Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Primary Care Interventions Using a Biopsychosocial Approach in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Recent systematic reviews show promising effects for multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (BPS) interventions in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Nowadays, BPS interventions have also been developed for primary care physiotherapy settings. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of primary care BPS interventions in improving functional disability, pain, and work status for patients with CLBP. Secondly, we aimed to provide an elaborated overview of BPS intervention designs, physiotherapist training programs, and process-related factors (practical implementation). METHODS:We searched in scientific databases and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care physiotherapist-led BPS interventions in adults (?18 years) with nonspecific CLBP (?12 weeks) were included. RESULTS:Our search resulted in 943 references; 7 RCTs were included (1,426 participants). Results show moderate-quality evidence (3 trials; 991 participants) that a BPS intervention is more effective than education/advice for reducing disability and pain in the short, medium, and long term. Low-quality evidence (4 trials; 435 participants) was found for no difference with physical activity treatments. CONCLUSIONS:BPS interventions seem more effective than education/advice and were found to be as effective as physical activity interventions in patients with CLBP. BPS interventions with a clear focus on psychosocial factors (understanding pain, unhelpful thoughts, coping styles, and goal setting) seem most promising. Sufficient delivery of BPS elements is expected when physiotherapists participate in training programs with extensive support prior and during delivery (manual, supervision, and informative resources).

SUBMITTER: van Erp RMA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7379915 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of Primary Care Interventions Using a Biopsychosocial Approach in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

van Erp Reni M A RMA Huijnen Ivan P J IPJ Jakobs Marluuke L G MLG Kleijnen Jos J Smeets Rob J E M RJEM

Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain 20181202 2

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Recent systematic reviews show promising effects for multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (BPS) interventions in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Nowadays, BPS interventions have also been developed for primary care physiotherapy settings. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of primary care BPS interventions in improving functional disability, pain, and work status for patients with CLBP. Secondly, we aimed to provide an ...[more]

PMID: 30290052

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low back pain is the highest reported musculoskeletal problem worldwide. Up to 90 % of patients with low back pain have no clear explanation for the source and origin of their pain. These individuals commonly receive a diagnosis of non-specific low back pain. Patient education is a way to provide information and advice aimed at changing patients' cognition and knowledge about their chronic state through the reduction of fear of anticipatory outcomes and the resumption of normal activities. Information technology and the expedited communication processes associated with this technology can be used to deliver health care information to patients. Hence, this technology and its ability to deliver life-changing information has grown as a powerful and alternative health promotion tool. Several studies have demonstrated that websites can change and improve chronic patients' knowledge and have a positive impact on patients' attitudes and behaviors. The aim of this project is to identify chronic low back pain patients' beliefs about the origin and meaning of pain to develop a web-based educational tool using different educational formats and gamification techniques.This study has a mixed-method sequential exploratory design. The participants are chronic low back pain patients between 18-65 years of age who are attending a primary care setting. For the qualitative phase, subjects will be contacted by their family physician and invited to participate in a personal semi-structured interview. The quantitative phase will be a randomized controlled trial. Subjects will be randomly allocated using a simple random sample technique. The intervention group will be provided access to the web site where they will find information related to their chronic low back pain. This information will be provided in different formats. All of this material will be based on the information obtained in the qualitative phase. The control group will follow conventional treatment provided by their family physician.The main outcome of this project is to identify chronic low back pain patients' beliefs about the origin and meaning of pain to develop a web-based educational tool using different educational formats and gamification techniques.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02369120 Date: 02/20/2015.

