Table 3.
Were the feasibility criteria met?
| Criteria | Feasibility criteria met? | Recommendations for full trial |
| Blinding of assessor | Yes | Treatment providers should try to keep the treatment duration close to or equal to 1 hour to avoid any guesses of group allocation between the treatment groups. |
| Recruitment rate | Yes | Incorporating advertisement to recruit the patients was a good idea, which should be considered in the full trial. |
| Attrition rate (in both arms) | Yes | Phone call reminders for the follow-up assessment helped reduce the drop-outs and which should be considered in the future trial. |
| Feasibility of outcome assessment | Yes |
|
| Contamination of intervention | Yes | Having an appointment time for follow-up helps avoid contamination. |
| Credibility of treatment | Yes | The credibility scores of the two treatment conditions were within 0.50 SD of each other; therefore, no changes in the treatment conditions are required. |
| Adherence to treatment | Yes | Not many patients read the handbook provided to them. Creating interesting short audios or videos with the key messages may be helpful for improving the adherence to home advice. |
| Difficulty level of the intervention | No | A large proportion of patients reported the interventions to be ‘easy’. The complexity of the pain education content may be increased by providing more complex neurophysiological knowledge to the patients. However, this may demand longer duration of treatment time, and/or compromise the effectiveness of the intervention, and may require pretesting of the changed intervention before using it in the full trial. |