Publications by authors named "Nava Yadollahpour"

2 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Clustering of patients with chronic low back pain in terms of physical and psychological factors: A cross-sectional study based on the STarT Back Screening Tool.

J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2020 ;33(4):581-587

Background: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is a multidimensional questionnaire consisting of physical and psychological factors which categorizes the patients in the low, medium or high risk subgroups.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between SBT-based subgrouping and clustering of patients with LBP using uni-dimensional psychological, clinical and physical examination measures.

Methods: One hundred and fifty-seven patients with chronic LBP completed the SBT and uni-dimensional psychological, disability and pain questionnaires. Physical impairments were evaluated through the Physical Impairment Index (PII). Hierarchical and K-means methods were used for cluster analysis. Between-clusters differences and the association between the clusters and SBT-based subgrouping were investigated.

Results: Three clusters were identified. The derived clusters were labeled severe, moderate and mild physical-psychological-distress clusters, because pain intensity, disability, psychological and physical factors were relatively high, moderate or low, respectively. Most of the patients in moderate and mild physical-psychological distress clusters were categorized as medium risk based on SBT. The mean difference for the PII was higher than that of psychological factors between moderate and mild physical-psychological-distress clusters.

Conclusions: Patients in low and high risk subgroups of SBT were sufficiently differentiated, but patients in a medium risk subgroup had a different profile based on PII. Including additional physical factors in the SBT may be required to better differentiate among patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BMR-181484DOI Listing
December 2020

Effects of dual-task balance training on postural performance in patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a double-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial.

Clin Rehabil 2017 Feb 10;31(2):234-241. Epub 2016 Jul 10.

4 Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

Objective: To investigate the effects of dual-task balance training on postural performance in patients with multiple sclerosis as compared with single-task balance training.

Design: Double-blind, pretest-posttest, randomized controlled pilot trial.

Setting: Local Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Subjects: A total of 47 patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups labeled as single-task training and dual-task training groups.

Interventions: All patients received supervised balance training sessions, 3 times per week for 4 weeks. The patients in the single-task group performed balance activities, alone. However, patients in dual-task group practiced balance activities while simultaneously performing cognitive tasks.

Main Measures: The 10-Meter Walk Test and Timed Up-and-Go under single-task and dual-task conditions, in addition to Activities-specific Balance Confidence, Berg Balance Scale, and Functional Gait Assessment were assessed pre-, and post intervention and also 6-weeks after the end of intervention.

Results: Only 38 patients completed the treatment plan. There was no difference in the amount of improvement seen between the two study groups. In both groups there was a significant effect of time for dual-10 Meter Walk Test (F=11.33, p=0.002) and dual-Timed Up-and-Go (F=14.27, p=0.001) but not for their single-tasks. Moreover, there was a significant effect of time for Activities-specific Balance Confidence, Berg Balance Scale, and Functional Gait Assessment ( P<0.01).

Conclusions: This pilot study did not show more benefits from undertaking dual-task training than single-task training. A power analysis showed 71 patients per group would be needed to determine whether there was a clinically relevant difference for dual-task gait speed between the groups.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215516639735DOI Listing
February 2017