Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-utility of a multifaceted eHealth strategy to improve back pain beliefs of patients with non-specific low back pain: a cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and cost-utility of a multifaceted eHealth strategy compared to usual care in improving patients' back pain beliefs, and in decreasing disability and absenteeism.

Design

Stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation.

Setting

Dutch primary healthcare.

Participants

Patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain by their general practitioner or physiotherapist. Patients with serious comorbidities or confirmed pregnancy were excluded. 779 patients were randomised into intervention group (n=331, 59% female; 60.4% completed study) or control group (n=448, 57% female; 77.5% completed study).

Interventions

The intervention consisted of a multifaceted eHealth strategy that included a (mobile) website, digital monthly newsletters, and social media platforms. The website provided information about back pain, practical advice (eg, on self-management), working and returning to work with back pain, exercise tips, and short video messages from healthcare providers and patients providing information and tips. The control consisted of a digital patient information letter. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The primary outcome was back pain beliefs. Secondary outcome measures were disability and absenteeism, and for the preplanned economic evaluation quality of life and societal costs were measured.

Results

There were no between-group differences in back pain beliefs, disability, or absenteeism. Mean intervention costs were €70- and the societal cost difference was €535-in favour of the intervention group, but no significant cost savings were found. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that the intervention dominated usual care and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.85 on a willingness-to-pay of €10.000/quality adjusted life year (QALY).

Conclusions

A multifaceted eHealth strategy was not effective in improving patients' back pain beliefs or in decreasing disability and absenteeism, but showed promising cost-utility results based on QALYs.

Trial registration number

NTR4329.

SUBMITTER: Suman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6924789 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Guidelines are often slowly adapted into clinical practice. However, actively supporting healthcare professionals in evidence-based treatment may speed up guideline implementation. Danish low back pain (LBP) guidelines focus on primary care treatment of LBP, to reduce referrals from primary care to secondary care. The primary aim of this project was to reduce secondary care referral within 12 weeks by a multifaceted implementation strategy (MuIS).In a cluster randomised design, 189 general practices from the North Denmark Region were invited to participate. Practices were randomised (1:1) and stratified by practice size to MuIS (28 practices) or a passive implementation strategy (PaIS; 32 practices). Included were patients with LBP aged 18 to 65 years who were able to complete questionnaires, had no serious underlying pathology, and were not pregnant. We developed a MuIS including outreach visits, quality reports, and the STarT Back Tool for subgrouping patients with LBP. Both groups were offered the usual dissemination of guidelines, guideline-concordant structuring of the medical record, and a new referral opportunity for patients with psycho-social problems. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary and secondary outcomes pertained to the patient, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare sector perspective. Patients and the assessment of outcomes were blinded. Practices and caregivers delivering the interventions were not blinded.Between January 2013 and July 2014, 60 practices were included, of which 54 practices (28 MuIS, 26 PaIS) included 1101 patients (539 MuIS, 562 PaIS). Follow-up data for the primary outcome were available on 100 % of these patients. Twenty-seven patients (5.0 %) in the MuIS group were referred to secondary care vs. 59 patients (10.5 %) in the PaIS group. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) was 0.52 [95 % CI 0.30 to 0.90; p?=?0.020]. The MuIS was cost-saving £-93.20 (£406.51 vs. £499.71 per patient) after 12 weeks. Conversely, the MuIS resulted in less satisfied patients after 52 weeks (AOR 0.50 [95 % CI 0.31 to 0.81; p?=?0.004]).Using a MuIS changed general practice referral behaviour and was cost effective, but patients in the MuIS group were less satisfied. This study supports the application of a MuIS when implementing guidelines.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01699256.

Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition and a socioeconomic problem in many countries. Due to its recurrent nature, the prevention of further episodes (secondary prevention), seems logical. Furthermore, when the condition is persistent, the minimization of symptoms and prevention of deterioration (tertiary prevention), is equally important. Research has largely focused on treatment methods for symptomatic episodes, and little is known about preventive treatment strategies.This study protocol describes a randomized controlled clinical trial in a multicenter setting investigating the effect and cost-effectiveness of preventive manual care (chiropractic maintenance care) in a population of patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.Four hundred consecutive study subjects with recurrent or persistent LBP will be recruited from chiropractic clinics in Sweden. The primary outcome is the number of days with bothersome pain over 12 months. Secondary measures are self-rated health (EQ-5D), function (the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), psychological profile (the Multidimensional Pain Inventory), pain intensity (the Numeric Rating Scale), and work absence.The primary utility measure of the study is quality-adjusted life years and will be calculated using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Direct medical costs as well as indirect costs will be considered.Subjects are randomly allocated into two treatment arms: 1) Symptom-guided treatment (patient controlled), receiving care when patients feel a need. 2) Preventive treatment (clinician controlled), receiving care on a regular basis. Eligibility screening takes place in two phases: first, when assessing the primary inclusion/exclusion criteria, and then to only include fast responders, i.e., subjects who respond well to initial treatment. Data are collected at baseline and at follow-up as well as weekly, using SMS text messages.This study investigates a manual strategy (chiropractic maintenance care) for recurrent and persistent LBP and aims to answer questions regarding the effect and cost-effectiveness of this preventive approach. Strict inclusion criteria should ensure a suitable target group and the use of frequent data collection should provide an accurate outcome measurement. The study utilizes normal clinical procedures, which should aid the transferability of the results.Clinical trials.gov; NCT01539863, February 22, 2012. The first patient was randomized into the study on April 13th 2012.

Project description:The general population has a pessimistic view of low back pain (LBP), and evidence-based information has been used to positively influence LBP beliefs in previously reported mass media studies. However, there is a lack of randomized trials investigating whether LBP beliefs can be modified in primary prevention settings. This cluster randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of an evidence-based psychosocial educational program (PSEP) on LBP beliefs for soldiers completing military training. A military setting was selected for this clinical trial, because LBP is a common cause of soldier disability. Companies of soldiers (n = 3,792) were recruited, and cluster randomized to receive a PSEP or no education (control group, CG). The PSEP consisted of an interactive seminar, and soldiers were issued the Back Book for reference material. The primary outcome measure was the back beliefs questionnaire (BBQ), which assesses inevitable consequences of and ability to cope with LBP. The BBQ was administered before randomization and 12 weeks later. A linear mixed model was fitted for the BBQ at the 12-week follow-up, and a generalized linear mixed model was fitted for the dichotomous outcomes on BBQ change of greater than two points. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for drop out. BBQ scores (potential range: 9-45) improved significantly from baseline of 25.6 +/- 5.7 (mean +/- SD) to 26.9 +/- 6.2 for those receiving the PSEP, while there was a significant decline from 26.1 +/- 5.7 to 25.6 +/- 6.0 for those in the CG. The adjusted mean BBQ score at follow-up for those receiving the PSEP was 1.49 points higher than those in the CG (P < 0.0001). The adjusted odds ratio of BBQ improvement of greater than two points for those receiving the PSEP was 1.51 (95% CI = 1.22-1.86) times that of those in the CG. BBQ improvement was also mildly associated with race and college education. Sensitivity analyses suggested minimal influence of drop out. In conclusion, soldiers that received the PSEP had an improvement in their beliefs related to the inevitable consequences of and ability to cope with LBP. This is the first randomized trial to show positive influence on LBP beliefs in a primary prevention setting, and these findings have potentially important public health implications for prevention of LBP.

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:Previous mass media campaigns have aimed to influence how people manage back pain, with mixed success. Campaigns should target beliefs which are related to the behaviours they aim to change. This systematic review brings together research that has measured the prevalence of beliefs about back pain in the general population and factors associated with these beliefs, including future pain-related outcomes. Five databases were searched up until April 2017. Quantitative studies which reported a measure of agreement with a belief about back pain, cross-sectional associations, or associations between beliefs and future outcomes were eligible. Eligibility was assessed and data extracted independently by two authors. Results were tabulated and narratively synthesized. Nineteen studies from 10 countries were eligible (median study n [IQR] = 990.5 [524.75-2387.5]). Beliefs were measured using eight questionnaires and 57 stand-alone items. Beliefs about back pain's negative consequences were common across countries and populations, whereas most samples did not hold fear-avoidance beliefs. Beliefs about back pain's consequences were associated with pain and disability, but only one study investigated this specific relationship prospectively. No studies investigated whether beliefs are associated with future pain management behaviours. Agreement with certain beliefs (e.g. about negative consequences) was associated with sociodemographic characteristics (e.g. older age) and poorer self-rated health. Interventions may benefit from targeting beliefs about the perceived negative consequences of back pain in these populations. However, future research should explore how beliefs prospectively influence the management of back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: This review brings together studies which have assessed the prevalence of beliefs about back pain, and factors associated with holding them. It highlights that whether or not these beliefs represent important determinants of how people manage pain remains unknown.