Cited by 20Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Program for Active Duty Personnel Seeking Care for Low Back Pain in a U.S. Navy Medical Center: A Feasibility Study

Campello, Marco, Ziemke, Gregg, Hiebert, Rudi, Weiser, Sherri, Brinkmeyer, Mary, Fox, Bryan, Dail, Jessica, Kerr, Stewart +2 more·2012·Military Medicine

Abstract

The aim of the pilot study was to evaluate a multidisciplinary program for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) at a major U.S. Navy base. In this single blinded randomized clinical trial, subjects were drawn from a larger, prospective cohort of active duty service members seeking care for NSLBP pain at a U.S. Navy Branch Medical Clinic. Outcome measures included return to work, self-reported pain, function, and psychological distress. Subjects were randomly allocated to one of two study arms: a multidisciplinary reconditioning program or the current standard of care for low back pain. The intervention lasted 4 weeks with a 12-week follow-up. Thirty-three subjects were enrolled. Subjects allocated to multidisciplinary care reported significantly lower perceived disability (p = 0.014) and less pain than those allocated to usual care at the end of the intervention period. All subjects returned to their usual duty following the conclusion of the intervention. The implementation of the intervention program was successful. Subjects in the multidisciplinary program showed a clinically significant improvement in the perception of disability compared to the usual care group. This is an important finding since perception of disability is associated with long-term functional outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7205/milmed-d-12-00118

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campello, M., Ziemke, G., Hiebert, R., Weiser, S., Brinkmeyer, M., Fox, B., Dail, J., Kerr, S., Hinnant, I., & Nordin, M.
Affiliations
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Naval Medical Center Portsmouth (US)
  • Battelle (US)
Venue
Military Medicine
Published
2012-09
Volume
177
Issue
9
Pages
1075-1080
ISSN
  • 0026-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-613X
OpenAlex
W2312763738
Cited by
20
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Military Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
non-specific low back pain, multidisciplinary pain management, active duty military personnel, return to work, perceptions of disability, pain intensity, psychological distress, military health services, feasibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Military Personnel, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Chi-Square Distribution, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Statistics, Nonparametric, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review