Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42026690›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026

Get Back, a person-centered digital program to promote physical activity among patients undergoing spinal stenosis surgery: a randomized feasibility study.

Christian Ernest, Rikard Hanafi, Helena Brisby, Andreas Fors, Håkan Hedman, Mike Kemani, Mari Lundberg, Jo Nijs, Hedvig Zetterberg, Emelie Karlsson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05806593 (Get Back, a Person-centred Digital Program Targeting Physical Activity for Patients Undergoing Spinal Stenosis Surgery - a Randomized Feasibility Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05806593 nacompletednot on this map

Get Back, a Person-centred Digital Program Targeting Physical Activity for Patients Undergoing Spinal Stenosis Surgery - a Randomized Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSophiahemmet UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled29ConditionsSpinal Stenosis LumbarArmsGet Back pilot
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christian Ernest *Back in Motion Research Group, Department of Health Promoting Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rikard Hanafi *Back in Motion Research Group, Department of Health Promoting Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helena BrisbyDepartment of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Andreas ForsInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Håkan HedmanUniversity of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mike KemaniBack in Motion Research Group, Department of Health Promoting Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mari LundbergBack in Motion Research Group, Department of Health Promoting Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jo NijsPain in Motion Research Group (PAIN), Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, 1050, Belgium.
Hedvig ZetterbergBack in Motion Research Group, Department of Health Promoting Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emelie KarlssonBack in Motion Research Group, Department of Health Promoting Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden. emelie.karlsson@shh.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5954-3761

Funding

AFA Försäkring 190264Vetenskapsrådet 2021-02804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is characterized by walking limitations that often lead to physical inactivity and potentially associated health risks. This trial aimed to examine whether a person-centered digital program targeting physical activity (Get Back feasibility) was feasible and whether it contributed to clinically meaningful improvements in intervention outcomes among patients with LSS who were undergoing surgery.

methodsA two-arm randomized feasibility trial included physically inactive patients ≥ 18 years with central lumbar spinal stenosis scheduled for decompression surgery. The participants were randomized to Get Back or usual physical therapy. The 12-week intervention comprised person-centered support for behavioral changes in physical activity through video and telephone calls with a physical therapist. The feasibility outcomes included process feasibility, resource feasibility, and treatment fidelity, based on data from screening lists, study-specific questions, patient-reported outcome measures, and semi-structured interviews. The outcomes related to the intervention content included objectively assessed steps per day and physical activity, as well as self-reported fear of movement, pain catastrophizing, and general self-efficacy. Process and resource feasibility, as well as tentative changes in post-intervention outcomes, were assessed and reported using descriptive statistics. The temporal relationships of variables during the intervention were analyzed exploratively using cross-lagged correlations. Treatment fidelity, including treatment dose and adherence to the person-centered approach, was evaluated using descriptive statistics and a mixed-methods approach, respectively.

resultsOf the 226 screened patients, 43% (n = 98) fulfilled the screening criteria. Of those, 67 were asked to participate, and 29 were randomized. The most common reason for declining participation was not wanting a digital intervention. The participants found the video format and outcome measures relevant and useful. The response rates were high (92-100%), except for the accelerometer follow-up (76%). The planned primary outcome for the future randomized controlled trial, steps per day, showed tentative between-group differences in favor of the intervention group. In both groups, fear of movement and pain catastrophizing decreased. The intervention participants attended four video sessions and a median of four telephone sessions (3-5). The physical therapists performed the intervention as planned, with fidelity to the person-centered approach, and behavior-change techniques were used.

conclusionsGet Back was feasible for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were receiving decompression surgery, with some modifications to strengthen the overall study procedure and intervention before proceeding to a full-scale randomized controlled trial.

trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov, 04/08/2023, registration no. NCT05806593.

Indexed as

AccelerometryDecompression surgeryLumbar spinePilotRehabilitationSteps per dayTelerehabilitationTreatment fidelity

Identifiers

PMID42026690
PMCPMC13107828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.