Project description:BackgroundBest outpatient treatment of nonspecific chronic low back pain is high-dosed exercise that is maintained after therapy. Primary care biopsychosocial intervention (PCBI) is an outpatient multicomponent intervention that includes an active component (exercise, physical activity, or physiotherapy) and at least one psychological, social, or occupational component. Research has shown that PCBI can reduce pain intensity and disability. While scattered studies support low-dosed (<15 treatment hours) PCBI, there is no systematic review comparing the effectiveness of low-dosed PCBI treatment with traditional physical activity interventions in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP).Inclusion criteriaRandomised controlled trials that evaluate low-dosed outpatient biopsychosocial interventions compared to physical treatment with an active component such as exercise, physical activity or usual physiotherapy treatment for adult participants (18 years or older) who suffer from nonspecific CLBP will be included.MethodsA comprehensive search of multiple databases will be used to find relevant studies. The databases will be searched from inception to December 2021, with English or German language restrictions imposed. Keywords and derivatives of "chronic back pain", "exercise intervention", "cognitive-behavioral therapy", "primary care" and "randomized controlled trials" will be used. Sources will include CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed and Web of Science.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis of narrowly defined low- dosed PCBI across populations with nonspecific chronic low back pain. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of low-dosed outpatient biopsychosocial interventions versus physical active interventions on pain intensity and disability in adults with CLBP. This study will provide evidence that could improve treatment options for patients with nonspecific CLBP.Trail registrationSystematic review registration number: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022302771. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022302771.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Project description:BackgroundA biopsychosocial rehabilitation is recommended for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP); however, its effectiveness compared to the traditional supervised exercise therapy of CNLBP treatment is still unclear.MethodsThis was a parallel-group randomized controlled clinical trial. The sample consisted of 180 participants of both sexes, aged ≥18 years, with CNLBP for ≥3 months. Using web randomization and concealed allocation, they were assigned to three groups; graded activity receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy, group-based combined exercise therapy and education (GA; n = 59), supervised group-based combined exercise therapy and education (SET; n = 63), and a control group receiving usual care (n = 58). Interventions were administered for 4 weeks (8 sessions). The primary outcome was pain intensity. Outcome measures were collected baseline, after interventions (4 weeks), and during two follow-up periods (3 and 6 months).ResultsAfter the intervention, GA had a significant large effect on pain reduction compared to the control group (MD of 22.64 points; 95% CI = 16.10 to 29.19; p < 0.0001; Cohen's d = 1.70), as well as SET compared with the control group (MD of 21.08 points; 95% CI = 14.64 to 27.52; p < 0.0001; Cohen's d = 1.39), without significant difference between two intervention groups. At 3 and 6 months of follow-up, GA had a statistically significantly better effect in reducing pain, disability and fear-avoidance beliefs, and improving spinal extensor endurance, range of extension and quality of life compared to SET and the control group. A statistically significantly better effect of SET compared with the control group was found in reducing pain, disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, and improving the physical component of quality of life. Harms were not reported.ConclusionThis study suggests that graded activity and group-based supervised exercise therapy have beneficial effects over the control group in the treatment of CNLBP. The graded activity was more beneficial than supervised group-based exercise therapy only during the follow-up.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT04023162; registration date: 17/07/2019).

Project description:Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (? 18 years) population with chronic (? 12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.

Project description:ObjectiveChronic low back pain represents a substantial cost to employers through benefits coverage and days missed due to incapacity. We sought to explore the effectiveness of Naturopathic care on chronic low back pain.MethodsThis study was a randomized clinical trial. We randomized 75 postal employees with low back pain of longer than six weeks duration to receive Naturopathic care (n = 39) or standardized physiotherapy (n = 36) over a period of 12 weeks. The study was conducted in clinics on-site in postal outlets. Participants in the Naturopathic care group received dietary counseling, deep breathing relaxation techniques and acupuncture. The control intervention received education and instruction on physiotherapy exercises using an approved education booklet. We measured low back pain using the Oswestry disability questionnaire as the primary outcome measure, and quality of life using the SF-36 in addition to low back range of motion, weight loss, and Body Mass Index as secondary outcomes.ResultsSixty-nine participants (92%) completed eight weeks or greater of the trial. Participants in the Naturopathic care group reported significantly lower back pain (-6.89, 95% CI. -9.23 to -3.54, p = <0.0001) as measured by the Oswestry questionnaire. Quality of life was also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care in all domains except for vitality. Differences for the aggregate physical component of the SF-36 was 8.47 (95% CI, 5.05 to 11.87, p = <0.0001) and for the aggregate mental component was 7.0 (95% CI, 2.25 to 11.75, p = 0.0045). All secondary outcomes were also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care: spinal flexion (p<0.0001), weight-loss (p = 0.0052) and Body Mass Index (-0.52, 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.08, p = 0.01).ConclusionsNaturopathic care provided significantly greater improvement than physiotherapy advice for patients with chronic low back pain.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN41920953.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Primary Care Interventions Using a Biopsychosocial Approach in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Effectiveness of Primary Care Interventions Using a Biopsychosocial Approach in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets