Dataset Information

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Self-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the 'SupportBack' internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6?weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12?months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN14736486.

SUBMITTER: Geraghty AWA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7440707 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

Geraghty Adam W A AWA Roberts Lisa L Hill Jonathan J Foster Nadine E NE Yardley Lucy L Hay Elaine E Stuart Beth B Turner David D Griffiths Gareth G Webley Frances F Durcan Lorraine L Morgan Alannah A Hughes Stephanie S Bathers Sarah S Butler-Walley Stephanie S Wathall Simon S Mansell Gemma G Leigh Linda L Little Paul P

BMJ open 20200820 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Self-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the 'SupportBack' internet intervention, wi ...[more]

PMID: 32819960

Similar Datasets

Project description:To evaluate the feasibility of a phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a website (Living Well with Asthma) to support self-management.Phase 2, parallel group, RCT, participants recruited from 20 general practices across Glasgow, UK. Randomisation through automated voice response, after baseline data collection, to website access for minimum 12 weeks or usual care.Adults (age≥16 years) with physician diagnosed, symptomatic asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score ≥1). People with unstable asthma or other lung disease were excluded.'Living Well with Asthma' is a desktop/laptop compatible interactive website designed with input from asthma/ behaviour change specialists, and adults with asthma. It aims to support optimal medication management, promote use of action plans, encourage attendance at asthma reviews and increase physical activity.Primary outcomes were recruitment/retention, website use, ACQ and mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Secondary outcomes included patient activation, prescribing, adherence, spirometry, lung inflammation and health service contacts after 12 weeks. Blinding postrandomisation was not possible.Recruitment target met. 51 participants randomised (25 intervention group). Age range 16-78 years; 75% female; 28% from most deprived quintile. 45/51 (88%; 20 intervention group) followed up. 19 (76% of the intervention group) used the website, for a mean of 18 min (range 0-49). 17 went beyond the 2 'core' modules. Median number of logins was 1 (IQR 1-2, range 0-7). No significant difference in the prespecified primary efficacy measures of ACQ scores (-0.36; 95% CI -0.96 to 0.23; p=0.225), and mini-AQLQ scores (0.38; -0.13 to 0.89; p=0.136). No adverse events.Recruitment and retention confirmed feasibility; trends to improved outcomes suggest use of Living Well with Asthma may improve self-management in adults with asthma and merits further development followed by investigation in a phase 3 trial.ISRCTN78556552; Results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS:Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS:Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION:Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Project description:Background Cancer pain remains highly prevalent and persistent throughout survivorship, and it is crucial to investigate the potential of leveraging the advanced features of mobile health (mHealth) apps to empower individuals to self-manage their pain.Objective This review aims to comprehensively understand the acceptability, users' experiences, and effectiveness of mHealth apps in supporting cancer pain self-management.Methods We conducted an integrative review following Souza and Whittemore and Knafl's 6 review processes. Literature was searched in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, and Embase, from 2013 to 2023. Keywords including "cancer patients," "pain," "self-management," "mHealth applications," and relevant synonyms were used in the search. The Johns Hopkins research evidence appraisal tool was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted to analyze the extracted data.Results A total of 20 studies were included, with the overall quality rated as high (n=15) to good (n=5). Using mHealth apps to monitor and manage pain was acceptable for most patients with cancer. The internal consistency of the mHealth in measuring pain was 0.96. The reported daily assessment or engagement rate ranged from 61.9% to 76.8%. All mHealth apps were designed for multimodal interventions. Participants generally had positive experiences using pain apps, rating them as enjoyable and user-friendly. In addition, 6 studies reported significant improvements in health outcomes, including enhancement in pain remission (severity and intensity), medication adherence, and a reduced frequency of breakthrough pain. The most frequently highlighted roles of mHealth apps included pain monitoring, tracking, reminders, education facilitation, and support coordination.Conclusions mHealth apps are effective and acceptable in supporting pain self-management. They offer a promising multi-model approach for patients to monitor, track, and manage their pain. These findings provide evidence-based insights for leveraging mHealth apps to support cancer pain self-management. More high-quality studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of digital technology-based interventions for cancer pain self-management and to identify the facilitators and barriers to their implementation in real-world practice.

Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignStepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation.SettingDutch primary healthcare.ParticipantsPatients 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).InterventionsThe 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsThere 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).ConclusionsA 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 numberNTR4329.

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) is a common elective surgical procedure and can be effective for reducing chronic pain. However, waiting times can be considerable. A pain self-management intervention may provide patients with skills to more effectively manage their pain and its impact during their wait for surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based pain self-management course for patients undergoing THR.MethodsPatients listed for a THR at one orthopedic center were posted a study invitation pack. Participants were randomized to attend a pain self-management course plus standard care or standard care only. The lay-led course was delivered by Arthritis Care and consisted of two half-day sessions prior to surgery and one full-day session after surgery. Participants provided outcome and resource-use data using a diary and postal questionnaires prior to surgery and one month, three months and six months after surgery. Brief telephone interviews were conducted with non-participants to explore barriers to participation.ResultsInvitations were sent to 385 eligible patients and 88 patients (23%) consented to participate. Interviews with 57 non-participants revealed the most common reasons for non-participation were views about the course and transport difficulties. Of the 43 patients randomized to the intervention group, 28 attended the pre-operative pain self-management sessions and 11 attended the post-operative sessions. Participant satisfaction with the course was high, and feedback highlighted that patients enjoyed the group format. Retention of participants was acceptable (83% of recruited patients completed follow-up) and questionnaire return rates were high (72% to 93%), with the exception of the pre-operative resource-use diary (35% return rate). Resource-use completion rates allowed for an economic evaluation from the health and social care payer perspective.ConclusionsThis study highlights the importance of feasibility work prior to a randomized controlled trial to assess recruitment methods and rates, barriers to participation, logistics of scheduling group-based interventions, acceptability of the intervention and piloting resource use questionnaires to improve data available for economic evaluations. This information is of value to researchers and funders in the design and commissioning of future research.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN52305381.

Dataset Information

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

Publications

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets