Avoidable costs of physical treatments for chronic back, neck and shoulder pain within the Spanish National Health Service: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Back, neck and shoulder pain are the most common causes of occupational disability. They reduce health-related quality of life and have a significant economic impact. Many different forms of physical treatment are routinely used. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of physical treatments which, despite the absence of evidence supporting their effectiveness, were used between 2004 and 2007 for chronic and non-specific neck pain (NP), back pain (BP) and shoulder pain (SP), within the Spanish National Health Service in the Canary Islands (SNHSCI).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Chronic patients referred from the SNHSCI to private physical therapy centres for NP, BP or SP, between 2004 and 2007, were identified. The cost of providing physical therapies to these patients was estimated. Systematic reviews (SRs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for NP, BP and SP available in the same period were searched for and rated according to the Oxman and AGREE criteria, respectively. Those rated positively for ≥70% of the criteria, were used to categorise physical therapies as Effective; Ineffective; Inconclusive; and Insufficiently Assessed. The main outcome was the cost of physical therapies included in each of these categories.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>8,308 chronic cases of NP, 4,693 of BP and 5,035 of SP, were included in this study. Among prescribed treatments, 39.88% were considered Effective (physical exercise and manual therapy with mobilization); 23.06% Ineffective; 13.38% Inconclusive, and 23.66% Insufficiently Assessed. The total cost of treatments was € 5,107,720. Effective therapies accounted for € 2,069,932.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Sixty percent of the resources allocated by the SNHSCI to fund physical treatment for NP, BP and SP in private practices are spent on forms of treatment proven to be ineffective, or for which there is no evidence of effectiveness.</p

Non-pharmacological care for patients with generalized osteoarthritis: design of a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) is a useful treatment option in the management of hip or knee osteoarthritis. To our knowledge however, no studies have investigated the effect of NPT in patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA). The primary aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two currently existing health care programs with different intensity and mode of delivery on daily functioning in patients with GOA. The secondary objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of both interventions.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized, single blind, clinical trial with active controls, we aim to include 170 patients with GOA. The experimental intervention consist of six self-management group sessions provided by a multi-disciplinary team (occupational therapist, physiotherapist, dietician and specialized nurse). The active control group consists of two group sessions and four sessions by telephone, provided by a specialized nurse and physiotherapist. Both therapies last six weeks. Main study outcome is daily functioning during the first year after the treatment, assessed on the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are health related quality of life, specific complaints, fatigue, and costs. Illness cognitions, global perceived effect and self-efficacy, will also be assessed for a responder analysis. Outcome assessments are performed directly after the intervention, after 26 weeks and after 52 weeks.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article describes the design of a randomized, single blind, clinical trial with a one year follow up to compare the costs and effectiveness of two non-pharmacological interventions with different modes of delivery for patients with GOA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch Trial Register NTR2137</p

An interdisciplinary clinical practice model for the management of low-back pain in primary care: the CLIP project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low-back pain is responsible for significant disability and costs in industrialized countries. Only a minority of subjects suffering from low-back pain will develop persistent disability. However, this minority is responsible for the majority of costs and has the poorest health outcomes. The objective of the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) project was to develop a primary care interdisciplinary practice model for the clinical management of low-back pain and the prevention of persistent disability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a clinical management model for low-back pain was developed by the project team. A structured process facilitating discussions on this model among researchers, stakeholders and clinicians was created. The model was revised following these exchanges, without deviating from the evidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A model consisting of nine elements on clinical management of low-back pain and prevention of persistent disability was developed. The model's two core elements for the prevention of persistent disability are the following: 1) the evaluation of the prognosis at the fourth week of disability, and of key modifiable barriers to return to usual activities if the prognosis is unfavourable; 2) the evaluation of the patient's perceived disability every four weeks, with the evaluation and management of barriers to return to usual activities if perceived disability has not sufficiently improved.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A primary care interdisciplinary model aimed at improving quality and continuity of care for patients with low-back pain was developed. The effectiveness, efficiency and applicability of the CLIP model in preventing persistent disability in patients suffering from low-back pain should be assessed.</p

"Sleep disparity" in the population: poor sleep quality is strongly associated with poverty and ethnicity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about the social determinants of sleep attainment. This study examines the relationship of race/ethnicity, socio-economic status (SES) and other factors upon sleep quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey of 9,714 randomly selected subjects was used to explore sleep quality obtained by self-report, in relation to socioeconomic factors including poverty, employment status, and education level. The primary outcome was poor sleep quality. Data were collected by the Philadelphia Health Management Corporation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Significant differences were observed in the outcome for race/ethnicity (African-American and Latino versus White: unadjusted OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.05 and OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.37-1.98, respectively) and income (below poverty threshold, unadjusted OR = 2.84, 95%CI 2.41-3.35). In multivariable modeling, health indicators significantly influenced sleep quality most prominently in poor individuals. After adjusting for socioeconomic factors (education, employment) and health indicators, the association of income and poor sleep quality diminished, but still persisted in poor Whites while it was no longer significant in poor African-Americans (adjusted OR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.47-2.58 versus OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.87-1.54, respectively). Post-college education (adjusted OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71) protected against poor sleep.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A "sleep disparity" exists in the study population: poor sleep quality is strongly associated with poverty and race. Factors such as employment, education and health status, amongst others, significantly mediated this effect only in poor subjects, suggesting a differential vulnerability to these factors in poor relative to non-poor individuals in the context of sleep quality. Consideration of this could help optimize targeted interventions in certain groups and subsequently reduce the adverse societal effects of poor sleep.</p