More is not always better: Cost-effectiveness analysis of combined, single behavioral and single physical rehabilitation programs for chronic low back pain

Productivity outcomes from chronic pain management interventions in the working age population; a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Productivity loss because of chronic pain in the working age population is a widespread concern internationally. Interventions for chronic pain in working age adults might be expected to achieve enhanced productivity in terms of reduced costs of workers' compensation insurance, reduced disability support, and improved rates of return to work for injured workers. This would require the use of measures of productivity in the evaluation of chronic pain management interventions. The aim of this review was to identify and interpret the productivity outcomes of randomised controlled trials reported by studies that conducted economic evaluations (eg, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) of chronic pain management interventions in the working age population published from database inception to March 2023. Econlit, Embase, and Pubmed electronic databases were searched, yielding 12 studies that met the selection criteria. All 12 studies used absenteeism to measure productivity, translating return to work measures into indirect costs. Only one study included return to work as a primary outcome. Ten studies found no statistically significant improvements in productivity-related costs. Despite evidence for reduced pain-related disability after pain management interventions, this review suggests that the use of measures for assessing productivity gains is lacking. Including such measures would greatly assist administrators and payers when considering the broader societal benefits of such interventions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Musculoskeletal Conditions Offered by Physiotherapists: A Systematic Review of Trial-Based Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are a leading contributor to disability worldwide. The treatment of these conditions accounts for 7% of health care costs in Germany and is often provided by physiotherapists. Yet, an overview of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for musculoskeletal conditions offered by physiotherapists is missing. This review aims to provide an overview of full economic evaluations of interventions for musculoskeletal conditions offered by physiotherapists.

METHODS

We systematically searched for publications in Medline, EconLit, and NHS-EED. Title and abstracts, followed by full texts were screened independently by two authors. We included trial-based full economic evaluations of physiotherapeutic interventions for patients with musculoskeletal conditions and allowed any control group. We extracted participants' information, the setting, the intervention, and details on the economic analyses. We evaluated the quality of the included articles with the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 5141 eligible publications and included 83 articles. The articles were based on 78 clinical trials. They addressed conditions of the spine (n = 39), the upper limb (n = 8), the lower limb (n = 30), and some other conditions (n = 6). The most investigated conditions were low back pain (n = 25) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (n = 16). The articles involved 69 comparisons between physiotherapeutic interventions (in which we defined primary interventions) and 81 comparisons in which only one intervention was offered by a physiotherapist. Physiotherapeutic interventions compared to those provided by other health professionals were cheaper and more effective in 43% (18/42) of the comparisons. Ten percent (4/42) of the interventions were dominated. The overall quality of the articles was high. However, the description of delivered interventions varied widely and often lacked details. This limited fair treatment comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence was found for physiotherapeutic interventions to be cost-effective, but the result depends on the patient group, intervention, and control arm. Treatments of knee and back conditions were primarily investigated, highlighting a need for physiotherapeutic cost-effectiveness analyses of less often investigated joints and conditions. The documentation of provided interventions needs improvement to enable clinicians and stakeholders to fairly compare interventions and ultimately adopt cost-effective treatments.

The value of correctly diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis for patients and society

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the value of diagnosing axSpA, by comparing health and costs associated with available diagnostic algorithms and perfect diagnosis.

METHODS

Using data from SPACE and other cohorts, a model was developed to estimate health (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) and costs (healthcare consumption and work productivity losses) of different diagnostic algorithms for axSpA amongst patients with low back pain referred to a rheumatologist, over a 60-year horizon. The model combined a decision-tree (diagnosis) with a state-transition model (treatment). The three algorithms (Berlin [BER, highest specificity], Modification 1 [M1; less strict inflammatory back pain (IBP) criterion] and Modification 2 [M2; IBP not mandatory as entry criterion, highest sensitivity]) were compared. Changes in sensitivity/specificity were explored and the value of perfect diagnosis was investigated.

