Dataset Information

Direct and mediated effects of treatment context on low back pain outcome: a prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Contextual components of treatment previously associated with patient outcomes include the environment, therapeutic relationship and expectancies. Questions remain about which components are most important, how they influence outcomes and comparative effects across treatment approaches. We aimed to identify significant and strong contextual predictors of patient outcomes, test for psychological mediators and compare effects across three treatment approaches.

Design

Prospective cohort study with patient-reported and practitioner-reported questionnaire data (online or paper) collected at first consultation, 2 weeks and 3 months.

Setting

Physiotherapy, osteopathy and acupuncture clinics throughout the UK.

Participants

166 practitioners (65 physiotherapists, 46 osteopaths, 55 acupuncturists) were recruited via their professional organisations. Practitioners recruited 960 adult patients seeking treatment for low back pain (LBP).

Primary and secondary outcomes

The primary outcome was back-related disability. Secondary outcomes were pain and well-being. Contextual components measured were: therapeutic alliance; patient satisfaction with appointment systems, access, facilities; patients' treatment beliefs including outcome expectancies; practitioners' attitudes to LBP and practitioners' patient-specific outcome expectancies. The hypothesised mediators measured were: patient self-efficacy for pain management; patient perceptions of LBP and psychosocial distress.

Results

After controlling for baseline and potential confounders, statistically significant predictors of reduced back-related disability were: all three dimensions of stronger therapeutic alliance (goal, task and bond); higher patient satisfaction with appointment systems; reduced patient-perceived treatment credibility and increased practitioner-rated outcome expectancies. Therapeutic alliance over task (η_p ²=0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14) and practitioner-rated outcome expectancies (η_p ²=0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11) demonstrated the largest effect sizes. Patients' self-efficacy, LBP perceptions and psychosocial distress partially mediated these relationships. There were no interactions with treatment approach.

Conclusions

Enhancing contextual components in musculoskeletal healthcare could improve patient outcomes. Interventions should focus on helping practitioners and patients forge effective therapeutic alliances with strong affective bonds and agreement on treatment goals and how to achieve them.

SUBMITTER: Bishop F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130743 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Treatment outcome of low back pain (LBP) is associated with inter-individual variations in pain relief and functional disability. Genetic variants of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene have previously been shown to be associated with pain sensitivity and pain medication. This study examines the association between COMT polymorphisms and 7-11 year change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Score (VAS) for LBP as clinical outcome variables in patients treated with surgical instrumented lumbar fusion or cognitive intervention and exercise. METHODS: 93 unrelated patients with chronic LBP for duration of >1 year and lumbar disc degeneration (LDD) were treated with lumbar fusion (N = 60) or cognitive therapy and exercises (N = 33). Standardised questionnaires assessing the ODI, VAS LBP, psychological factors and use of analgesics, were answered by patients both at baseline and at 7-11 years follow-up. Four SNPs in the COMT gene were successfully genotyped. Single marker as well as haplotype association with change in ODI and VAS LBP, were analyzed using Haploview, linear regression and R-package Haplostats. P-values were not formally corrected for multiple testing as this was an explorative study. RESULTS: Association analysis of individual SNPs adjusted for covariates revealed association of rs4633 and rs4680 with post treatment improvement in VAS LBP (p = 0.02, mean difference (?) = 13.5 and p = 0.02, ? = 14.2 respectively). SNPs, rs4633 and rs4680 were found to be genotypically similar and in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD). A significant association was found with covariates, analgesics (p = 0.001, ? = 18.6); anxiety and depression (p = 0.008, ? = 15.4) and age (p = 0.03, mean difference per year (?) = 0.7) at follow-up. There was a tendency for better improvement among heterozygous patients compared to the homozygous. No association was observed for the analysis of the common haplotypes, these SNPs were situated on. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an influence of genetic variants of COMT gene in describing the variation in pain after treatment for low back pain. Replication in large samples with testing for other pain related genes is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a worldwide surge in interventional procedures for low back pain (LBP), with studies yielding mixed results. These data support the need for identifying outcome predictors based on unique characteristics in a pragmatic setting.MethodsWe prospectively evaluated the association between over two dozen demographic, clinical and technical factors on treatment outcomes for three procedures: epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for sciatica, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for axial LBP. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported average pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (average NRS-PI) using linear regression. For SIJ injections and facet radiofrequency ablation, this was average LBP score at 1 and 3 months postprocedure, respectively. For ESI, it was average leg pain 1- month postinjection. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response (success).Results346 patients were enrolled at seven hospitals. All groups experienced a decrease in average NRS-PI (p<0.0001; mean 1.8±2.6). There were no differences in change in average NRS-PI among procedural groups (p=0.50). Lower baseline pain score (adjusted coefficient -0.32, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.16, p<0.0001), depressive symptomatology (adjusted coefficient 0.076, 95% CI 0.039 to 0.113, p<0.0001) and obesity (adjusted coefficient 0.62, 95% CI 0.038 to 1.21, p=0.037) were associated with smaller pain reductions. For procedural outcome, depression (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91, 0.97, p<0.0001) and poorer baseline function (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36, 0.96, p=0.034) were associated with failure. Smoking, sleep dysfunction and non-organic signs were associated with negative outcomes in univariate but not multivariate analyses.ConclusionsIdentifying treatment responders is a critical endeavor for the viability of procedures in LBP. Patients with greater disease burden, depression and obesity are more likely to fail interventions. Steps to address these should be considered before or concurrent with procedures as considerations dictate.Trial registration numberNCT02329951.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies?MethodsWe used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes.ResultsEighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups.ConclusionDirectives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

