Opening the black box of cognitive functional therapy for low back pain: a review of interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (Tidier) checklist

Abstract

Background and study purposeA recent systematic review with meta-analysis of eight randomised controlled trials concluded that Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) for low back pain might be effective in reducing disability, pain and fear-avoidance beliefs. However, the descriptions of a CFT intervention are not always clear. This study aimed to rate the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups in the systematic review.MethodsTwo reviewers independently extracted data from the study articles, protocols and appendices into Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. This checklist has 12 items to describe the ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’, ‘modifications’, and ‘how well’ for each intervention. We rated the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups as ‘reported’, ‘partially reported’ and ‘not reported’ and resolved discrepancies by consensus.ResultsNo studies reported 100% of the TIDieR items; the mean ‘reported’ rating was 54% (range 33–67%) for the CFT interventions and 35% (range 8–67%) for controls. The six most replicable items were the same for both CFT and control groups. These were ‘brief name’ (CFT=100%; control=100%), ‘why’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘how’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘what procedures’ (CFT=88%; control=63%), ‘where’ (CFT=88%; control=75%) and ‘planned adherence’ (CFT=75%; control=38%). Items that were not sufficiently ‘reported’ for either CFT or control groups included ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’ and ‘adherence’.ConclusionIncomplete descriptions of CFT interventions mean that clinicians and patients cannot implement those that have demonstrated effectiveness, and poor descriptions of control groups prevent researchers from replicating them in future studies.Conflict of interestNo conflicts of interestSources of fundingNo funding obtained