Assessing a risk tailored intervention to prevent disabling low back pain - protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although most patients with low back pain (LBP) recover within a few weeks a significant proportion has recurrent episodes or will develop chronic low back pain. Several mainly psychosocial risk factors for developing chronic LBP have been identified. However, effects of preventive interventions aiming at behavioural risk factors and unfavourable cognitions have yielded inconsistent results. Risk tailored interventions may provide a cost efficient and effective means to take systematic account of the individual risk factors but evidence is lacking.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study will be a cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing screening and a subsequent risk tailored intervention for patients with low back pain to prevent chronic low back pain compared to treatment as usual in primary care. A total of 600 patients from 20 practices in each study arm will be recruited in Berlin and Goettingen. The intervention comprises the following elements: Patients will be assigned to one of four risk groups based on a screening questionnaire. Subsequently they receive an educational intervention including information and counselling tailored to the risk group. A telephone/email consulting service for back pain related problems are offered independent of risk group assignment. The primary outcomes will be functional capacity and sick leave.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of screening for risk factors for chronic low back pain followed by a risk tailored intervention to prevent chronic low back pain. This trial will contribute new evidence regarding the flexible use of individual physical and psychosocial risk factors in general practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN 68205910</p

The moderating factors of neuroticism and extraversion in pain anticipation

This study investigates the moderator relationship between three psychological variables on pain threshold and tolerance: pain anticipation, neuroticism and extraversion. It is hypothesised that (a) a significant effect of anticipation on both pain threshold and tolerance will exist; wherein high-intensity pain anticipation will predispose lower pain threshold and tolerance, and (b) high neuroticism and low extraversion will moderate this relationship. The study was conducted using 76 participants who completed the cold pressor test under one of three conditions: control condition, intense-pain expectant condition or low-pain expectant. The results of the study showed no significant effect of anticipation and no significant moderator relationship for neuroticism or extraversion on pain threshold and tolerance, thus both hypotheses are not supported. Implications for future research are discussed providing new and unique findings, as no prior research into the moderator relationship between anticipation, personality traits and pain currently exists

Subacute and chronic, non-specific back and neck pain: cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation versus primary care. A randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the industrial world, non-specific back and neck pain (BNP) is the largest diagnostic group underlying sick-listing. For patients with subacute and chronic (= full-time sick-listed for 43 – 84 and 85 – 730 days, respectively) BNP, cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation was compared with primary care. The specific aim was to answer the question: within an 18-month follow-up, will the outcomes differ in respect of sick-listing and number of health-care visits?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After stratification by age (≤ 44/≥ 45 years) and subacute/chronic BNP, 125 Swedish primary-care patients were randomly allocated to cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation (rehabilitation group) or continued primary care (primary-care group). Outcome measures were <it>Return-to-work share </it>(percentage) and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>(hazard ratios) over 18 months, <it>Net days </it>(crude sick-listing days × degree), and the number of <it>Visits </it>(to physicians, physiotherapists etc.) over 18 months and the three component six-month periods. Descriptive statistics, Cox regression and mixed-linear models were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>were equivalent between the groups. <it>Net days </it>and <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods (<it>p </it>< .05). Subacute patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>was equivalent. <it>Return-to-work chance </it>was significantly greater for the rehabilitation group (hazard ratio 3.5 [95%CI1.001 – 12.2]). <it>Net days </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods and there were 31 days fewer in the third period. <it>Visits </it>showed similar though non-significant differences and there were half as many in the third period. Chronic patients: <it>Return-to-work share, Return-to-work chance </it>and <it>Net days </it>were equivalent. <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but tended to decrease more rapidly for the rehabilitation group and there were half as many in the third period (non-significant).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results were equivalent over 18 months. However, there were indications that cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation in the longer run might be superior to primary care. For subacute BNP, it might be superior in terms of sick-listing and health-care visits; for chronic BNP, in terms of health-care visits only. More conclusive results concerning this possible long-term effect might require a longer follow-up.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00488735.</p

Using a psychosocial subgroup assignment to predict sickness absence in a working population with neck and back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The overall objective was to evaluate the predictive validity of a subgroup classification based on the Swedish version of the MPI, the MPI-S, among gainfully employed workers with neck pain (NP) and/or low back pain (LBP) during a follow-up period of 18 and 36 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a prospective cohort study that is part of a larger longitudinal multi-centre study entitled Work and Health in the Process and Engineering Industries (AHA). The attempt was to classify individuals at risk for developing chronic disabling NP and LBP. This is the first study using the MPI-questionnaire in a working population with NP and LBP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Dysfunctional individuals (DYS) demonstrated more statistically significant sickness absence compared to adaptive copers (AC) after 36 months. DYS also had a threefold increase in the risk ratio of long-term sickness absence at 18 months. Interpersonally distressed (ID) subgroup showed overall more sickness absence compared to the AC subgroup at the 36-month follow-up and had a twofold increase in the risk ratio of long-term sickness absence at 18 months. There was a significant difference in bodily pain, mental and physical health for ID and DYS subgroups compared to the AC group at both follow-ups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The present study shows that this multidimensional approach to the classification of individuals based on psychological and psychosocial characteristics can distinguish different groups in gainfully employed working population with NP/LBP. The results in this study confirm the predictive validity of the MPI-S subgroup classification system.</p

Study protocol of effectiveness of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in the evolution of non-speficic sub-acute low back pain in the working population : cluster randomised trial