Project description:BackgroundExercise and education is recommended as first-line treatment by evidence-based, international guidelines for low back pain (LBP). Despite consensus regarding the treatment, there is a gap between guidelines and what is offered to patients. Digital LBP treatments are an emerging way of delivering first-line treatment.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes after participation in a 3-month digitally delivered treatment program for individuals with subacute or chronic LBP.MethodsWe analyzed data from 2593 consecutively recruited participants in a digitally delivered treatment program, available via the national health care system in Sweden. The program consists of video-instructed and progressive adaptable exercises, education through text lessons, and a chat and video function connecting participants with a personal physiotherapist. The primary outcome was mean change and proportion reaching a minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for LBP (2 points or 30% decrease) assessed with the numerical rating scale (average pain during the past week, discrete boxes, 0-10, best to worst). Secondary outcomes were mean change and proportion reaching MCIC (10 points or 30%) in disability, assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; 0-100, best to worst) and a question on patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).ResultsThe mean participant age was 63 years, 73.85% (1915/2593) were female, 54.72% (1419/2593) had higher education, 50.56% (1311/2593) were retired, and the mean BMI was 26.5 kg/m2. Participants completed on average 84% of the prescribed exercises and lessons, with an adherence of ≥80% in 69.26% (1796/2593) and ≥90% in 50.13% (1300/2593) of the participants. Mean reduction in pain from baseline to 3 months was 1.7 (95% CI -1.8 to -1.6), corresponding to a 35% relative change. MCIC was reached by 58.50% (1517/2593) of participants. ODI decreased 4 points (95% CI -4.5 to -3.7), and 36.48% (946/2593) reached an MCIC. A change from no to yes in PASS was seen in 30.35% (787/2593) of participants. Multivariable analysis showed positive associations between reaching an MCIC in pain and high baseline pain (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.1), adherence (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8), and motivation (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.5), while we found negative associations for wish for surgery (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9) and pain in other joints (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-0.9). We found no associations between sociodemographic characteristics and pain reduction.ConclusionsParticipants in this digitally delivered treatment for LBP had reduced pain at 3-month follow-up, and 58.50% (1517/2593) reported an MCIC in pain. Our findings suggest that digital treatment programs can reduce pain at clinically important levels for people with high adherence to treatment but that those with such severe LBP problems that they wish to undergo surgery may benefit from additional support.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05226156; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05226156.