Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Protocol for an Embedded Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Coordinated efforts between the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs have built the capacity for large-scale clinical research investigating the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic pain treatments. This is an encouraging development; however, what constitutes best practice for nonpharmacologic management of low back pain (LBP) is largely unknown.Design
The Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial is an embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized trial that will examine the effectiveness of two different care pathways for LBP. Sixteen primary care clinics will be randomized 1:1 to receive training in delivery of 1) an integrated sequenced-care pathway or 2) a coordinated pain navigator pathway. Primary outcomes are pain interference and physical function (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form [PROMIS-SF]) collected in the electronic health record at 3 months (n=1,680). A subset of veteran participants (n=848) have consented to complete additional surveys at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for supplementary pain and other measures.Summary
AIM-Back care pathways will be tested for effectiveness, and treatment heterogeneity will be investigated to identify which veterans may respond best to a given pathway. Health care utilization patterns (including opioid use) will also be compared between care pathways. Therefore, the AIM-Back trial will provide important information that can inform the future delivery of nonpharmacologic treatment of LBP.
SUBMITTER: George SZ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734660 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Protocol for an Embedded Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial.
George Steven Z SZ Coffman Cynthia J CJ Allen Kelli D KD Lentz Trevor A TA Choate Ashley A Goode Adam P AP Simon Corey B CB Grubber Janet M JM King Heather H Cook Chad E CE Keefe Francis J FJ Ballengee Lindsay A LA Naylor Jennifer J Brothers Joseph Leo JL Stanwyck Catherine C Alkon Aviel A Hastings Susan N SN
Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20201201 Suppl 2
<h4>Background</h4>Coordinated efforts between the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs have built the capacity for large-scale clinical research investigating the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic pain treatments. This is an encouraging development; however, what constitutes best practice for nonpharmacologic management of low back pain (LBP) is largely unknown.<h4>Design</h4>The Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Bac ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, women with disabilities are less likely to have access to family planning services compared to their peers without disabilities. However, evidence of effective interventions for promoting their sexual and reproductive health and rights remains limited, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. To help address disparities, an inclusive sexual and reproductive health project was developed to increase access to modern contraceptive methods and reduce unmet need for family planning for women of reproductive age with disabilities in Kaduna city, Nigeria. The project uses demand-side, supply-side and contextual interventions, with an adaptive management approach. This protocol presents a study to evaluate the project's impact.MethodsA pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial design with surveys at baseline and endline will be used to evaluate interventions delivered for at least 1 year at health facility and community levels in comparison to 'standard' state provision of family planning services, in the context of state-wide and national broadcast media and advocacy. Randomization will be conducted based on the health facility catchment area, with 19 clusters in the intervention arm and 18 in the control arm. The primary outcome measure will be access to family planning. It was calculated that at least 950 women aged 18 to 49 years with disabilities (475 in each arm) will be recruited to detect a 50% increase in access compared to the control arm. For each woman with disabilities enrolled, a neighbouring woman without disabilities in the same cluster and age group will be recruited to assess whether the intervention has a specific effect amongst women with disabilities. The trial will be complemented by an integrated process evaluation. Ethical approval for the study has been given by the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.DiscussionDefining access to services is complex, as it is not a single variable that can be measured directly and need for family planning is subjectively defined. Consequently, we have conceptualized 'access to family planning' based on a composite of beliefs about using services if needed.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN12671153. Retrospectively registered on 17/04/2023.
| S-EPMC10768103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors' and physiotherapists' adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective.MethodsPhysiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months).ResultsA total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI - 0.48, 1.21, scale 0-24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74).ConclusionsIntervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 . Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009.
