Effectiveness of neck stabilisation and dynamic exercises on pain intensity, depression and anxiety among patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomised controlled trial
Authors: Kaka Bashir , Ogwumike Omoyemi O. , Adeniyi Ade. F. , Maharaj Sonill S. , Ogunlade Samuel O. , Bello Bashir 
Published: March 2018

Background and aims:

Non-specific neck pain (NsNP) constitutes a burden to the bearers and a management challenge to physiotherapists globally. Effectiveness of neck stabilisation and dynamic exercises in the management of NsNP has been documented, but it is not clear which exercise regimen is more effective in alleviating its associated pain, depression and anxiety. This study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of neck stabilisation and/or dynamic exercises on pain intensity, depression and anxiety among patients with NsNP.

Methods:

Eighty-nine consenting individuals with NsNP participated in this single-blind, randomised controlled trial. They were recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy clinics of the National Orthopaedic Hospital in Dala, Kano State, Nigeria. Participants were randomly assigned into one of three intervention groups: neck stabilisation exercise group (NSEG; n=30), neck dynamic exercise group (NDEG; n=28) and neck stabilisation and dynamic exercise group (NSDEG; n=31). Treatment was administered thrice weekly for 8 consecutive weeks. Variables were assessed at baseline, at the end of the fourth and eighth weeks. Pain intensity was assessed through the use of a visual analogue scale, while depression and anxiety were evaluated using both the Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and post hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment at the p=0.05 significant level.

Results:

Ages of participants in NSEG (46.8±12.4 years), NDEG (48.6±11.6 years) and NSDEG (45.1±13.4 years) were comparable. The comparison for NSEG, NSDEG and NDEG within groups revealed that there was significant difference in pain intensity, depression and anxiety scores from baseline, in the fourth and eighth weeks of the study – (F=62.40, p=0.001, F=13.91, p=0.001 and F=20.93, p=0.001); (F=11.92, p=0.001, F=8.75, p=0.004 and F=9.70, p=0.001) and (F=36.63, p=0.001, F=11.99, p=0.001 and F=6.59, p=0.001), respectively. A group comparison of the pain intensity, depression and anxiety scores of participants in the NSEG, NSDEG and NDEG at the baseline of the study revealed that there were no significant differences in the pain intensity and depression and anxiety scores among the three groups: p=0.159, 0.58 and 0.179, respectively. At week 4 of the study, however, a significant difference in pain intensity and anxiety scores across the three groups was recorded – p=0.018, p=0.011, respectively, but no significant difference was noted in depression scores (p=0.93). At week 8 of the study, it was determined that there were significant differences in pain intensity and depression scores p=0.001 and p=0.041, but no significant dissimilarities in the anxiety scores. Post hoc revealed that only pain was significant and lay with NSEG.

Conclusions:

The study concluded that the stabilisation, dynamic and stabilisation, plus dynamic exercises were effective in relieving pain and reducing depression and anxiety in patients with NsNP. However, stabilisation showed a more marked effect than the combination exercises of stabilisation plus dynamic exercises, and dynamic exercises in reducing pain intensity in patients with NsNP.

Implications:

It is recommended that stabilisation exercises be chosen over stabilisation plus dynamic exercises, or dynamic exercise, while treating patients with NsNP. However, both are effective.