Dataset Information

Exploring integrative medicine for back and neck pain - a pragmatic randomised clinical pilot trial.

ABSTRACT: A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.Clinical trials NCT00565942.

SUBMITTER: Sundberg T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2749805 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring integrative medicine for back and neck pain - a pragmatic randomised clinical pilot trial.

Sundberg Tobias T Petzold Max M Wändell Per P Rydén Anna A Falkenberg Torkel T

BMC complementary and alternative medicine 20090907

<h4>Background</h4>A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effec ...[more]

PMID: 19735542

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is increasingly being used for many conditions including chronic neck pain. However the evidence remains inconclusive, indicating the need for further well-designed research. The aim of this study was to conduct a pilot randomised controlled parallel arm trial, to establish key features required for the design and implementation of a large-scale trial on acupuncture for chronic neck pain. METHODS: Patients whose GPs had diagnosed neck pain were recruited from one general practice, and randomised to receive usual GP care only, or acupuncture (up to 10 treatments over 3 months) as an adjunctive treatment to usual GP care. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) at 3 months. The primary analysis was to determine the sample size for the full scale study. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with neck pain identified from the GP database, 28 (12.3%) consenting patients were eligible to participate in the pilot and 24 (10.5%) were recruited to the trial. Ten patients were randomised to acupuncture, receiving an average of eight treatments from one of four acupuncturists, and 14 were randomised to usual GP care alone. The sample size for the full scale trial was calculated from a clinically meaningful difference of 5% on the NPQ and, from this pilot, an adjusted standard deviation of 15.3%. Assuming 90% power at the 5% significance level, a sample size of 229 would be required in each arm in a large-scale trial when allowing for a loss to follow-up rate of 14%. In order to achieve this sample, one would need to identify patients from databases of GP practices with a total population of 230,000 patients, or approximately 15 GP practices roughly equal in size to the one involved in this study (i.e. 15,694 patients). CONCLUSION: This pilot study has allowed a number of recommendations to be made to facilitate the design of a large-scale trial, which in turn will help to clarify the existing evidence base on acupuncture for neck pain.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough acupuncture has been recommended for alleviating cancer pain by clinical guidelines, the level of the supporting evidence needs to be improved. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial (pRCT) in a hospital setting would provide real-world assessments of the overall clinical effects of acupuncture. This pilot trial aims to explore the feasibility and provide data for sample size calculations for a pRCT evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy to routine medical care for cancer pain.Methods and analysisThirty patients with cancer admitted to the oncology department with moderate or severe pain will be recruited. Participants will be randomised at a ratio of 1:1 to the adjunctive acupuncture group or a control group which receives routine pain management without acupuncture. The standardised section of the acupuncture protocol will be developed based on the results of reviews of the literature, recommendations in clinical guidelines and interviews with clinical experts. The acupuncturist will be allowed to tailor the protocol according to the individual situation of each participant. Primary outcomes relevant to the feasibility of conducting a fully powered trial include: numbers and proportions of participants recruited, screened, consented and randomised; numbers and reasons for withdrawals and dropouts; numbers and types of adverse events; feasibility of implementing the trial procedures; evaluation of the comprehensiveness and ease-of-use of the case report form. Secondary outcomes are clinical measurements of the effectiveness of the treatment that are intended for use in the full-scale trial. Analysis of feasibility will be descriptive and pain intensity measures will be analysed using mixed-effects regression.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (approval no: Z2017-184-01) and RMIT University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference no: 21361). Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, and trial participants will be informed via email and/or phone calls.Trial registration numberChiCTR1800017023.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain can disrupt the cortical representation of a painful body part. This disruption may play a role in maintaining the individual's pain. Tactile acuity training has been used to normalise cortical representation and reduce pain in certain pain conditions. However, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention for chronic low back pain (CLBP). The primary aim of this study was to inform the development of a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) by providing preliminary data on the effect of tactile acuity training on pain and function in individuals with CLBP. The secondary aim was to obtain qualitative feedback about the intervention.MethodsIn this mixed-methods pilot RCT 15 individuals were randomised to either an intervention (tactile acuity training) or a placebo group (sham tactile acuity training). All participants received 3 sessions of acuity training (intervention or sham) from a physiotherapist and were requested to undertake daily acuity home training facilitated by an informal carer (friend/relative). All participants also received usual care physiotherapy. The primary outcome measures were pain (0-100visual analogue scale (VAS)) and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)). Participants and their informal carers were invited to a focus group to provide feedback on the intervention.ResultsThe placebo group improved by the greatest magnitude for both outcome measures, but there was no statistically significant difference (Mean difference (95%CI), p-value) between groups for change in pain (25.6 (-0.7 to 51.9), p = 0.056) or function (2.2 (-1.6 to 6.0), p = 0.237). Comparing the number of individuals achieving a minimally clinically significant improvement, the placebo group had better outcomes for pain with all participants achieving ?30% improvement compared to only a third of the intervention group (6/6 vs. 3/9, p = 0.036). Qualitatively, participants reported that needing an informal carer was a considerable barrier to the home training component of the study.ConclusionsThis pilot RCT found tactile acuity training to be no more effective than sham tactile acuity training for function and less effective for pain in individuals with CLBP. That the intervention could not be self-applied was a considerable barrier to its use.Trial registration isrctnISRCTN98118082.