| S-EPMC8842895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients with acute low back pain (LBP) first seek care from primary care physicians. Evidence is lacking for interventions to prevent transition to chronic LBP in this setting. We aimed to test if implementation of a risk-stratified approach to care would result in lower rates of chronic LBP and improved self-reported disability.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial using 77 primary care clinics in four health care systems across the United States. Practices were randomly assigned to a stratified approach to care (intervention) or usual care (control). Using the STarTBack screening tool, adults with acute LBP were screened low, medium, and high-risk. Patients screened as high-risk were eligible. The intervention included electronic best practice alerts triggering referrals for psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). PIPT education was targeted to community clinics geographically close to intervention primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were transition to chronic LBP and self-reported disability at six months. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02647658.FindingsBetween May 2016 and June 2018, 1207 patients from 38 intervention and 1093 from 37 control practices were followed. In the intervention arm, around 50% of patients were referred for physical therapy (36% for PIPT) compared to 30% in the control. At 6 months, 47% of patients reported transition to chronic LBP in the intervention arm (38 practices, n = 658) versus 51% of patients in the control arm (35 practices, n = 635; OR=0.83 95% CI 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.18). No differences in disability were detected (difference -2·1, 95% CI -4.9-0.6; p = 0.12). Opioids and imaging were prescribed in 22%-25% and 23%-26% of initial visits, for intervention and control, respectively. Twelve-month LBP utilization was similar in the two groups.InterpretationThere were no differences detected in transition to chronic LBP among patients presenting with acute LBP using a stratified approach to care. Opioid and imaging prescribing rates were non-concordant with clinical guidelines.FundingPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract # PCS-1402-10867.
| S-EPMC8040279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective 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 findingsThis 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.ConclusionsFindings 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 registrationACTRN12616000888460.
| S-EPMC6733445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData from clinical trials to inform practice in maintenance hemodialysis are limited. Incorporating randomized trials into dialysis clinical care delivery should help generate practice-guiding evidence, but the feasibility of this approach has not been established.MethodsTo develop approaches for embedding trials into routine delivery of maintenance hemodialysis, we performed a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial demonstration project, the Time to Reduce Mortality in ESRD (TiME) trial, evaluating effects of session duration on mortality (primary outcome) and hospitalization rate. Dialysis facilities randomized to the intervention adopted a default session duration ≥4.25 hours (255 minutes) for incident patients; those randomized to usual care had no trial-driven approach to session duration. Implementation was highly centralized, with no on-site research personnel and complete reliance on clinically acquired data. We used multiple strategies to engage facility personnel and participating patients.ResultsThe trial enrolled 7035 incident patients from 266 dialysis units. We discontinued the trial at a median follow-up of 1.1 years because of an inadequate between-group difference in session duration. For the primary analysis population (participants with estimated body water ≤42.5 L), mean session duration was 216 minutes for the intervention group and 207 minutes for the usual care group. We found no reduction in mortality or hospitalization rate for the intervention versus usual care.ConclusionsAlthough a highly pragmatic design allowed efficient enrollment, data acquisition, and monitoring, intervention uptake was insufficient to determine whether longer hemodialysis sessions improve outcomes. More effective strategies for engaging clinical personnel and patients are likely required to evaluate clinical trial interventions that are fully embedded in care delivery.
| S-EPMC6493975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hemodialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for persons with kidney failure. However, those on hemodialysis still face a poor quality of life and a short life expectancy. High-quality research evidence from large randomized controlled trials is needed to identify interventions that improve the experiences, outcomes, and health care of persons receiving hemodialysis. With the support of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and its Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, the Innovative Clinical Trials in Hemodialysis Centers initiative brought together Canadian and international kidney researchers, patients, health care providers, and health administrators to participate in a workshop held in Toronto, Canada, on June 2 and 3, 2018. The workshop served to increase knowledge and awareness about the conduct of innovative, pragmatic, cluster-randomized registry trials embedded into routine hemodialysis care and provided an opportunity to discuss and build support for new trial ideas. The workshop content included structured presentations, facilitated group discussions, and expert panel feedback. Partnerships and promising trial ideas borne out of the workshop will continue to be developed to support the implementation of future large-scale trials.
