as Level 1 and Level 2 models respectively. At Level 1, the data for each individual is conceived 
as follows (using MODQ as the example outcome): 
In this 
model, π0i is the intercept or level of the outcome when time is 0 (which depends on how the 
data are centered, described later) for person i, π1i is the linear time parameter (at the centering 
point) and π2i is the quadratic time parameter. Based on analyses from our recent trial, this basic 
quadratic model will be sufficient for estimating the time course of outcomes. Importantly, this 
basic model can be expanded to include other predictors that are collected over time, such as 
adherence, allowing investigation of interactions that could, for example, detect the differential 
effect of adherence over time on MODQ scores. 
 
The Level 1 coefficients become the outcomes at Level 2 and are predicted by variables that 
vary across subjects. These include the treatment groups to which subjects are assigned as 
well as history and demographic variables that can be expected to influence the time course of 
outcomes. The Level 2 model can be 
illustrated as follows: For example, the 
model for π1i tests whether the linear 
change in outcome at the centering point differs from 0 (β10), differs for subjects in the 2 
treatment groups (β11), differs for subjects in the 2 booster conditions (β12), jointly influenced by 
treatment and booster conditions (the interaction, β13), and varies as a function of age (β14). 
Treatment group and booster group would be represented by dummy codes. The age predictor 
is simply illustrative of how predictors other than treatment can be incorporated into the Level 2 
model. The other Level 2 equations are interpreted similarly, but refer to prediction of the Level 
1 intercept (π0i) or the Level 1 quadratic component (π2i) and test the overall magnitude of the 
outcome or the departure from linearity, respectively. The latter is important, for example, in 
detecting whether the booster treatment can reduce the reversal of improvement that we 
observed at 12 months in our recent clinical trial. 
The interpretation of the Level 1 intercept (π0i) and Level 1 linear component (π1i) depend on 
how the Level 1 data are centered. If, for example, time is centered at 6 months, then the 
intercept is the expected magnitude of the outcome at 6 months and the linear component is the 
rate of change at that time point (the tangent to the curve at the centering point). We will 
analyze the data at multiple centering points to allow full exploration of the nature of change 
over time and to detect treatment and booster condition differences at particular time points. 
Specific Aim 1 will focus on the effects of treatment on outcomes (coefficients β01, β11, β21) 
and examine how LBP (HR1a), functional limitation (HR1b), use of LBP medication/healthcare 
services (HR1c), levels of adherence (HR1d) and movement and alignment patterns (HR1e) 























i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Age
Booster 
 x 
Treatment 
Booster 
Treatment 
Age
Booster 
 x 
Treatment 
Booster 
Treatment 
Age
Booster 
 x 
Treatment 
Booster 
Treatment 
24
23
22
21
20
2
14
13
12
11
10
1
04
03
02
01
00
0

































ti
ti
i
ti
i
i
ti
e
Time
Time
Oswestry




2
2
1
0




 
 
change over time and, in particular, as a function of treatment group. Specific Aim 2 will focus 
on booster group effects and examine how function and adherence are influenced by the 
booster treatment (coefficients β02, β12, β22) and how this may be moderated by the type of 
treatment group to which participants are assigned (i.e., Treatment x Booster interactions, 
coefficients β03, β13, β23). Specific Aim 3 will focus on two additional moderators, adherence and 
movement and alignment patterns. These will be incorporated at Level 1 because they will be 
collected repeatedly. To add a measure of adherence would modify the model as follows:  
 The coefficient, π3i, then is modeled at Level 2 
where the impact of treatment group can be investigated (HR3a for adherence, HR3b for 
movement and alignment patterns). 
 
Economic analyses will focus on direct and indirect health costs. Direct health costs will be 
measured from the payer perspective. We will estimate the cost of medication using both the 
average wholesale price (AWP) and the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and assume that 
medication is used as prescribed. The cost of health services and medical equipment will be 
estimated using the Medicare allowable. Resources for which there is no AWP, WAC, or 
Medicare allowable will be estimated from a review of average retail prices. Analysis of the 
healthcare costs over time as a function of treatment will use the same HLM procedures 
proposed for our primary outcome measure, with the particular approach (e.g., generalized 
linear modeling) depending on the underlying sampling distribution (e.g., normal, Poisson). We 
will measure indirect health costs using absenteeism and presenteeism questionnaires. As with 
the measurement of expenditures, we will use HLM methods to evaluate the association 
between the treatment condition and days (or hours) lost (absenteeism and presenteeism will 
be evaluated separately) over time. As these data are counts, it is likely that a Poisson or 
negative binomial model will be necessary. 
 
