Dataset Information

Translating evidence for low back pain management into a consumer-focussed resource for use in community pharmacies: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This cluster-randomised controlled trial determined the effectiveness of an evidence-based, pamphlet intervention in improving low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs among pharmacy consumers.

Methods

THIRTY FIVE COMMUNITY PHARMACIES WERE RANDOMISED TO THREE GROUPS: pamphlet+education intervention [n = 11]; pamphlet only intervention [n = 11]; control: usual care [n = 13]. Eligibility requirements for clusters included: community-based pharmacies and proprietor participation consent. Pharmacy consumers (N = 317) aged 18-65 years currently experiencing LBP participated. Intervention group allocation depended on the pharmacy attended. Individual-level outcomes were measured at pre-intervention (T0), at two (T1) and eight (T2) weeks post-intervention and included beliefs about LBP [Back Pain Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ); Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)]. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, activity impairment and pamphlet perceived usefulness. Blinding to group allocation included primary investigators, outcome assessors and the statistician. Pharmacy staff and consumers were un-blinded.

Results

Of 35 pharmacies recruited (317 consumers), no clusters were lost to follow-up. Follow-up was available for n = 24 at 2 weeks only; n = 38 at 8 weeks only; n = 148 at both time points, with n = 148+24+38 = 210 analysed (107 excluded: no follow up). Adjusting for baseline scores demonstrated no significant differences in beliefs (2 or at 8 weeks) between pamphlet (with or without education) versus control, or between 'pamphlet with' versus 'without' education. Work-related fear (FABQ) was significantly lower in consumers receiving pamphlet (with or without education) versus control (difference -2.3, 95%CI: -4.4 to -0.2). There was no significant difference between "pamphlet with" versus "pamphlet without" groups. Consumers receiving the "pamphlet with" reported greater perceived usefulness than consumers receiving the "pamphlet without" (difference 0.9 (95%CI: 0.0 to 1.8)).

Conclusion

Community pharmacies provided a feasible primary care portal for implementing evidence-based information. The associated improvement in work-related LBP-beliefs for consumers receiving the pamphlet suggests this simple intervention may be a useful component of care.

Trial registration

ACTR.org.au ACTRN12611000053921.

SUBMITTER: Slater H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3748095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of Teach-Back on communication quality in a national telephone-based telehealth service, for callers varying in health literacy.DesignCross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trial with continuous recruitment, short (fixed) exposure and blinded outcome assessors. Nurses were stratified by hours worked and randomised into training groups using a computer generated sequence.SettingAn Australian national pregnancy and parenting telephone helpline.InterventionComplex intervention involving a single 2-hour group Teach-Back training session, combined with ongoing nurse self-reflection on their communication following each call and each shift.ParticipantsParticipants were 637 callers to the telephone helpline aged 18-75 (87% female), of whom 127 (13%) had inadequate health literacy (measured with the Single Item Literacy Screener); and 15 maternal and child health nurses with 15 years' experience on average.MeasuresPrimary outcome was a modified subscale of the Health Literacy Questionnaire, 'having sufficient information to manage health'. Secondary caller outcomes included caller confidence, perceived actionability of information and nurse effort to listen and understand. Nurse outcomes were perceptions of their communication effectiveness.ResultsOver a 7 week period, 376 surveyed callers received usual care and 261 Teach-Back. Ratings on the primary outcome increased over time (OR 1.17, CI 1.01 to 1.32, p = 0.03) but no independent Teach-Back effect was observed. A consistent pattern suggests that, compared with usual care, Teach-Back helps callers with inadequate health literacy feel listened to (OR 2.3, CI 0.98 to 5.42, p = 0.06), confident to act (OR 2.44, CI 1.00 to 5.98, p = 0.06), and know what steps to take (OR 2.68, CI 1.00 to 7.17, p = 0.06). Nurse perceptions of both their own communication effectiveness (OR = 2.31; CI 1.38 to 3.86, p<0.0001), and caller understanding (OR = 2.56; CI 1.52 to 4.30, p<0.001) both increased with Teach-Back. No harms were reported.ConclusionsTeach-Back appears to benefit telephone health service users with inadequate health literacy, but the extent of this is unclear due to smaller numbers of lower literacy participants. Improving caller ratings over time are likely due to increasing nurse communication competence.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent encounters in General Practice. Investigation and referral remain common despite the self-limiting character of episodes that are not largely attributable to specific underlying injuries. Identifying patients' ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) is a well-established element within consultation skills training and has been shown to improve prescribing. It can be a powerful communication tool setting the base for transferring and adjusting adequate clinical information. This study aims to evaluate whether ICE can decrease unnecessary medicine in the management of acute LBP in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Research question: Does ICE training intervention have an effect on doctors' referrals of patients suffering from acute LBP? Population: Recruitment to this parallel cluster randomised trial will take place among general practitioners belonging to four independent practice networks in Northern Bavaria/Germany. Intervention: At baseline, 24 out of 48 doctors will be randomly assigned to take part in a 1-day training session covering theoretical background and clinical implementation of patient-centred communication by stimulating ICE. They will also be given access to a web-based supporting tool for reflective practice on their communication skills. Comparison: GPs in the control group will continue consultations as usual. Outcome: Outcome measures are referrals to diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy and specialists obtained from routine practice data, compared between intervention and control group. Time: Referrals of patients consulting their doctors for documented LBP will be monitored up to 3 months after the ICE training intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval for the study was obtained by the Ethics Committee of the University Erlangen-Nuremberg (296_17B). Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03711071).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). METHODS AND FINDINGS:This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. CONCLUSIONS:Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ACTRN12616000888460.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting.AimThis study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation.Methods/designThis study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. METHODS: General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. RESULTS: 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538.

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.