Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The effect of a lumbar support pillow on low back pain in long distance truck drivers in the eThekweni District||Authors:||Van Wyk, Brittany||Issue Date:||2019||Abstract:||BACKGROUND A lack of adequate lumbar support when driving has been said to be an important causative factor of low back pain (LBP) in long-distance truck drivers. Health practitioners prescribe a lumbar support pillow even though the findings of several studies are uncertain. EnVision Tomorrow After Pain (ENTAP) claims that its lumbar support pillows result in an improved posture, a decrease in pain and an increase in comfort (ENTAP 2016). The ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support’ has not yet been tested on participants and, therefore, these claims cannot be currently validated. Therefore, this study intended to determine the effectiveness of the ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ in decreasing LBP in long-distance truck drivers. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of the ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ on LBP in long-distance truck drivers in terms of pain parameters (intensity and duration of pain), activities of daily living and disability when compared with a polyester lumbar support pillow and no lumbar support pillow. METHODS Sixty-three long-distance truck drivers experiencing LBP were recruited from a trucking company by random allocation. The study was a quantitative paradigm, double blinded, true experimental study design. Participants had to fill out a general questionnaire to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. A baseline, three-week and six-week questionnaire, consisting of the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Oswestry LBP Scale and the Patients‟ Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 was used to analyse the data. The mean body mass and height were compared between the three treatment groups using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests. Repeated measures ANOVA testing was used to assess the treatment effect of the intervention group compared to the other groups (Esterhuizen 2018). Post hoc comparison of the intervention effect between time points and between treatment groups was done using a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (Esterhuizen 2018). RESULTS The NPRS within the subjects‟ contrast showed a progressive variation from baseline testing to the three week (p=0.04) and the six week (p=0.001). The profile plot revealed that the mean pain score decreased much faster in Group B ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillows’ compared with both the other groups. The Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire score revealed that the score tests within the subjects‟ contrasts showed that the interaction of time x group was significant only at six weeks (p<0.001) compared with baseline. The profile plot showed that the mean Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire score decreased (improved) much faster in Group B ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ compared with both the other groups. There was a highly significant treatment effect overall (time x group p<0.001) for the PGIC Scale, indicating that the change in score over time was different in the two groups (p<0.001). The profile plot showed that the mean PGIC score increased (improved) in the Group B ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ while it decreased (worsened) in the polyester group. There was a highly significant treatment effect overall (time x group p<0.001) for the degree of change score, meaning that the change in score over time was different in the two groups. The profile plot showed that the mean degree of change score decreased (improved) in Group B ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ while it increased (worsened) in the Group C (polyester-filled lumbar support). All participants in both lumbar support groups answered “yes” to the question on whether they found the support comfortable at both three weeks and six-week time points. CONCLUSION The ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ was effective in decreasing LBP in long-distance truck drivers. It was considered to decrease LBP, improve activities of daily living and decrease disability, and it was also considered as comfortable. Therefore, the Alternate Hypothesis (Ha) which states that there will be a statistically significant (p<0.05) improvement in LBP in the participants who use the ‘ENTAP Lumbar Support Pillow’ compared to no lumbar support pillow and the polyester-filled lumbar support pillow is accepted and the Null Hypothesis is rejected.||Description:||Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2019.||URI:||http://hdl.handle.net/10321/3230|
|Appears in Collections:||Theses and dissertations (Health Sciences)|
Show full item record
checked on Jun 15, 2019
checked on Jun 15, 2019
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.