11. References 
 
1. 
Frymoyer JW. Back pain and sciatica. New England Journal of Medicine. 1988;318(5):291-300. 
2. 
Papageorgiou AC, Croft PR, Thomas E, Ferry S, Jayson MI, Silman AJ. Influence of previous pain 
experience on the episode incidence of low back pain: results from the South Manchester Back 
Pain Study. Pain. 1996;66(2-3):181-185. 
3. 
Pizzo PA, Clark NM, Carter-Pokras O, et al. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for 
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington, DC June 2011 2011. 
4. 
Knauer SR, Freburger JK, Carey TS. Chronic low back pain among older adults: a population-
based perspective. J Aging Health. 2010;22(8):1213-1234. 
5. 
Sinnott P, Wagner TH. Low back pain in VA users. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(14):1338-1339. 
6. 
Croft PR, Macfarlane GJ, Papageorgiou AC, Thomas E, Silman AJ. Outcome of low back pain in 
general practice: a prospective study. BMJ. 1998;316(7141):1356-1359. 
7. 
Wahlgren DR, Atkinson JH, Epping-Jordan JE, et al. One-year follow-up of first onset low back 
pain. Pain. 1997;73(2):213-221. 
8. 
Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Kyvik KO, Manniche C. The course of low back pain from 
adolescence to adulthood: eight-year follow-up of 9600 twins. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 
2006;31(4):468-472. 
9. 
Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Manniche C. Low back pain: what is the long-term course? A review 
of studies of general patient populations. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(2):149-165. 
10. 
Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Engberg M, Lauritzen T, Bruun NH, Manniche C. The course of low 
back pain in a general population. Results from a 5-year prospective study. J Manipulative 
Physiol Ther. 2003;26(4):213-219. 
ti
ti
i
ti
i
ti
i
i
ti
e
Adherence
Time
Time
Oswestry





3
2
2
1
0





 
 
11. 
Von Korff M. Studying the natural history of back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(18 
Suppl):2041S-2046S. 
12. 
Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and 
neck problems. JAMA. 2008;299(6):656-664. 
13. 
van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes B. Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic 
review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 
1976). 2000;25(21):2784-2796. 
14. 
Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara A, Koes BW. Meta Analysis: Exercise therapy for 
treatment of non-specific low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(9):765-775. 
15. 
Van Middelkoop M, Rubinstein SM, Kuijpers T, et al. A systematic review on the effectiveness of 
physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 
2011;20(1):19-39. 
16. 
Van Middelkoop M, Rubinstein SM, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, Koes BW, van Tulder MW. Exercise 
therapy for chronic nonspecific low-back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:193-204. 
17. 
Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara A, Koes BW. Exercise therapy for treatment of non-
specific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD000335. 
18. 
Liddle SD, Baxter GD, Gracey JH. Exercise and chronic low back pain: what works? Pain. 
2004;107(1-2):176-190. 
19. 
Hayden JA, van Tulder M, Tomlinson G. Systematic review:  Strategies for using exercise therapy 
to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(9):776-785. 
20. 
Macedo LG, Maher CG, Latimer J, McAuley JH. Motor control exercise for persistent, nonspecific 
low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2009;89(1):9-25. 
21. 
Rackwitz B, de Bie R, Limm H, von Garnier K, Ewert T, Stucki G. Segmental stabilizing exercises 
and low back pain. What is the evidence? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. 
Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(7):553-567. 
22. 
Chou R, Huffman LH. Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review 
of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice 
guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):492-504. 
23. 
Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Tomlinson G. Systematic review: strategies for using exercise 
therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(9):776-785. 
24. 
Henchoz Y, Kai-Lik SA. Exercise and nonspecific low back pain: a literature review. Joint Bone 
Spine. 2008;75(5):533-539. 
25. 
Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Maher CG, Herbert RD, Refshauge K. Specific stabilisation exercise for 
spinal and pelvic pain: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother. 2006;52(2):79-88. 
26. 
Croft P, Papageorgiou A, McNally R. Low back pain. Health Care Needs Assessment. New York, 
NY: Radcliffe Medical Press Oxford; 1997:129-182. 
27. 
Slade SC, Keating JL. Trunk-strengthening exercises for chronic low back pain: a systematic 
review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29(2):163-173. 
28. 
Liddle SD, David BG, Gracey JH. Physiotherapists' use of advice and exercise for the management 
of chronic low back pain: A national survey. Man Ther. 2008;14(2):189-196. 
29. 
Waddell G. The Back Pain Revolution. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. 
30. 
Jordan JL, Holden MA, Mason EE, Foster NE. Interventions to improve adherence to exercise for 
chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(1):CD005956. 
31. 
Lechner DE. Work hardening and work conditioning interventions: do they affect disability? Phys 
Ther. 1994;74(5):471-493. 
32. 
Poiraudeau S, Rannou F, Revel M. Functional restoration programs for low back pain: a 
systematic review. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2007;50(6):425-429. 