Project description:IntroductionNon-specific neck pain causes pain and disability and contributes substantial socioeconomic burden internationally. Up to 50% of adults experience neck pain annually, leading to reduced the quality of life. An active behavioural physiotherapy intervention (ABPI) may be feasible to manage patients with acute non-specific neck pain to prevent transition to chronicity. A recent pilot and feasibility trial investigating an acute whiplash-associated disorder population found potential value of the ABPI with 95% of participants fully recovered (Neck Disability Index: NDI ?4, compared with 17% in the standard physiotherapy arm); supporting a definitive trial. Qualitative findings from the physiotherapists supported the potential of the ABPI in a non-specific neck pain population.Methods and analysisTwo phases: (1) Pragmatic cluster randomised double-blind, parallel 2-arm (ABPI vs standard physiotherapy intervention) pilot and feasibility trial to evaluate the procedures and feasibility of the ABPI for the management of acute non-specific neck pain. Six physiotherapy departments from six public hospitals in Thailand will be recruited and cluster randomised by a computer-generated randomisation sequence with block sampling. Sixty participants (30 each arm, 10 per hospital) will be assessed at baseline and 3 months following baseline for NDI, Numerical Rating Scale for pain intensity, cervical range of motion, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and EuroQol-5 dimensions 5 levels outcomes, and (2) Embedded qualitative study using semistructured interviews to explore acceptability of the ABPI to participants (n=12) and physiotherapists (n=3). Descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and interpretative phenomenological analysis to code and analyse qualitative data (deductive and inductive) will inform feasibility for a future definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is approved by the Naresuan University Institutional Review Board (NUIRB_0380/61).Trial registration number and statusTCTR20180607001; Recruiting commenced 1 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.MethodsThis was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into "satisfaction" (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and "non-satisfaction" (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).ResultsWe recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.ConclusionWe did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.

Project description:ObjectivesTo report the results of health economic analyses comparing two treatment approaches for chronic low back pain (CLBP).DesignObservational prospective cohort study comparing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CLBP care provided at an integrative care clinic with that provided in other clinics within the same hospital. CLBP-related medical utilization, function, quality of life, and days of work incapacity were self-reported at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months.Settings/locationOsher Clinical Center (OCC) based at a tertiary academic hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital [BWH]) and other clinics at BWH.SubjectsCLBP patients seeking care at OCC or non-OCC BWH clinics.InterventionsIntegrative or conventional care for CLBP as prescribed by the treating clinician(s).Outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated per treatment approach based on the SF-12. Cost per QALY gained was evaluated using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ICERs based on CLBP-specific effectiveness measures (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ] and bothersomeness of pain [BOP]) were exploratory outcomes.ResultsTotal adjusted annual CLBP-related costs per patient were greater in the OCC versus non-OCC group ($11,526.73 vs. $6,810.63). Between group differences in QALYs were small and ICER estimate of cost per QALY gained was high ($436,676). However, unadjusted mean direct costs per patient decreased over time in the OCC group. Savings in direct costs of $391 (95% confidence interval: -1,078 to 1,861) were observed in the OCC group for the 6- to 12-month period, driven primarily by reduced medication usage. ICERs based on adjusted RDQ and BOP group differences showed cost of $2,073 and $4,203 for a one-point reduction per respective scale.ConclusionsWhen adjusted for baseline differences, self-reported costs were higher in the OCC group with only small effects on QALYs. However, trends toward decreased direct expenditures and medication usage over time warrant further investigation. Future studies evaluating potential benefits of integrative care models for the management of CLBP should employ randomized designs, longer observational periods, and explore multiple metrics of cost-effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Exploring integrative medicine for back and neck pain - a pragmatic randomised clinical pilot trial.

Publications

Exploring integrative medicine for back and neck pain - a pragmatic randomised clinical pilot trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets