Feasibility results for the two study groups
| Feasibility outcomes | PEG N (%) or Mean (SD) | CG N (%) or Mean (SD) | Mean difference (95% CI) or p values | Summary |
| Attrition rate | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 1.000 | No difference in attrition rates between groups. |
| Assessor’s correct guess for group allocation | 12 (60%) | 11 (55%) | 0.756 | Assessor correctly guessed the group allocation slightly more often for the PEG than the CG. |
| Understanding possible contamination between groups (n=19) | No contamination between groups. | |||
| 1. Have you talked to other participants about the intervention? | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – | |
| 2. If yes, was your attitude/intervention changed? | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – | |
| 3. Are you aware of the intervention that participants in the other group are receiving? | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – | |
| 4. Are participants in the other group aware of the type of intervention you are receiving? | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – | |
| 5. For the control group: did you read the pain education booklet provided to the experimental group? | – | 0 (%) | – | |
| Credibility and acceptability of interventions (scale 0–20) | Similar credibility scores between groups. | |||
| Baseline assessment (n=20) | 12.55 (2.89) | 12.95 (3.80) | 0.40 (−2.56 to 1.76) | |
| Final assessment (n=19) | 12.37 (2.63) | 12.26 (4.17) | 0.11 (−2.19 to 2.40) | |
| Adherence to treatment (number of days) | Participants were adherent to the treatment in both groups, with significantly more adherence reported by the CG participants. | |||
| Followed advice (n=19) | 17 (89%) | 18 (95%) | 0.501 | |
| Performed home exercises (mean days [SD]) | 3.84 (2.43) | 5.53 (1.58) | −1.68 (−3.03 to –0.33) | |
| Number of patients who received other treatments (total) | 5 (26%) | 7 (37%) | 0.471 | Slightly more CG participants received regular physiotherapy at the centre, massage or acupuncture, and NSAIDs. |
| Regular physiotherapy at the centre* | 4 (21%) | 5 (26%) | 0.719 | |
| Massage or acupuncture | 1 (5%) | 2 (10%) | 0.563 | |
| Number of NSAIDs per week used at follow-up | 2 | 5 | −3 | |
| Total treatment time (in minutes) | 61.00 (7.88) | 60.60 (8.85) | Treatment time is very similar between the two treatment conditions and consistent with the planned treatment duration of treatment. | |
| Satisfaction (scale 0–4) | 3.89 (0.46) | 3.68 (0.75) | 0.21 (−0.20 to 0.62) | Satisfaction of treatment scores were similar between groups with non-significant between group difference. |
| Difficulty (scale 0–5); mean (SD) | 2.26 (0.56) | 2.16 (0.60) | 0.10 (−0.28 to 0.49) | Majority of the participants (75%) reported both treatments as easy. There were no significant between-group difference in difficulty score. |
| Very easy | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| Easy | 15 (75%) | 15 (75%) | ||
| Neither easy nor difficult | 3 (15%) | 2 (10%) | ||
| Difficult | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| Very difficult | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
*Mostly included electrotherapy treatment.
CG, control group; NSAIDS, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PEG, pain education group.