 
 
33. 
Schonstein E, D K, J K, B K, RD H. Physical conditioning programs for workers with back and neck 
pain: A cochrane systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;19(28):E391-E395. 
34. 
Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary 
rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ. 2001;322(7301):1511-1516. 
35. 
Schaafsma F, Schonstein E, Ojajarvi A, Verbeek J. Physical conditioning programs for improving 
work outcomes among workers with back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37(1):1-5. 
36. 
Schonstein E, Kenny DT, Keating J, Koes BW. Work conditioning, work hardening and functional 
restoration for workers with back and neck pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 
2010;CD001822(1). 
37. 
Teasell RW, Harth M. Functional restoration. Returning patients with chronic low back pain to 
work--revolution or fad? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(7):844-847. 
38. 
Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary bio-
psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 
2002(1):CD000963. 
39. 
Conner JM, Culberson A, Packowski C, Chiba AA, Tuszynski MH. Lesions of the Basal forebrain 
cholinergic system impair task acquisition and abolish cortical plasticity associated with motor 
skill learning. Neuron. 2003;38(5):819-829. 
40. 
Graybiel AM. The basal ganglia: learning new tricks and loving it. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 
2005;15(6):638-644. 
41. 
De Zeeuw CI, Yeo CH. Time and tide in cerebellar memory formation. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 
2005;15(6):667-674. 
42. 
Kleim JA, Swain RA, Armstrong KA, Napper RM, Jones TA, Greenough WT. Selective synaptic 
plasticity within the cerebellar cortex following complex motor skill learning. Neurobiol Learn 
Mem. 1998;69(3):274-289. 
43. 
Karni A, Meyer G, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG. Functional MRI evidence for 
adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature. 1995;377(6545):155-158. 
44. 
Adkins DL, Boychuk J, Remple MS, Kleim JA. Motor training induces experience-specific patterns 
of plasticity across motor cortex and spinal cord. J Appl Physiol. 2006;101(6):1776-1782. 
45. 
Nudo RJ. Plasticity. NeuroRx. 2006;3(4):420-427. 
46. 
Classen J, Knorr U, Werhahn KJ, et al. Multimodal output mapping of human central motor 
representation on different spatial scales. J Physiol. 1998;512(Pt 1):163-179. 
47. 
Hund-Georgiadis M, von Cramon DY. Motor-learning-related changes in piano players and non-
musicians revealed by functional magnetic-resonance signals. Exp Brain Res. 1999;125(4):417-
425. 
48. 
Pascual-Leone A, Wassermann EM, Sadato N, Hallett M. The role of reading activity on the 
modulation of motor cortical outputs to the reading hand in Braille readers. Ann Neurol. 
1995;38(6):910-915. 
49. 
Kleim JA, Cooper NR, VandenBerg PM. Exercise induces angiogenesis but does not alter 
movement representations within rat motor cortex. Brain Res. 2002;934(1):1-6. 
50. 
Remple MS, Bruneau RM, VandenBerg PM, Goertzen C, Kleim JA. Sensitivity of cortical 
movement representations to motor experience: evidence that skill learning but not strength 
training induces cortical reorganization. Behav Brain Res. 2001;123(2):133-141. 
51. 
Sahrmann SA. Movement impairment syndromes of the lumbar spine. Diagnosis and Treatment 
of Movement Impairment Syndromes. 1st ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002:51-118. 
52. 
Hoffman SL, Johnson MB, Zou D, Van Dillen LR. Sex differences in lumbopelvic movement 
patterns during hip medial rotation in people with chronic low back pain. Arch Phys Med 
Rehabil. 2011;92(7):1053-1059. 

