Dataset Information

Move to health-a holistic approach to the management of chronic low back pain: an intervention and implementation protocol developed for a pragmatic clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The prevalence of chronic pain conditions is growing. Low back pain was the primary cause of disability worldwide out of 156 conditions assessed between 1990 and 2016, according to the Global Burden of Disease Study. Conventional medical approaches have failed to identify effective and long-lasting approaches for the management of chronic pain, and often fail to consider the multiple domains that influence overall health and can contribute to the pain experience. Leading international organizations that focus on pain research have stated the importance of considering these other domains within holistic and multidisciplinary frameworks for treating pain. While the research behind the theoretical link between these domains and chronic pain outcomes has expanded greatly over the last decade, there have been few practical and feasible methods to implement this type of care in normal clinical practice.

Methods

The purpose of this manuscript is to describe an implementation protocol that is being used to deliver a complex holistic health intervention at multiple sites within a large government health system, as part of a larger multisite trial for patients with chronic low back pain. The Move to Health program developed by the US Army Medical Command was tailored for specific application to patients with low back pain and begins by providing an empirical link between eight different health domains (that include physical, emotional, social, and psychological constructs) and chronic low back pain. Through a six-step process, a health coach leverages motivational interviewing and information from a personal health inventory to guide the patient through a series of conversations about behavioral lifestyle choices. The patient chooses which domains they want to prioritize, and the health coach helps implement the plan with the use of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals and a series of resources for every domain, triaged from self-management to specialist referral.

Discussion

Complex interventions described in clinical trials are often challenging to implement because they lack sufficient details. Implementation protocols can improve the ability to properly deliver trial interventions into regular clinical practice with increased fidelity.

Trial registration

Implementation of this intervention protocol was developed for a clinical trial that was registered a priori (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT04172038).

SUBMITTER: Rhon DI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371880 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation and process evaluation is vital for understanding how interventions function in different settings, including if and why interventions have different effects or do not work at all.ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for an implementation and process evaluation embedded in a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted in Denmark and Norway (the selfBACK project). selfBACK is a data-driven decision support system that provides participants with weekly self-management plans for low back pain. These plans are delivered through a smartphone app and tailored to individual participants by using case-based reasoning methodology. In the trial, we compare selfBACK in addition to usual care with usual care alone.MethodsThe aim of this study is to conduct a convergent mixed-methods implementation and process evaluation of the selfBACK app by following the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework. We will evaluate the process of implementing selfBACK and investigate how participants use the intervention in daily life. The evaluation will also cover the reach of the intervention, health care provider willingness to adopt it, and participant satisfaction with the intervention. We will gather quantitative measures by questionnaires and measures of data analytics on app use and perform a qualitative exploration of the implementation using semistructured interviews theoretically informed by normalization process theory. Data collection will be conducted between March 2019 and October 2020.ResultsThe trial opened for recruitment in February 2019. This mixed-methods implementation and evaluation study is embedded in the randomized controlled trial and will be collecting data from March 2019 to October 2020; dissemination of trial results is planned thereafter. The results from the process evaluation are expected 2021-2022.ConclusionsThis study will provide a detailed understanding of how self-management of low back pain can be improved and how a digital health intervention can be used as an add-on to usual care to support patients to self-manage their low back pain. We will provide knowledge that can be used to explore the possibilities of extending the generic components of the selfBACK system and key drivers that could be of use in other conditions and diseases where self-management is an essential prevention or treatment strategy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03798288; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03798288.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/20308.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of risk stratification for low back pain (LBP) management has not been demonstrated in outpatient physical therapy settings.ObjectiveThe purposes of this study were: (1) to assess implementation of a stratified care approach for LBP management by evaluating short-term treatment effects and (2) to determine feasibility of conducting a larger-scale study.DesignThis was a 2-phase, preliminary study.MethodsIn phase 1, clinicians were randomly assigned to receive standard (n=6) or stratified care (n=6) training. Stratified care training included 8 hours of content focusing on psychologically informed practice. Changes in LBP attitudes and beliefs were assessed using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT) and the Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). In phase 2, clinicians receiving the stratified care training were instructed to incorporate those strategies in their practice and 4-week patient outcomes were collected using a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Study feasibility was assessed to identify potential barriers for completion of a larger-scale study.ResultsIn phase 1, minimal changes were observed for PABS-PT and HC-PAIRS scores for standard care clinicians (Cohen d=0.00-0.28). Decreased biomedical (-4.5±2.5 points, d=1.08) and increased biopsychosocial (+5.5±2.0 points, d=2.86) treatment orientations were observed for stratified care clinicians, with these changes sustained 6 months later on the PABS-PT. In phase 2, patients receiving stratified care (n=67) had greater between-group improvements in NPRS (0.8 points; 95% confidence interval=0.1, 1.5; d=0.40) and ODI (8.9% points; 95% confidence interval=4.1, 13.6; d=0.76) scores compared with patients receiving standard physical therapy care (n=33).LimitationsIn phase 2, treatment was not randomly assigned, and therapist adherence to treatment recommendations was not monitored. This study was not adequately powered to conduct subgroup analyses.ConclusionsIn physical therapy settings, biomedical orientation can be modified, and risk-stratified care for LBP can be effectively implemented. Findings from this study can be used for planning of larger studies.

Project description:BackgroundReassuring patient education and exercise therapy are widely recommended interventions for back pain in clinical guidelines. However, many patients are offered non-guideline endorsed options, and strategies for effective implementation of guideline-based care have not yet been developed. This protocol outlines the evaluation of a strategy for nationwide implementation of standardised patient education and exercise therapy for people with persistent or recurrent back pain in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. The strategy and the evaluation were planned using the framework of the Behaviour Change Wheel.MethodsThe main activity of the implementation strategy is a two-days course for physiotherapists and chiropractors in delivering patient education and exercise therapy that is aimed at supporting patient self-management. This comes with ready-to-use patient education materials and exercise programs. The clinical intervention is a group-based program consisting of two sessions of patient education and 8 weeks of supervised exercises. The program uses a cognitive-behavioural approach and the aim of the exercise component is to restore the patient's ability and confidence to move freely. The implementation process is evaluated in a dynamic process monitoring the penetration, adoption and fidelity of the clinical intervention. The clinical intervention and potential effect mechanisms will be evaluated at the patient-level using measures of knowledge, skills, beliefs, performance, self-efficacy and success in self-management. The education of clinicians will be evaluated via clinician-level outcomes, including the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, the Practitioner Confidence Scale, and the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire. Effects at a national level will be investigated via data from national registries of health care utilisation and sick-leave.DiscussionThis implementation-effectiveness study is designed to evaluate the process of implementing an evidence-based intervention for back pain. It will inform the development of strategies for implementing evidence-based care for musculoskeletal pain conditions, it will enhance the understanding of mechanisms for developing patient self-management skills, and it will demonstrate the outcomes that are achievable in everyday clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03570463 . Registered 27 June 2018.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. METHODS: General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. RESULTS: 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538.