Physical therapist-led interventions based on the biopsychosocial model provide improvement in disability and pain for spinal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025
Biomechanical Changes Related to Low Back Pain: An Innovative Tool for Movement Pattern Assessment and Treatment Evaluation in Rehabilitation
Published on: December 13, 2024
Takahiro Miki1,2,3, Yu Kondo1, Hiroshi Kurakata4
1Department of Rehabilitation, Sapporo Maruyama Orthopedic Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Objective:
To summarize the effects of physical therapist-led interventions based on the biopsychosocial (BPS) model in spinal disorders compared to interventions with no BPS model through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Literature Survey:
We searched the Web of Science, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PEDro up to October 27, 2022.
Methodology:
Pain intensity and disability were primary outcomes and psychological factors were secondary outcomes in spinal disorders. The included intervention was physical therapist-led interventions based on the BPS model. The control group received no physiotherapy intervention for BPS. Pooled effects were analyzed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The subgroup analysis was divided into low back pain group and neck pain group. Another subgroup analysis was conducted only of the groups that had received training of the BPS model.
Synthesis:
Fifty-seven studies with 5471 participants met the inclusion criteria. For pain intensity, there was a statistically significant effect for the BPS model led by physical therapists in the short, medium, and long terms. The SMDs with 95% CIs were -0.44 (-0.62, -0.27), -0.24 (-0.37, -0.12), and -0.17 (-0.28, -0.06), respectively. Outcomes were clinically significant, except in the long term. For disability, there was a statistically significant effect in the short, medium, and long terms. The SMDs with 95% CIs were -0.48 (-0.69, -0.27), -0.44 (-0.64, -0.25), and -0.37 (-0.58, -0.15), respectively. All periods were clinically significant. The quality of the evidence was low for all of the main outcomes for all of the terms.
Conclusion:
Physical therapist-led interventions based on the BPS model effectively improve pain intensity and disability in patients with spinal disorders based on low-quality evidence.