 
 
53. 
Gombatto SP, Collins DR, Sahrmann SA, Engsberg JR, Van Dillen LR. Gender differences in 
pattern of hip and lumbopelvic rotation in people with low back pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, 
Avon). 2006;21(3):263-271. 
54. 
Scholtes SA, Gombatto SP, Van Dillen LR. Gender differences in timing of lumbopelvic movement 
during the clinical test of active knee flexion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(1):A69. 
55. 
Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Engsberg JR, Lenke LG. Trunk rotation-related impairments in 
people with low back pain who participate in rotational sports activities. Paper presented at: 5th 
Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back Pain & Pelvic Pain; November 10-13, 2004; 
Melbourne, Australia. 
56. 
Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Caldwell CA, McDonnell MK, Bloom NJ, Norton BJ. Trunk rotation-
related impairments in people with low back pain who participated in two different types of 
leisure activities: a secondary analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(2):58-71. 
57. 
Scholtes SA, Gombatto SP, Van Dillen LR. Differences in lumbopelvic motion between people 
with and people without low back pain during two lower limb movement tests. Clin Biomech 
(Bristol, Avon). 2009;24(1):7-12. 
58. 
Norton BJ, Sahrmann SA, Van Dillen LR. Differences in measurements of lumbar curvature 
related to gender and low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(9):524-534. 
59. 
Van Dillen LR, Gombatto SP, Collins DR, Engsberg JR, Sahrmann SA. Symmetry of timing of hip 
and lumbopelvic rotation motion in 2 different subgroups of people with low back pain. Arch 
Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(3):351-360. 
60. 
Hoffman SL, Harris-Hayes M, Zou D, Baxter KR, Tateuchi H, Van Dillen LR. Spinal and hip flexion 
end-range of motion with forward bending in two low back pain subgroups based on the 
Movement System Impairment model. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(1):A76. 
61. 
Hoffman SL, Harris-Hayes M, Zou D, Baxter KR, Tateuchi H, Van Dillen LR. Pattern of movement 
during return from forward bending in two low back pain subgroups based on the Movement 
System Impairment model. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(1):A77. 
62. 
Adams M, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P. Functional pathology. The Biomechanics of Back Pain. 
New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 2002:168-172. 
63. 
Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire 
and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81(2):776-788. 
64. 
Van Dillen LR, Norton BJ, Sahrmann SA, et al. Effects of classification specific treatment versus 
non specific treatment on low back pain related functional disability in people with chronic low 
back pain over a one year period. Paper presented at: XIX Biennial ISEK Congress; July 19-21, 
2012; Brisbane, Australia. 
65. 
Jette DU, Jette AM. Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with spinal impairments. 
Phys Ther. 1996;76(9):930-941. 
66. 
Jette AM, Smith K, Haley SM, Davis KD. Physical therapy episodes of care for patients with low 
back pain. Phys Ther. 1994;74(2):101-110. 
67. 
Jette AM, Delitto A. Physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal impairments. Phys 
Ther. 1997;77(2):145-154. 
68. 
Organization WH. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies: Evidence for action. Switzerland 2003 
2003. 
69. 
Pisters MF, Veenhof C, van Meeteren NL, et al. Long-term effectiveness of exercise therapy in 
patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum. 
2007;57(7):1245-1253. 
70. 
Pisters MF, Veenhof C, de Bakker DH, Schellevis FG, Dekker J. Behavioural graded activity results 
in better exercise adherence and more physical activity than usual care in people with 
osteoarthritis: a cluster-randomised trial. J Physiother. 2010;56(1):41-47. 

 
 
71. 
Friedrich M, Gittler G, Arendasy M, Friedrich KM. Long-term effect of a combined exercise and 
motivational program on the level of disability of patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 
(Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(9):995-1000. 
72. 
Friedrich M, Gittler G, Halberstadt Y, Cermak T, Heiller I. Combined exercise and motivation 
program: effect on the compliance and level of disability of patients with chronic low back pain: 
a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(5):475-487. 
73. 
Harris-Hayes M, Holtzman GW, Early J, Van Dillen LR. Development and preliminary reliability 
testing of an assessment of patient independence in performing a treatment program: 
standardized scenarios. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(3):221-227. 
74. 
Stanton TR, Latimer J, Maher CG, Hancock MJ. A modified Delphi approach to standardize low 
back pain recurrence terminology. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(5):744-752. 
75. 
Nordin M, Weiser S, van Doorn JW, Hiebert R. Nonspecific low back pain. In: Rom WN, ed. 
Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven 
Publishers; 1998:947-956. 
76. 
Harris-Hayes M, Van Dillen LR. The inter-tester reliability of physical therapists classifying low 
back pain problems based on the movement system impairment classification system. PM R. 
2009;1(2):117-126. 
77. 
Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Norton BJ, Caldwell CA, McDonnell MK, Bloom NJ. Movement 
system impairment-based categories for low back pain: stage 1 validation. J Orthop Sports Phys 
Ther. 2003;33(3):126-142. 
78. 
Trudelle-Jackson E, Sarvaiya-Shah SA, Wang SS. Interrater reliability of a movement impairment-
based classification system for lumbar spine syndromes in patients with chronic low back pain. J 
Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(6):371-376. 
79. 
Van Dillen LR, Maluf KS, Sahrmann SA. Further examination of modifying patient-preferred 
movement and alignment strategies in patients with low back pain during symptomatic tests. 
Man Ther. 2009;14(1):52-60. 
80. 
Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr., LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in 
chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 
2001;94(2):149-158. 
81. 
Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low 
back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(11):1331-1334. 
82. 
Von Korff M. Studying the natural history of back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(18 
Suppl):2041S-2046S. 
83. 
Ware JE, Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130-3139. 
84. 
Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 
1992;50(2):133-149. 
85. 
Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality of 
life in patients with sciatica. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(17):1899-1908. 
86. 
Turpin RS, Ozminkowski RJ, Sharda CE, et al. Reliability and validity of the Stanford Presenteeism 
Scale. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(11):1123-1133. 
87. 
Sidani S, Epstein DR, Bootzin RR, Moritz P, Miranda J. Assessment of preferences for treatment: 
validation of a measure. Res Nurs Health. 2009;32(4):419-431. 
88. 
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112(1):155-159. 
89. 
Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire 
and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81(2):776-788. 
90. 
Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 
2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983. 
91. 
Chernick MR. Bootstrap methods: a practitioner's guide. New York, NY: Wiley; 1999. 

 
 
92. 
Mooney CZ, Duval RD. Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Influence. Pacific 
Grove, CA: Sage; 1993. 
93. 
Hesterberg T, Monaghan S, Moore DS, Clipson A, Epstein R. The Practice of Business Statistics. 
New York, NY: W.H. Freeman; 2003. 
94. 
Rosenthal R. Constrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York, NY: 
Cambridge University Press; 1985. 
95. 
Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published 
randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):670-674. 
96. 
Collins LM, Schafer JL, Kam CM. A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern 
missing data procedures. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(4):330-351. 
97. 
Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 
2002;7(2):147-177. 
98. 
Sinharay S, Stern HS, Russell D. The use of multiple imputation for the analysis of missing data. 
Psychol Methods. 2001;6(4):317-329. 
99. 
Heck RH, Thomas SL. An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques. 2nd ed. New York, NY: 
Routledge; 2009. 
100. 
Hox JJ. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010. 
101. 
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002. 
  
 
 

 
 
Changes to planned analyses 
The original protocol called for analysis with hierarchical linear modeling to model repeated 
measures without requiring time between samples to be constant.  However, times between 
samples were sufficiently consistent to allow use of repeated measures analysis of variance 
(ANOVA).  The original protocol intended analysis of moderators, but moderators were not 
included due to strong treatment effects seen in the MODQ scores. 
 