RESULTS

For each correctly diagnosed axSpA patient, up to 4.7 QALYs and €60,000 could be gained/saved, considering a societal perspective. Algorithm M2 resulted in more health and lower costs per patient (24.23 QALYs; €157,469), compared to BER (23.96 QALYs; €159,423) and M1 (24.15 QALYs; €158,417). Hypothetical improvements in M2 sensitivity resulted in slightly more value compared to improvements in specificity. Perfect diagnosis can cost €7,500 per patient and still provide enough value.

CONCLUSION

Correct diagnosis of axSpA results in substantial health and cost benefits for patients and society. Not requiring IBP as mandatory for diagnosis of axSpA (algorithm M2) provides more value and would be preferable. A considerably more expensive diagnostic algorithm with better accuracy than M2 would still be considered good value for money.

A Mixed Comparison of Interventions for Kinesiophobia in Individuals With Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This systematic review aims to make a mixed comparison of interventions for kinesiophobia and individuals with musculoskeletal pain.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in the database of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science with the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled design; (2) patients with musculoskeletal pain as participants; (3) treatments protocols of kinesiophobia as interventions or comparisons; (4) the score of Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK) as outcome measures. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesize the data after checking the model consistency. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

Results

Thirty-one studies were included in this review after a comprehensive search strategy with a low risk of bias and good consistency. According to the results of the network meta-analysis, a multi-modal treatment protocol had the highest probability to become the best choice in dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain, whereas psychological treatment protocols also showed a potentially positive effect on musculoskeletal pain-induced kinesiophobia.

Conclusion

Multi-modal protocols could be recommended as the preferred option when dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. However, it is still worth mentioning that there are also potentially positive therapeutic effects of psychological interventions. Since the concept of kinesiophobia is based on the fear-avoidance model, the psychological mechanism should be paid enough attention to during treatment.

Registration Number

CRD42021286450.

Association between Dietary Protein Intake, Regular Exercise, and Low Back Pain among Middle-Aged and Older Korean Adults without Osteoarthritis of the Lumbar Spine

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of dietary protein intake and regular exercise on low back pain (LBP) using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. A total of 2367 middle-aged and older adults (≥50 years) who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and plain radiography of the lumbar spine were included. LBP was defined using a questionnaire to determine the presence of LBP lasting more than 30 days in the preceding three months. Twenty-four-hour dietary recall data were used to estimate protein intake, and regular exercise was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that men who did not perform regular exercise had a high probability of LBP (odds ratio [OR] 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24−4.44). Low protein intake (<0.8 g/kg/day) was associated with high odds for LBP in women (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.12−2.99). Low protein intake and lack of regular exercise were also associated with a higher probability of LBP in women (OR 2.91; 95% CI 1.48−5.72). We recommend that women over 50 years of age consume the recommended daily amount of protein to prevent LBP and engage in regular exercise.

Trajectories of disability in low back pain

Four recovery trajectories from low back pain were identified: high-stable (20.9%), high-decreasing (20.7%), medium-stable (29.9%), and low-decreasing (28.5%). Pain and depression predicted the high-stable trajectory.

Introduction:

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading course of years lived with disability. Unfortunately, not much knowledge exists about distinct trajectories of recovery from disability after LBP and their potential psychological predictors.

Objectives:

Hence, the aim of the present study was to identify trajectories of functional disability in LBP and their potential baseline psychological predictors.

Methods:

A 1-year consecutive cohort (N = 1048) of patients with LBP referred to the Spine Centre if they have not improved satisfactorily from a course of treatment in primary care after 1 to 2 months were assessed by self-report questionnaires at their first visit and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Data from patients who responded to the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at least twice (N = 747) were used to assess trajectories of functional disability by Latent Growth Mixture Modeling. The following measures were used as baseline predictors of the trajectories: Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scales, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

Results:

Four distinct trajectories were identified: high-stable (22.0%), high-decreasing (20.4%), medium-stable (29.7%), and low-decreasing (27.9%). Using the low-decreasing trajectory as reference, baseline pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and pain-catastrophizing predicted membership of all 3 symptomatic trajectories. However, using the high-decreasing trajectory as reference, age, baseline pain intensity, and depression were predictors of the high-stable trajectory.