| S-EPMC6933546 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC2749805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVariability between clinical practice guideline recommendations and actual clinical practice exists in many areas of health care. A 2004 systematic review examining the effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions concluded there was a lack of evidence to support decisions about effective interventions to promote the uptake of guidelines. Further, the review recommended the use of theory in the development of implementation interventions. A clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low-back pain has been developed in Australia (2003). Acute low-back pain is a common condition, has a high burden, and there is some indication of an evidence-practice gap in the allied health setting. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention which, if effective, may provide benefits for patients with this condition.AimsThis study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention to increase allied health practitioners' (physiotherapists and chiropractors in Victoria, Australia) compliance with a clinical practice guideline for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP), compared with providing practitioners with a printed copy of the guideline. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of acute non-specific LBP patients who are either referred for or receive an x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-onset of acute LBP.MethodsThe design of the study is a cluster randomised trial. Restricted randomisation was used to randomise 210 practices (clusters) to an intervention or control group. Practitioners in the control group received a printed copy of the guideline. Practitioners in the intervention group received a theory-based intervention developed to address prospectively identified barriers to practitioner compliance with the guideline. The intervention primarily consisted of an educational symposium. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific LBP of less than three months duration over a two-week data collection period, three months post the intervention symposia, are eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculations are based on recruiting between 15 to 40 patients per practice. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 (date registered 25th November 2009).
| S-EPMC2994785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of the study was to evaluate the short and long-term effects of acupuncture on vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and quality of life-related measures.A total of 209 perimenopausal and postmenopausal women aged 45 to 60 years, experiencing four or more VMS per day, were recruited from the community and randomized to receive up to 20 acupuncture treatments within the first 6 months (acupuncture group) or the second 6 months (waitlist control group) of the 12-month study period. The primary outcome was mean daily frequency of VMS. Secondary outcomes were VMS interference with daily life, sleep quality, depressive symptoms, somatic and other symptoms, anxiety, and quality of life.The VMS frequency declined by 36.7% at 6 months in the acupuncture group and increased by 6.0% in the control group (P?<?0.001 for between-group comparison). At 12 months, the reduction from baseline in the acupuncture group was 29.4% (P?<?0.001 for within-group comparison from baseline to 12 months), suggesting that the reduction was largely maintained after treatment. Statistically significant clinical improvement was observed after three acupuncture treatments, and maximal clinical effects occurred after a median of eight treatments. Persistent improvements were seen in many quality of life-related outcomes in the acupuncture group relative to the control group.We found that a course of acupuncture treatments was associated with significant reduction in VMS, and several quality-of-life measures, compared with no acupuncture, and that clinical benefit persisted for at least 6 months beyond the end of treatment.
| S-EPMC4874921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo improve the implementation of clinical trial interventions, there is a need to facilitate communication between key stakeholders and research teams. Community Advisory Boards (CAB) bring together a range of stakeholders not historically included in the research process to inform and work collaboratively with research teams.ObjectiveTo describe our procedures and processes for (1) integration of a CAB into a pragmatic clinical trial of a telehealth-delivered group mindfulness program for persons with chronic low back pain (cLBP) within primary care, and (2) for the rapid uptake and implementation of CAB recommendations.MethodsThe CAB we convened includes persons with cLBP who have undergone the mindfulness intervention, health care system leadership, advocacy groups, and mindfulness experts. The CAB members underwent a two hour initial training that introduced the research process and the CAB's role as research partners. The CAB met monthly for 1 hour. We used the Lighting Report method to summarize meetings and share feedback with the research team.ResultsThe recommendations of the CAB during the first year they met were divided into recruitment, informed consent, and survey recommendations. The study website also was overhauled based on recommendations, including a more engaging first page with rotating images of nature and testimonials. The language on the website was edited to be more concise and participant-friendly. The CAB recommended talking points to discuss with participants during screening or informed consent about the benefits of participating in research.ConclusionWe established a CAB that represented diverse perspectives, organizations, and experience with cLBP and mindfulness. The differing perspectives of the CAB resulted in recommendations that the research team itself would not have decided on their own. The Lightning Reports were also an effective way to efficiently communicate the CAB recommendations to the research team.
| S-EPMC10845977 | biostudies-literature