Dataset Information

Feasibility of delivering and evaluating stratified care integrated with telehealth ('Rapid Stratified Telehealth') for patients with low back pain: protocol for a feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Long waiting time is an important barrier to accessing recommended care for low back pain (LBP) in Australia's public health system. This study describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to establish the feasibility of delivering and evaluating stratified care integrated with telehealth ('Rapid Stratified Telehealth'), which aims to reduce waiting times for LBP.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a single-centre feasibility and pilot RCT with nested qualitative interviews. Sixty participants with LBP newly referred to a hospital outpatient clinic will be randomised to receive Rapid Stratified Telehealth or usual care. Rapid Stratified Telehealth involves matching the mode and type of care to participants' risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and presence of potential radiculopathy. 'Low risk' patients are matched to one session of advice over the telephone, 'medium risk' to telehealth physiotherapy plus App-based exercises, 'high risk' to telehealth physiotherapy, App-based exercises, and an online pain education programme, and 'potential radiculopathy' fast tracked to usual in-person care. Primary outcomes include the feasibility of delivering Rapid Stratified Telehealth (ie, acceptability assessed through interviews with clinicians and patients, intervention fidelity, appointment duration, App useability and online pain education programme usage) and evaluating Rapid Stratified Telehealth in a future trial (ie, recruitment rates, consent rates, lost to follow-up and missing data). Secondary outcomes include waiting times, number of appointments, intervention and healthcare costs, clinical outcomes (pain, function, quality of life, satisfaction), healthcare use and adverse events (AEs). Quantitative analyses will be descriptive and inform a future adequately-powered RCT. Interview data will be analysed using thematic analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone: X21-0221). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12621001104842.

SUBMITTER: Zadro JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8753403 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal. DESIGN:A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT. SETTING:A rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. PARTICIPANTS:Forty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women). INTERVENTIONS:Eligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Pain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation. RESULTS:Forty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a full RCT of pain education for back pain in Nepal is feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03387228; Results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations. METHODS:The design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making. RESULTS:GPs screened 3063 patients (intervention?=?1591, control?=?1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (intervention?=?513, control?=?724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (intervention?=?231, control?=?293). Recruitment took 28?weeks (target 12?weeks) with >?90% follow-up retention (target >?75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved "complete success". CONCLUSIONS:A future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Name of the registry: ISRCTN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:15366334. Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

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.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain can disrupt the cortical representation of a painful body part. This disruption may play a role in maintaining the individual's pain. Tactile acuity training has been used to normalise cortical representation and reduce pain in certain pain conditions. However, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention for chronic low back pain (CLBP). The primary aim of this study was to inform the development of a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) by providing preliminary data on the effect of tactile acuity training on pain and function in individuals with CLBP. The secondary aim was to obtain qualitative feedback about the intervention.MethodsIn this mixed-methods pilot RCT 15 individuals were randomised to either an intervention (tactile acuity training) or a placebo group (sham tactile acuity training). All participants received 3 sessions of acuity training (intervention or sham) from a physiotherapist and were requested to undertake daily acuity home training facilitated by an informal carer (friend/relative). All participants also received usual care physiotherapy. The primary outcome measures were pain (0-100visual analogue scale (VAS)) and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)). Participants and their informal carers were invited to a focus group to provide feedback on the intervention.ResultsThe placebo group improved by the greatest magnitude for both outcome measures, but there was no statistically significant difference (Mean difference (95%CI), p-value) between groups for change in pain (25.6 (-0.7 to 51.9), p = 0.056) or function (2.2 (-1.6 to 6.0), p = 0.237). Comparing the number of individuals achieving a minimally clinically significant improvement, the placebo group had better outcomes for pain with all participants achieving ?30% improvement compared to only a third of the intervention group (6/6 vs. 3/9, p = 0.036). Qualitatively, participants reported that needing an informal carer was a considerable barrier to the home training component of the study.ConclusionsThis pilot RCT found tactile acuity training to be no more effective than sham tactile acuity training for function and less effective for pain in individuals with CLBP. That the intervention could not be self-applied was a considerable barrier to its use.Trial registration isrctnISRCTN98118082.

Project description:BackgroundThe self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP) through activity and skills (SOLAS) theory-driven group-based complex intervention was developed primarily for the evaluation of its acceptability to patients and physiotherapists and the feasibility of trial procedures, to inform the potential for a definitive trial.MethodsThis assessor-blinded multicentre two-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial compared the SOLAS intervention to usual individual physiotherapy (UP; pragmatic control group). Patients with OA of the hip, knee, lumbar spine and/or chronic LBP were recruited in primary care physiotherapy clinics (i.e. clusters) in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2014 and November 2015. The primary feasibility objectives were evaluated using quantitative methods and individual telephone interviews with purposive samples of participants and physiotherapists. A range of secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (behaviour change only), 2 months and 6 months to explore the preliminary effects of the intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat according to participants' cluster allocation and involved descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews. A linear mixed model was used to contrast change over time in participant secondary outcomes between treatment arms, while adjusting for study waves and clusters.ResultsFourteen clusters were recruited (7 per trial arm), each cluster participated in two waves of recruitment, with the average cluster size below the target of six participants (intervention: mean (SD) = 4.92 (1.31), range 2-7; UP: mean (SD) = 5.08 (2.43), range 1-9). One hundred twenty participants (83.3% of n = 144 expected) were recruited (intervention n = 59; UP n = 61), with follow-up data obtained from 80.8% (n = 97) at 6 weeks, 84.2% (n = 101) at 2 months and 71.7% (n = 86) at 6 months. Most participants received treatment as allocated (intervention n = 49; UP n = 54). The qualitative interviews (12 participants; 10 physiotherapists (PTs) found the intervention and trial procedures acceptable and appropriate, with minimal feasible adaptations required. Linear mixed methods showed improvements in most secondary outcomes at 2 and 6 months with small between-group effects.ConclusionsWhile the SOLAS intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants and PTs, the recruitment of enough participants is the biggest obstacle to a definitive trial.Trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN49875385 . Registered on 26 March 2014.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.MethodsThis was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into "satisfaction" (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and "non-satisfaction" (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).ResultsWe recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.ConclusionWe did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.