Conclusion:

In particular, the finding of a high-stable trajectory characterized by high levels of baseline psychological distress is of potential clinical importance because psychological distress may be targeted by cognitive behavioral therapeutic approaches.

Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition

BACKGROUND

The latest clinical guidelines are mandatory for physicians to follow when practicing evidence-based medicine in the treatment of low back pain. Those guidelines should target not only Japanese board-certified orthopaedic surgeons, but also primary physicians, and they should be prepared based entirely on evidence-based medicine. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline committee decided to update the guideline and launched the formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline with the latest data of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on a method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Two key phrases, "body of evidence" and "benefit and harm balance" were focused on in the revised version. Background and clinical questions were determined, followed by literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles were selected from all the searched literature. Structured abstracts were prepared, and then meta-analyses were performed. The strength of both the body of evidence and the recommendation was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Nine background and nine clinical qvuestions were determined. For each clinical question, outcomes from the literature were collected and meta-analysis was performed. Answers and explanations were described for each clinical question, and the strength of the recommendation was decided. For background questions, the recommendations were described based on previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We strongly hope that this guideline serves as a benchmark for all physicians, as well as patients, in the management of low back pain.

Cost-effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Interventions for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults is a global health and economic problem. The aim of this paper was to systematically review and determine what proportion of multidisciplinary approaches to managing chronic musculoskeletal pain are cost-effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The EconLit, Embase, and PubMed electronic databases were searched for randomized and nonrandomized economic evaluation studies of nonpharmaceutical multidisciplinary chronic pain management interventions published from inception through to August 2019.

RESULTS

Seven studies comprising 2095 patients were included. All studies involved diverse multidisciplinary teams in one or more of the study arms. All studies involved chronic (both chronic and subacute) low back pain and were economic evaluations from either a societal or health care perspective. Two of the 3 studies that reported on a multidisciplinary pain intervention compared with nonmultidisciplinary intervention concluded favorable cost-effectiveness based on cost per quality adjusted life years gained, 1 study was not found to be cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness of the multidisciplinary intervention of interest was also not established by another 3-arm study. Two studies compared 2 multidisciplinary interventions; neither of these could definitively declare cost-effectiveness. The remaining study indicated the intervention by a multidisciplinary team was more effective but at a higher cost. None of the included studies used decision models to estimate long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary programs.

DISCUSSION

There are few studies on the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary chronic pain management interventions. This study encourages additional rigorous economic evaluations of multidisciplinary models for chronic pain management. Economic evaluations that enable extrapolating costs and effects of multidisciplinary programs beyond the time horizon of clinical trials may be more informative for clinicians and health administrators.

Do quality of life, anxiety, depression and acceptance improve after interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation? A multicentre matched control study of acceptance and commitment therapy-based versus cognitive-behavioural therapy-based programmes

OBJECTIVE

Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) usually employs a cognitive-behavioural therapeutic (CBT) approach. However, there is growing support for chronic pain treatments based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Most studies of ACT and CBT for chronic pain have evaluated their effects after psychological interventions, not after IPR. We compared the results of an ACT-based IPR programme with two CBT-based IPR programmes.

METHODS

We used a retrospective multicentre pretest-posttest design with matched patient groups at three centres. Data were collected from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation before and after IPR participation. Participants completed the EQ-5D health-related quality of life questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, (CPAQ) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Analyses were performed to compare the effects of the different interventions.

RESULTS

Neither EQ-5D nor HADS depression scores were affected by the psychological approach used. The score changes on both CPAQ subscales (activity engagement and pain willingness) indicated significant improvements between admission and discharge at all centres.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate the effectiveness of using psychological approaches to manage chronic pain. Both CBT and ACT had a beneficial effect on most of the assessed health-related parameters.