Background: Non-specific low back pain is a common cause for consultation with the general practitioner, generating increased health and social costs. This study will analyse the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary intervention to reduce disability, severity of pain, anxiety and depression, to improve quality of life and to reduce the incidence of chronic low back pain in the working population with non-specific low back pain, compared to usual clinical care. Methods/Design: A Cluster randomised clinical trial will be conducted in 38 Primary Health Care Centres located in Barcelona, Spain and its surrounding areas. The centres are randomly allocated to the multidisciplinary intervention or to usual clinical care. Patients between 18 and 65 years old (n = 932; 466 per arm) and with a diagnostic of a non-specific sub-acute low back pain are included. Patients in the intervention group are receiving the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, in addition to a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention consisting of group educational sessions lasting a total of 10 hours. The main outcome is change in the score in the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three months after onset of pain. Other outcomes are severity of pain, quality of life, duration of current non-specific low back pain episode, work sick leave and duration, Fear Avoidance Beliefs and Goldberg Questionnaires. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Analysis will be by intention to treat. The intervention effect will be assessed through the standard error of measurement and the effect-size. Responsiveness of each scale will be evaluated by standardised response mean and receiver-operating characteristic method. Recovery according to the patient will be used as an external criterion. A multilevel regression will be performed on repeated measures. The time until the current episode of low back pain takes to subside will be analysed by Cox regression. Discussion: We hope to provide evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in avoiding the chronification of low back pain, and to reduce the duration of non-specific low back pain episodes. If the intervention is effective, it could be applied to Primary Health Care Centres

Physical characteristics of the back are not predictive of low back pain in healthy workers: A prospective study

Background. In the working population, back disorders are an important reason for sick leave and permanent work inability. In the context of fitting the job to the worker, one of the primary tasks of the occupational health physician is to evaluate the balance between work-related and individual variables. Since this evaluation of work capacity often consists of a physical examination of the back, the objective of this study was to investigate whether a physical examination of the low back, which is routinely performed in occupational medicine, predicts the development of low back pain (LBP). Methods. This study is part of the Belgian Low Back Cohort (BelCoBack) Study, a prospective study to identify risk factors for the development of low back disorders in occupational settings. The study population for this paper were 692 young healthcare or distribution workers (mean age of 26 years) with no or limited back antecedents in the year before inclusion. At baseline, these workers underwent a standardised physical examination of the low back. One year later, they completed a questionnaire on the occurrence of LBP and some of its characteristics. To study the respective role of predictors at baseline on the occurrence of LBP, we opted for Cox regression with a constant risk period. Analyses were performed separately for workers without any back antecedents in the year before inclusion ('asymptomatic' workers) and for workers with limited back antecedents in the year before inclusion ('mildly symptomatic' workers). Results. In the group of 'asymptomatic' workers, obese workers showed a more than twofold-increased risk on the development of LBP as compared to non-obese colleagues (RR 2.57, 95%CI: 1.09 - 6.09). In the group of 'mildly symptomatic' workers, the self-reports of pain before the examination turned out to be most predictive (RR 3.89, 95%CI: 1.20 - 12.64). Conclusion. This study showed that, in a population of young workers wh no or limited antecedents of LBP at baseline, physical examinations, as routinely assessed in occupational medicine, are not useful to predict workers at risk for the development of back disorders one year later

Study protocol of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in the evolution of non-specific sub-acute low back pain in the working population: cluster randomised trial.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain (LBP), with high incidence and prevalence rate, is one of the most common reasons to consult the health system and is responsible for a significant amount of sick leave, leading to high health and social costs. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial educational group intervention (MBEGI) of non-specific sub-acute LBP in comparison with the usual care in the working population recruited in primary healthcare centres. Methods/design: The study design is a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a MBEGI in comparison with the usual care of non-specific sub-acute LBP.Measures on effectiveness and costs of both interventions will be obtained from a cluster randomised controlled clinical trial carried out in 38 Catalan primary health care centres, enrolling 932 patients between 18 and 65 years old with a diagnosis of non-specific sub-acute LBP. Effectiveness measures are: pharmaceutical treatments, work sick leave (% and duration in days), Roland Morris disability, McGill pain intensity, Fear Avoidance Beliefs (FAB) and Golberg Questionnaires. Utility measures will be calculated from the SF-12. The analysis will be performed from a social perspective. The temporal horizon is at 3 months (change to chronic LBP) and 12 months (evaluate the outcomes at long term. Assessment of outcomes will be blinded and will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: We hope to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of MBEGI, see an improvement in the patients' quality of life, achieve a reduction in the duration of episodes and the chronicity of non-specific low back pain, and be able to report a decrease in the social costs. If the intervention is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, it could be applied to Primary Health Care Centres. Trial registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN5871969

Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders

Introduction In Denmark, the magnitude and impact of work disability on the individual worker and society has prompted the development of a new "coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation" (CTWR) approach. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of CTWR with conventional case management (CCM) on return-to-work of workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Methods The study was a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave for 4-12 weeks due to MSDs. CTWR consists of a work disability screening by an interdisciplinary team followed by the collaborative development of a RTW plan. The primary outcome variable was registered cumulative sickness absence hours during 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were work status as well as pain intensity and functional disability, measured at baseline, 3 and 12 months follow-up. The economic evaluation (intervention costs, productivity loss, and health care utilization costs) was based on administrative data derived from national registries. Results For the time intervals 0-6 months, 6-12 months, and the entire follow-up period, the number of sickness absence hours was significantly lower in the CTWR group as compared to the control group. The total costs saved in CTWR participants compared to controls were estimated at US $1,366 per person at 6 months follow-up and US$ 10,666 per person at 12 months follow-up. Conclusions Workers on sick leave for 4-12 weeks due to MSD who underwent "CTWR" by an interdisciplinary team had fewer sickness absence hours than controls. The economic evaluation showed that-in terms of productivity loss-CTWR seems to be cost saving for the society