IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do patients’ pre-treatment expectations about acupuncture effectiveness predict treatment outcome in patients with chronic low back pain? A secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Anja Zieger
  • Alexandra Kern
  • Jürgen Barth
  • Claudia M Witt

Abstract

Objective: This secondary analysis of a randomised controlled patient-blinded trial comparing effectiveness and side effect briefings in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) investigated the association between patients’ pre-treatment expectations about minimal acupuncture treatment and pain intensity as outcome during and after the end of the treatment. Methods: Chronic low back pain patients with a pain intensity of at least 4 on a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 received eight sessions of minimal acupuncture treatment over 4 weeks. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity rated on a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS 0–10) from inclusion visit to treatment session 4 and to the end of the treatment. Patients’ expectations about the effectiveness of acupuncture were assessed using the Expectation for Treatment Scale (ETS) before randomization. Linear regression was applied to investigate whether patients’ pre-treatment expectations predicted changes in pain intensity during and after treatment. Results: A total of 142 CLBP patients (40.1 ± 12.5 years; 65.5% female) were included in our analysis. Patients’ pre-treatment expectations about acupuncture treatment were associated with changes in pain intensity after four sessions of minimal acupuncture treatment (b = -0.264, p = 0.002), but not after the end of the treatment. This association was found in females and males. Conclusions: Our results imply that higher pre-treatment expectations only lead to larger reductions in pain intensity in the initial phase of a treatment, with a similar magnitude for both females and males. As the treatment progresses in the second half of the treatment, adapted expectations or other non-specific effects might play a more important role in predicting treatment outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Anja Zieger & Alexandra Kern & Jürgen Barth & Claudia M Witt, 2022. "Do patients’ pre-treatment expectations about acupuncture effectiveness predict treatment outcome in patients with chronic low back pain? A secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled clin," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268646
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268646
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268646&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268646?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tsjitske M Haanstra & Claire Tilbury & Steven J Kamper & Rutger L Tordoir & Thea P M Vliet Vlieland & Rob G H H Nelissen & Pim Cuijpers & Henrica C W de Vet & Joost Dekker & Dirk L Knol & Raymond W Os, 2015. "Can Optimism, Pessimism, Hope, Treatment Credibility and Treatment Expectancy Be Distinguished in Patients Undergoing Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.