Costing Methodology and Key Drivers of Health Care Costs Within Economic Analyses in Musculoskeletal Community and Primary Care Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: Identifying variation in musculoskeletal service costs requires the use of specific standardized metrics. There has been a large focus on costing, efficiency, and standardized metrics within the acute musculoskeletal setting, but far less attention in primary care and community settings. Objectives: To (a) assess the quality of costing methods used within musculoskeletal economic analyses based primarily in primary and community settings and (b) identify which cost variables are the key drivers of musculoskeletal health care costs within these settings. Methods: Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, BNI, and HBE electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of costing methods using an established checklist. Results: Twenty-two studies met the review inclusion criteria. The majority of studies demonstrated moderate- to high-quality costing methods. Costing issues included studies failing to fully justify the economic perspective, and not distinguishing between short- and long-run costs. Highest unit costs were hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and imaging. Highest mean utilization were the following: general practitioner (GP) visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Highest mean costs per patient were GP visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Conclusion: This review identified a number of key resource use variables that are driving musculoskeletal health care costs in the community/primary care setting. High utilization of these resources (rather than high unit cost) appears to be the predominant factor increasing mean health care costs. There is, however, need for greater detail with capturing these key cost drivers, to further improve the accuracy of costing information.

Understanding Health Economics in Spine Surgery

»

The United States has faced substantial increases in health-care expenditure, with specifically large increases in spine surgery costs.

»

Many different formulas are utilized to determine value in spine surgery, including cost- benefit analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and cost-utility analyses, with the overall determination of value being quality/cost.

»

Quality often is calculated indirectly using either process measures or outcome measures and represents the potential benefit of a given intervention, usually over a specific time period to yield quality-adjusted life years.

»

Costs are particularly difficult to calculate given the interhospital, regional, national, and global variability, as well as indirect costs of an intervention, and many different methods are utilized to estimate costs.

»

Spine surgeons should be familiar with the elements that compose cost-effectiveness and their potential shortcomings in order for providers and health-care policy makers to identify the highest-quality studies and interventions that provide the greatest benefit to patients.

Pain catastrophizing as a treatment process variable in cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Interdisciplinary cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic pain is effective at improving function, mood and pain interference among individuals with disabling chronic pain. Traditionally, CBT assumes that cognitive change is an active therapeutic ingredient in the determination of treatment outcome. Pain catastrophizing, a cognitive response style that views the experience of pain as uncontrollable, permanent and destructive, has been identified as an important maladaptive cognition which contributes to difficulties with the management of chronic pain. Consequently, pain catastrophizing is commonly targeted in CBT for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine change trajectories in pain catastrophizing during treatment and assess the relevance of these trajectories to outcomes at posttreatment.

METHODS

Participants included individuals with chronic pain (N = 463) who completed a 3-week program of interdisciplinary CBT. Pain catastrophizing was assessed weekly over the 3 weeks of treatment and latent growth curve modelling was used to identify trajectories of change.

RESULTS

Findings indicated the presence of two classes of linear change, one with a significant negative slope in pain catastrophizing (i.e. improved class) and the other with a non-significant slope (i.e. unchanged class). Next, latent growth mixture modelling examined treatment outcome in relation to class membership. These results indicated that individuals in the 'improved' PCS class had significantly greater improvement in pain interference and mood, as well as physical and mental quality of life compared to the 'unchanged' class.

CONCLUSIONS

Implications for our findings, in relation to the CBT model, are discussed.

Effects of hypnosis, cognitive therapy, hypnotic cognitive therapy, and pain education in adults with chronic pain: a randomized clinical trial

Chronic pain is a significant health problem worldwide with limited pharmacological treatment options. This study evaluated the relative efficacy of 4 treatment sessions each of 4 nonpharmacological treatments: (1) hypnotic cognitive therapy (using hypnosis to alter the meaning of pain); (2) standard cognitive therapy; (3) hypnosis focused on pain reduction, and (4) pain education. One hundred seventy-three individuals with chronic pain were randomly assigned to receive 4 sessions of 1 of the 4 treatments. Primary (pain intensity) and secondary outcome measures were administered by assessors unaware of treatment allocation at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. Treatment effects were evaluated using analysis of variance, a generalized estimating equation approach, or a Fisher exact test, depending on the outcome domain examined. All 4 treatments were associated with medium to large effect size improvements in pain intensity that maintained up to 12 months posttreatment. Pretreatment to posttreatment improvements were observed across the 4 treatment conditions on the secondary outcomes of pain interference and depressive symptoms, with some return towards pretreatment levels at 12-month follow-up. No significant between-group differences emerged in omnibus analyses, and few statistically significant between-group differences emerged in the planned pairwise analyses, although the 2 significant effects that did emerge favored hypnotic cognitive therapy. Future research is needed to determine whether the significant differences that emerged are reliable.

The longitudinal effects of a physical activity programme on the physical fitness and disability of back pain patients: Service evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the longitudinal effect of a group physical activity service to help patients self-manage un-resolving back pain.

BACKGROUND

Back pain is one of the most common and costly conditions. Large scale trials have demonstrated a role for less traditional treatment including exercise, yet the long term effects of patient centred, group physical activity programmes remains unclear.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-one un-resolving back pain patients (aged 53 ± 17 years) completed a 6 × 2 h physical activity programme. All activities were relevant to activities of daily living and incorporated activities to develop aerobic fitness, flexibility, core activation, and muscular strength and endurance. Dietary advice, home diaries and pedometers were provided.

RESULTS

Measures of back pain, aerobic fitness, muscular endurance and body composition showed significant (p< 0.05) pre-post intervention improvements. Disability rating decreased by 19% alongside improvements in aerobic fitness (15%), back extension (36%) back flexion (16%) and grip strength (5%). Six month follow up identified (p< 0.05) reductions in body fat (6.5%) whilst aerobic fitness, disability rating and muscular strength and endurance remained stable.

CONCLUSION

Group physical activity programmes could contribute to the self-management of back pain, enabling sustained improvements in fitness, physical activity and body fatness.

Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies.

RESULTS

Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Comparison of the effects of low-level laser and pulsed and continuous ultrasound on pain and physical disability in chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term effects of pulsed laser and pulsed and continuous ultrasound on pain and functional disability in women with chronic non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

The sample was composed of 100 volunteers randomly allocated into four groups: The Pulsed Laser Group (n = 26) was treated with 3 J/cm²; the Pulsed Ultrasound Group (n = 24; 3 MHz) was treated with 1 W/cm²; the Continuous Ultrasound Group (n = 26; 1 MHz) was treated with 1 W/cm²; and a Control Group (n = 24), where the patients were still waiting for treatment. Before and after 10 sessions of treatment, the intensity of pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the quality of pain was evaluated using the McGill pain questionnaire and functional disability was investigated using the Roland-Morris questionnaire.

RESULTS

The three treated groups exhibited a decrease in pain (p < 0.001); the Pulsed Laser Group showed the greater relative gain (91.2%), Meanwhile, the Control Group exhibited a worsening of - 5.8%. The three treated groups demonstrated improvement in the quality of pain (McGill) in the total, sensory and affective dimensions (p < 0.005; p < 0.002; p < 0.013, respectively). All treated groups showed a decrease in functional disability (p < 0.001), but the Pulsed Ultrasound Group showed the highest relative gain (83.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The three modalities have significant effects to decreasing low back pain and improving functional disability in women with non-specific chronic low back pain, but the pulsed low-level laser had the best results on pain while the pulsed ultrasound had the best results on improve the functional disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02150096.

Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem around the world. Two previous meta-analyses showed that the spa therapy has a positive effect on reducing pain among patients with LBP based on studies published before 2006 and studies published between 2006 and 2013. In recent years, more studies reported the effect of spa therapy on treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). Our study aimed to update the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of spa therapy on treating CLBP and to examine the effect of spa therapy based on different interventions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched until May 2018 to identify RCTs about spa therapy among patients with CLBP. Summary effect estimates were calculated by using a random-effects model. The quality of each eligible study was evaluated by Jadad checklist.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and were included in meta-analysis. There was a significant decrease in pain based on visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference [MD] 16.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] [9.57, 22.57], P < .00001, I = 88%, n = 966), and lumbar spine function in Oswestry disability index (ODI) (MD 7.12, 95% CI [3.77, 10.47], P < .00001, I = 87%, n = 468) comparing spa therapy group to control group. Methodological assessment for included studies showed that the study's quality is associated with lacking blinding.

CONCLUSION

This updated meta-analysis confirmed that spa therapy can benefit pain reliving and improve lumbar spine function among patients with CLBP. Physiotherapy of subgroup analysis indicated that it can improve lumbar spine function. However, these conclusions should be treated with caution due to limited studies. More high-quality RCTs with double-blind design, larger sample size, and longer follow-up should be employed to improve the validity of study results.

Enabling Work: Occupational Therapy Interventions for Persons with Occupational Injuries and Diseases: A Scoping Review

Purpose This review aims to map the scope of published research on occupational therapy (OT) interventions and pertinent work and work-related outcomes for persons with occupational injuries and diseases. Methods The scoping review adapted Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Six electronic databases were searched. Ancestral search was also done on five systematic reviews. The search was conducted from September 2015 to October 2015. Interventions and outcomes were coded using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation to plot trends. Results Forty-six articles were included in the review. The top five intervention approaches included: acquiring skills (12.27%), health services, systems, and policies (10.43%), products and technology for employment (9.20%), handling stress and other psychological demands (7.98%), and apprenticeship (6.74%). The top five outcomes targeted included: remunerative employment (15.71%); sensation of pain (10.99%); emotional functions (5.76%); handling stress and other psychological demands (5.76%); economic self-sufficiency (4.71%); muscle endurance functions (4.71%); exercise tolerance functions (4.71%); undertaking multiple tasks (4.19%); acquiring, keeping, and terminating a job (4.19%); and looking after one's health (4.19%). Conclusion The trend in interventions show the use of activities and environment facilitators which are attuned to the conceptual nature of OT. Furthermore, the trend in outcomes show that there is substantial evidence that supports the use of OT to target work. This review may provide a platform for collaboration with other professionals and also help identify research directions to strengthen the evidence base for OT in work-related practice.

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of non-specific neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific neck pain and low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review of economic evaluations.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed in 5 clinical and 3 economic electronic databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included economic evaluations performed alongside randomised controlled trials. Differences in costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, if possible, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were descriptively analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. On average, exercise therapy was associated with lower costs and larger effects for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective (based on ICUR). Exercise therapy had similar costs and effect for QALY in comparison with other interventions for neck pain from a societal perspective, and subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective. There was limited or inconsistent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with usual care for neck pain and acute low back pain, other interventions for acute low back pain and different types of exercise therapy for neck pain and low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise therapy seems to be cost-effective compared with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was not (more) cost-effective compared with other interventions for neck pain and low back pain. The cost-utility estimates are rather uncertain, indicating that more economic evaluations are needed.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42017059025.

Different doses of Pilates-based exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-utility of the addition of different doses of Pilates to an advice for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) from a societal perspective.

Design

Randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

Setting

Physiotherapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil.

Participants

296 patients with NSCLBP.

Interventions

All patients received advice and were randomly allocated to four groups (n=74 per group): booklet group (BG), Pilates once a week (Pilates group 1, PG1), Pilates twice a week (Pilates group 2, PG2) and Pilates three times a week (Pilates group 3, PG3).

