ArticleBJGP open2025
Findings from the development of a novel course of both group and individual Alexander Technique lessons for neck, hip, and knee pain: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMusculoskeletal pain, often affecting multiple sites - including neck, hip, and knee - is common, with limited treatment options. Novel treatments are needed to support self-management, preferably addressing multiple pain sites.
aimTo develop and explore the acceptability of a short, mixed course of individual (one-to-one) and group lessons in the Alexander Technique (AT), which addresses dysfunctional use of the musculoskeletal system. DESIGN &
settingA single-centre, mixed-methods study of patients with chronic or recurrent neck, hip, or knee pain from four general practices.
methodPreliminary development of a course of 10 AT lessons (six group, four individual) took place with a group of AT teachers. Semi-structured interviews of participants were undertaken, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Descriptive pre-post analysis of quantitative scales were used to assess improvement (Numerical pain scale [NRS]; modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); enablement (modified Patient Enablement Instrument used in the ATEAM trial); and global improvement (Health Transition scale).
resultsTwenty-three participants were included; 18 were interviewed. Commonly, participants found the mixture of group and individual lessons helpful, including helping multiple pain sites, and the mix of different problems enhanced learning. There was moderate improvement in standard quantitative measures over 12 weeks (NRS from 5.15 to 3.85; modified RMDQ 8.26 to 5.7) but with more substantial improvement in enablement and global improvement. Those who perceived underlying structural damage to the knee reported little benefit.
conclusionPeople with chronic or recurrent neck, hip, or knee pain found a course of mixed group and individual lessons in AT helpful in managing their pain, but not those with severe knee problems. Whether standard quantitative measures provide the best measures of effectiveness requires exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.