Primary Outcome Analyses 
For MODQ, our primary outcome measure, mixed random effect repeated measures 
analyses were conducted separately on each phase (treatment and follow-up) with participant 
as a random effect and a first order autoregressive covariance structure to account for 
correlation between time points.  The baseline MODQ score was used as a covariate in both 
models to control for baseline participant differences. Booster treatments after follow-up month 
6 did not affect subsequent MODQ scores, therefore treatment estimates from data after month 
6 were created from combined booster and no booster groups within treatment.  These 
analyses were intent-to-treat and used all data available.  Mean estimates for single time points 
were model based (unless otherwise noted).  No missing data imputation was done.  No 
adjustments for multiple comparisons for secondary outcomes were made. 
 
Secondary Outcome Analyses 
For average and worst NRS pain scores, SF-36 PCS and MCS scores, FABQ-PA and 
FABQ-W subscale scores, and the Stanford Presenteeism Scale WIS, treatment and follow-up 
phase analyses used mixed random effect repeated measures analysis (SAS mixed procedure) 
with baseline outcome values included as covariates, and with participant within treatment as a 
random effect.  Some variables were transformed to stabilize variance.  Number and length of 
acute flare-ups of LBP in the past 6 months were transformed with natural log (x+1).  The 
Stanford Presenteeism Scale WOS was transformed with natural log (101 – WOS).  Adherence 
to the home program was transformed with a logit function, natural log [x/(100-x)].  Contrasts of 
SFE – MST for transformed variables were back-transformed to their original scale and 
confidence intervals were simulated from Least Square means then back-transformed. 
Current medication use for LBP, absenteeism from usual activities, the Stanford 
Presenteeism Scale WAS, health professional care seeking for LBP, and equipment use for 
LBP contained many 0 records which required transformation to a dichotomous scale and 
analysis using a mixed generalized linear model (SAS glimmix procedure) with a logit link and 
binomial distribution.  Current medication use for LBP had a first order autoregressive 
covariance structure, but the others had compound symmetry.  Contrasts for these variables are 
reported as odds ratios. 
Within treatment contrasts for the effect of booster on change between pre-booster (follow 
up months 1 through 6) and post-booster (follow up months 7 through 12) are reported on the 
transformed scale (due to the correlation between pre- and post-booster estimates).  Back-
transformed least square means are reported on the original scale of each variable. 
 
Summary of Changes to the Protocol 
Major protocol changes are included. 
January, 2014 Clinic Visit 1 can be scheduled within two weeks of Laboratory Visit 1. Laboratory 
Visit 2 can be scheduled within two weeks of Clinic Visit 6. 
June, 2014 Laboratory Visit 3 can be scheduled within the 2 week period surrounding 6 months 
following Laboratory Visit 2. 

 
 
September, 2014 Individuals who do not qualify at Laboratory Visit 1 because MODQ is <20 can 
be rescreened if LBP status has worsened. 
April, 2015 The exploratory economic analyses we proposed to examine direct (medication and 
health services use and medical equipment) and indirect (absenteeism and presenteeism) 
health costs are not to be conducted. The decision was based on large budget cuts that limited 
our ability to financially support the personnel to conduct the analyses. 
May, 2015 If a participant is in an acute flare-up when he or she comes in for a laboratory visit, 
the research physical therapist will determine if it is an actual acute flare-up. If it is determined to 
be an actual acute flare-up, the laboratory visit will not be completed and the participant will be 
rescheduled. 
July, 2015 Attendance scripts for Clinic Visit 1 and Clinic Visits 2-6 are to be implemented. 
These scripts will guide the clinicians to discuss with the participant the importance of 
scheduling visits and adhering to the schedule. 
 
October, 2015 People with a history of disc herniation are excluded only if they have a current 
symptomatic disc herniation (current symptoms below the knee). People with fibromyalgia, 
Marfan syndrome, and Graves’ disease are excluded. 
January, 2017 Preliminary analyses of the recurrence data indicated that only 40 of 77 
individuals who reported having recurrences of LBP in the past 6 months had valid data. The 
data for 37 of 77 individuals who reported having recurrences of LBP did not meet the definition 
for recurrences (increase in LBP symptoms of at least a 2/10 that lasts for at least 24 hours and 
is preceded and followed by at least 30 days of no symptoms). Given the questionable validity 
of the responses, the recurrence data will not be reported.