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes were pain and disability at 6-week follow-up.

Results

Compared with the BG, all Pilates groups showed significant improvements in pain (PG1, mean difference (MD)=−1.2, 95% CI −2.2 to −0.3; PG2, MD=−2.3, 95% CI −3.2 to −1.4; PG3, MD=−2.1, 95% CI −3.0 to −1.1) and disability (PG1, MD=−1.9, 95% CI −3.6 to −0.1; PG2, MD=−4.7, 95% CI −6.4 to −3.0; PG3, MD=−3.3, 95% CI −5.0 to −1.6). Among the different doses, PG2 showed significant improvements in comparison with PG1 for pain (MD=−1.1, 95% CI −2.0 to −0.1) and disability (MD=−2.8, 95% CI −4.5 to −1.1). The cost-utility analysis showed that PG3 had a 0.78 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions

Adding two sessions of Pilates exercises to advice provided better outcomes in pain and disability than advice alone for patients with NSCLBP; non-specific elements such as greater attention or expectation might be part of this effect. The cost-utility analysis showed that Pilates three times a week was the preferred option.

Trial registration number

NCT02241538, Completed.

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR ASSESSING, IN THE ABSENCE OF FULL EVIDENCE, WHETHER MULTICOMPONENT INTERVENTIONS CAN BE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE THAN SINGLE COMPONENT INTERVENTIONS

OBJECTIVES

Multicomponent interventions (MCIs), consisting of at least two interventions, are common in rehabilitation and other healthcare fields. When the effectiveness of the MCI versus that of its single interventions is comparable or unknown, evidence of their expected incremental cost-effectiveness can be helpful in deciding which intervention to recommend. As such evidence often is unavailable this study proposes an approach to estimate what is more cost-effective; the MCI or the single intervention(s).

METHODS

We reviewed the literature for potential methods. Of those identified, headroom analysis was selected as the most suitable basis for developing the approach, based on the criteria of being able to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions versus that of the MCI (a) within a limited time frame, (b) in the absence of full data, and (c) taking into account carry-over and interaction effects. We illustrated the approach with an MCI for cancer survivors.

RESULTS

The approach starts with analyzing the costs of the MCI. Given a specific willingness-to-pay-value, it is analyzed how much effectiveness the MCI would need to generate to be considered cost-effective, and if this is likely to be attained. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions relative to the potential of the MCI for being cost-effective can be compared.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic approach using headroom analysis was developed for estimating whether an MCI is likely to be more cost effective than one (or more) of its single interventions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Invasive and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Low Back Pain: a Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem, having a substantial effect on peoples' quality of life and placing a significant economic burden on healthcare systems and, more broadly, societies. Many interventions to alleviate LBP are available but their cost effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, document and appraise studies reporting on the cost effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological treatment options for LBP.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), 'similar article' searches and reference list scanning. Study selection was carried out by three assessors, independently. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist. Data were extracted using customized extraction forms.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were identified. Study interventions were categorised as: (1) combined physical exercise and psychological therapy, (2) physical exercise therapy only, (3) information and education, and (4) manual therapy. Interventions assessed within each category varied in terms of their components and delivery. In general, combined physical and psychological treatments, information and education interventions, and manual therapies appeared to be cost effective when compared with the study-specific comparators. There is inconsistent evidence around the cost effectiveness of physical exercise programmes as a whole, with yoga, but not group exercise, being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified evidence suggests that combined physical and psychological treatments, medical yoga, information and education programmes, spinal manipulation and acupuncture are likely to be cost-effective options for LBP.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Graded Activity and Graded Exposure for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of graded activity (GA) or graded exposure (GEXP) for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP).

