Journalists' views on media coverage of medical tests and overdiagnosis: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia.

RESULTS

This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.

Understanding overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department is a well-recognised healthcare challenge. Studies to date have not provided robust evidence that available interventions can reduce overuse. For an intervention aimed at reducing imaging to be effective, insight into how both patients and clinicians view lumbar imaging tests is essential.

AIM

To explore factors that might influence overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from three hospitals in Sydney, Australia between April and August 2019. We conducted focus groups and/or interviews with 14 patients and 12 clinicians. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using framework analysis by a team of four researchers with diverse backgrounds.

RESULTS

Patients described feeling that the decision about lumbar imaging was made by their Emergency Department clinician and reported little involvement in the decision-making process. Other potential drivers of lumbar imaging overuse from the patients' perspective were strong expectations for lumbar imaging, a reluctance to delay receiving a diagnosis, and requirements from third parties (eg, insurance companies) to have imaging. Emergency Department clinicians suggested that the absence of an ongoing therapeutic relationship, and the inability to manage perceived patient pressure could drive overuse of lumbar imaging. Suggested protective factors included: involving patients in the decision, ensuring clinicians have the ability to explain the reasons to avoid imaging and collaborative approaches to care both within the Emergency Department and with primary care.

CONCLUSION AND KEY FINDINGS

We found several factors that could contribute to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department. Solutions to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department could include: (1) strategies to involve patients in decisions about imaging; (2) training and support to provide thorough and well explained clinical assessment for low back pain; and (3) systems that support collaborative approaches to care.

"I would not go to him": Focus groups exploring community responses to a public health campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging of low back pain

BACKGROUND

Community awareness of the harms of overdiagnosis remains low.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate community responses to a public health campaign designed for health service waiting rooms that focuses on the harms of unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain.

METHODS

We conducted two focus groups of 19 community members with or without low back pain in Sydney, Australia. This study formed the fourth and final stage of the development process of a public health campaign: (a) initial design, (b) expert review and revision, (c) online experiment and (d) community views & revision. We evaluated reactions to components of the campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of overdiagnosis. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to identify main themes.

RESULTS

Community members reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about overdiagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of overdiagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health campaigns including posters and leaflets displayed in waiting rooms could raise awareness about overuse of diagnostic imaging and the harms of overdiagnosis more broadly. However, negative reactions are possible and must be managed carefully.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We involved a community participation manager who provided advice on the focus group discussion guide, participant recruitment and manuscript presentation.

Text Messaging and Web-Based Survey System to Recruit Patients With Low Back Pain and Collect Outcomes in the Emergency Department: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a frequent reason for emergency department (ED) presentations, with a global prevalence of 4.4%. Despite being common, the number of clinical trials investigating LBP in the ED is low. Recruitment of patients in EDs can be challenging because of the fast-paced and demanding ED environment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe the recruitment and response rates using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls to recruit patients with LBP and collect health outcomes in the ED.

METHODS

An automated SMS text messaging system was integrated into Research Electronic Data Capture and used to collect patient-reported outcomes for an implementation trial in Sydney, Australia. We invited patients with nonserious LBP who presented to participating EDs at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after ED discharge. Patients who did not respond to the initial SMS text message invitation were sent a reminder SMS text message or contacted via telephone. The recruitment rate was measured as the proportion of patients who agreed to participate, and the response rate was measured as the proportion of participants completing the follow-up surveys at weeks 2 and 4. Regression analyses were used to explore factors associated with response rates.

RESULTS

In total, 807 patients with nonserious LBP were invited to participate and 425 (53.0%) agreed to participate. The week 1 survey was completed by 51.5% (416/807) of participants. At week 2, the response rate was 86.5% (360/416), and at week 4, it was 84.4% (351/416). Overall, 60% of the surveys were completed via SMS text messaging and on the web and 40% were completed via telephone. Younger participants and those from less socioeconomically disadvantaged areas were more likely to respond to the survey via the SMS text messaging and web-based system.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls is a viable method for recruiting patients with LBP and collecting health outcomes in the ED. This hybrid system could potentially reduce the costs of using traditional recruitment and data collection methods (eg, face-to-face, telephone calls only).

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019052.

Effect of information format on intentions and beliefs regarding diagnostic imaging for non-specific low back pain: A randomised controlled trial in members of the public

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of information format on intentions to request diagnostic imaging for non-specific low back pain in members of the public.

METHODS

We performed a three arm, 1:1:1, superiority randomised trial on members of the public. Participants were randomised to one of the three groups: a Standard Care Leaflet group (standard information on low back pain), a Neutral Leaflet group (balanced information on the benefits and harms of imaging) and a Nudge Leaflet group (with behavioural cues to emphasise the harms of unnecessary imaging). Our primary outcome was intention to request imaging for low back pain.

RESULTS

418 participants were randomised. After reading the leaflet, intention to request imaging (measured on an 11-point scale (0 = definitely would not request to 10 = definitely would request) was lower in the Nudge Leaflet group (mean = 4.6, SD = 3.4) compared with the Standard Care Leaflet group (mean = 5.3, SD = 3.3) and the Neutral Leaflet group (mean = 5.3, SD = 3.0) (adjusted mean difference between Nudge and Neutral, -1.0 points, 95%CI -1.6 to -0.4).

CONCLUSION

Framing information to emphasise potential harms from overdiagnosis reduced intention to request diagnostic imaging for low back pain.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Nudge leaflets could help clinicians manage patient pressure for unnecessary tests.

Low back pain presentations to New South Wales emergency departments: Trends over time and geographical variation

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether rates of ED presentations because of low back pain (LBP) have increased from 2016 to 2019 in New South Wales and map the geographical distribution of ED presentations because of LBP across New South Wales.

METHODS

We sourced data from the New South Wales Emergency Department Records for Epidemiology. We included all ED presentations aged 15 years and older with a diagnosis of LBP to the 178 public EDs across New South Wales from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2019. We calculated the ratio (95% confidence interval) between the 2016 and 2019 age-standardised rates to determine whether an increase in the rate of ED LBP presentations has occurred. To assess geographical variation, we aggregated presentations by their home postcode. We calculated age-standardised rates per 100 000 person year for each of those areas using data from 2016 to 2019.

RESULTS

We included 188 275 LBP presentations for patients aged 15 years or older. Their mean (standard deviation) age was 51.3 (20.0) years. From 2016 to 2019, we observed a 5.3% increase in the age-adjusted LBP ED presentation rates (age-standardised ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.06). We found a 20-fold variation in LBP ED age-standardised presentation rates across the different local government areas of New South Wales. Higher rates were mostly observed in rural and regional areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The demand for ED services because of LBP has increased in New South Wales over time, and we observed a 20-fold variation in presentation rates across different regions.

Healthcare costs due to low back pain in the emergency department and inpatient setting in Sydney, Australia

Background

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a common presentation to emergency departments, often resulting in subsequent admissions to hospital. There have been several studies investigating the cost of low back pain to society, but few specific to the emergency department and inpatient setting, especially in Australia. The aim was to describe the cost of low back pain in Australian public hospital emergency departments, and inpatient settings, and explore healthcare costs associated with different care pathways.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, we explored the costs associated with an episode of care for low back pain in adults that attended three emergency departments in Sydney between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms (SNOMED) diagnosis codes were used to identify episodes of care where the patients had been diagnosed with non-specific low back pain or lumbosacral radicular syndromes. Serious spinal pathologies were excluded. We determined the costs for different treatment pathways involving the ambulance service, emergency department and inpatient ward care. Hospital costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 Australian dollars (AUD).

Findings

There were 12,399 non-serious low back pain episodes of care during the study period. 4006 (32%) arrived by ambulance and 2067 (17%) were admitted for inpatient care. The total costs of inpatient and emergency department care across the 5-year period were AUD$36.7 million, with a mean of AUD$2959 per episode of care. The mean cost for a patient who had a non-ambulance presentation to the emergency department and was discharged was AUD$584. Patients presenting to the emergency department via ambulance and were discharged had a mean cost of AUD$1022. Patients who presented without the need of an ambulance and were admitted had a mean cost of $13,137. The most expensive care pathway was for patients arriving by ambulance with subsequent admission, with a mean cost of AUD$14,949.

Interpretation

The common practice of admitting patients with non-serious low back pain for inpatient care comes at great cost to the healthcare system. In a resource constrained environment, our data highlights the economic need to implement innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce the inpatient management of these patients.

Funding

Nil.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.

RESULTS

33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.

CONCLUSION

Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

Early development of the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network

The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network was formed to build capacity and infrastructure for high-quality musculoskeletal clinical trials in our region. The purpose of this paper is to describe the steps taken in its formation to help others interested in establishing similar networks. In particular, we describe the steps taken to form the collaboration and our progress in achieving our vision and mission. Our aim is to focus on trials of highest importance and quality to provide definitive answers to the most pressing questions in our field.

Emergency department interventions for adult patients with low back pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Most low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) -15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.0 to -9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD -15.7, 95% CI -19.8 to -11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD -11.4, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI -0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD -6.8, 95% CI -24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Ketoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.

People considering exercise to prevent low back pain recurrence prefer exercise programs that differ from programs known to be effective: a discrete choice experiment

QUESTION

Do program and participant characteristics influence people's willingness to undertake exercise programs to prevent recurrence of low back pain?

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred and forty-seven people with a recent history of low back pain.

DATA COLLECTION

Recruitment and participation occurred online. Participants were randomised to a block of 10 choice tasks, where the characteristics of the exercise program varied systematically. The characteristics that were presented for each exercise program were mode of exercise delivery, mode of supervision, setting, duration, weekly frequency, travel time, risk of recurrence, and costs. For each choice task, participants chose between no program or an exercise program with the characteristics as presented.

DATA ANALYSIS

Choices were analysed using mixed logit models. Latent class models examined preference heterogeneity and identified participant-level characteristics predictive of preferences.

RESULTS

There appeared to be an underlying preference for exercise compared with no exercise, all else being equal. Preferences for programs were significantly influenced by the characteristics of the programs. Participants were less likely to choose exercise when programs were of a longer duration (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.96 per extra month), but more likely to prefer programs offering greater reduction in the risk of recurrence of low back pain (OR 3.91, 95% CI 3.20 to 4.79 per 10% reduction in risk of recurrence). Preferences for engaging in exercise programs to prevent recurrent of low back pain were influenced by the characteristics of the programs themselves. However, there was mismatch between the preferred characteristics of exercise programs and the characteristics of known effective programs.

CONCLUSION

People who have had low back pain should be advised explicitly about which exercise programs reduce recurrence. Understanding low back pain patients' preferences can help inform the implementation of existing prevention programs and guide the design of new prevention programs.

Clinical course of patients with low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Low back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit.

Methods

Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0–100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation.

Results

Eight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0–100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2–77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2–55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8–21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern.

Conclusions

Patients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.

Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method.

RESULTS

We included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients' expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076047.

A look into the challenges and complexities of managing low back pain in Mexico

Low back pain is a global health problem. In Mexico it is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions as well as the leading cause of disability. This review provides an overview of the challenges and complexities of managing low back pain in Mexico. It begins with an explanation of the Mexican healthcare system and an overview of the burden of low back pain. Usual care for low back pain in Mexico is then contrasted with recommended best practice care to highlight common evidence-practice gaps and drivers of poor care. Finally, solutions are proposed based on positive experiences from other countries. Delving into the Mexican health framework and the burden of low back pain will provide a better understanding of why it is important to pay attention to this musculoskeletal disorder. Potential steps required to reduce the burden are also outlined to benefit not only the people suffering from low back pain but also the Mexican economy and society.

Emergency department care for low back pain: Should we adopt recommendations from primary care guidelines?

ED visits for low back pain are increasing, but the lack of specific guidance for emergency physicians impedes evidence-based care, and adopting primary care recommendations may not be appropriate. The ED sees a different spectrum of low back pain presentations, where physicians are likely to encounter a larger proportion of patients with an underlying serious pathology or non-spinal diseases than in primary care. Current low back pain guidelines do not adequately cover screening for these conditions, but making a differential diagnosis is crucial in emergency patients with low back pain. In this article, we also discuss the challenges in developing specific ED guidelines for low back pain, the limited evidence on the profile of these patients and the surprising dearth of randomised trials.

Prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain (LBP), where impact is measured by LBP intensity and associated disability.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and The Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 22 October 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs evaluating any intervention aiming to prevent future impact of LBP, reporting an outcome measure of LBP intensity and/or disability measured at least 3 months post-randomisation, and the intervention group must be compared with a group that received no intervention/placebo or minimal intervention. Trials restricting recruitment to participants with current LBP were excluded.

RESULTS

27 published reports of 25 different trials including a total of 8341 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled results, from three RCTs (612 participants), found moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme can prevent future LBP intensity (mean difference (MD) -4.50; 95% CI -7.26 to -1.74), and from 4 RCTs (471 participants) that an exercise and education programme can prevent future disability due to LBP (MD -6.28; 95% CI -9.51 to -3.06). It is uncertain whether prevention programmes improve future quality of life (QoL) and workability due to the overall low-quality and very low-quality available evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme, and a programme combining exercise and education, are effective to reduce future LBP intensity and associated disability. It is uncertain whether prevention programmes can improve future QoL and workability. Further high-quality RCTs evaluating prevention programmes aiming to reduce future impact of LBP are needed.

An individualised self-management exercise and education program did not prevent recurrence of low back pain but may reduce care seeking: a randomised trial

QUESTION

What is the effect of a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program on the risk of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) and on the impact of LBP?

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

262 adults recently recovered from an episode of LBP.

INTERVENTION

The experimental group received a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program delivered over two individual sessions of 30 to 45 minutes with a physiotherapist, approximately 2 weeks apart. The control group received a single advice session over the phone.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting LBP. Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence of any LBP, time to a recurrence causing care seeking and a composite measure of pain and function ('impact of LBP'). Participants were followed-up monthly for ≥ 12 months.

RESULTS

The estimated effect of the experimental intervention on the risk of recurrence of an episode of: activity-limiting LBP was HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.54), any LBP was HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.26), and LBP for which care was sought was HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.04). The quarterly estimates of the experimental intervention's effect on impact of LBP and their 95% CIs were all within 4 points above or below 0 (no effect) on this scale from 8 to 50.

CONCLUSION

This study's best estimate is that a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program does not produce a worthwhile reduction in the risk of an activity-limiting episode of LBP; however, modestly reduced or moderately increased risk cannot be ruled out. It may markedly reduce the risk of an episode of LBP resulting in care seeking, but does not have any worthwhile effect on the impact of LBP over 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12616000926437.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed.

DISCUSSION

Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).