METHODS

A literature search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL, and PsychINFO) was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs). Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for relevant outcome measures (pain intensity, disability, quality of life, and catastrophizing).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Only nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. GA was significantly more effective than the control group (CG) for improvements in disability in the short term (three studies: n = 254, SMD = -0.3, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05, P = 0.02) and long term (two studies: n = 238, SMD = -0.53, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.27, P < 0.0001). GA was significantly less effective than GEXP for the improvement of disability in the short term (two studies: n = 105, SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.003-0.78, P = 0.048). GA was also significantly less effective than GEXP at improving catastrophizing in the short term (two studies: n = 105, SMD = 0.48, 95% CI 0.09-0.87, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence has been found to show that GA significantly reduces disability in the short and long term when compared with the CG in CNSLBP. There is moderate evidence that GEXP more effectively decreases catastrophizing than GA in the short term. No difference was found between GA and other exercise for any variable.

Catastrophizing and pain-related fear predict failure to maintain treatment gains following participation in a pain rehabilitation program

The present study explored whether pain-related psychosocial risk factors played a role in determining whether treatment gains were maintained following participation in a rehabilitation intervention for musculoskeletal injury. The study sample consisted of 310 individuals (163 women, 147 men) with work-related musculoskeletal conditions who were enrolled in a physical rehabilitation program. Measures of pain severity, pain catastrophizing and pain-related fear were completed at the time of admission and at the time of discharge. Pain severity was assessed again at 1-year postdischarge. Participants were classified as “recovered” if they showed a decrease in pain of at least 2 points and rated their pain at discharge as less than 4/10. Recovered participants were considered to have failed to maintain treatment gains if their pain ratings increased by at least 2 points from discharge assessment to 1-year follow-up, and they rated their pain as 4/10 or greater at 1-year follow-up. The results of a logistic regression revealed that participants with high posttreatment scores on measures of catastrophizing and fear of pain were at increased risk of failing to maintain treatment gains. The findings suggest that unless end-of-treatment scores on catastrophizing and fear of pain fall below the risk range, treatment-related reductions in pain severity may not be maintained in the long term. The clinical and theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

Describing the characteristics, treatment pathways, outcomes, and costs of people with persistent noncancer pain managed by community pain clinics and generating an indicative estimate of cost-effectiveness: feasibility study protocol

Background

Low back pain (LBP) and fibromyalgia (FM), also known as chronic widespread pain (CWP), are highly prevalent chronic painful conditions that have substantial impact on patients, health care systems, and society. Diagnosis is complex and management strategies are associated with various levels of evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Multidisciplinary pain services have been shown to be effective in some settings and therefore are recommended by clinical practice guidelines as a rational treatment option to manage these patients. Knowing that these services are resource intensive, evidence is needed to demonstrate their cost-effectiveness. This study aims to describe the management of patients with LBP and FM in two community pain clinics to derive an indicative estimate of cost-effectiveness compared with standard practice.

Methods

This is a prospective observational multicenter study, using patient-level data. The data from this study will be combined with modelling of the long-term economic impact of community pain clinics in treating people with LBP and FM. Newly referred patients with LBP and FM who provide written consent will be included. We will collect data on functional disability, pain intensity, quality of life, and health resource utilization. Follow-up data at the 3- and 6-month points will be collected by patient-completed questionnaires and health care contact diaries. Health care resource use from diaries will be compared with patient electronic records to assess the agreement between these recording methods. Patient cohort characteristics, treatment pathways, resource use, and outcomes derived from this study will be integrated in a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of community pain clinics compared with standard care. This feasibility study will address key methodological issues such as sample estimates and retention rate to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial.

Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain

&lt;LEAP&gt; highlights the findings and application of Cochrane reviews and other evidence pertinent to the practice of physical therapy. The Cochrane Library is a respected source of reliable evidence related to health care. Cochrane systematic reviews explore the evidence for and against the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions—medications, surgery, education, nutrition, exercises—and the evidence for and against the use of diagnostic tests for specific conditions. Cochrane reviews are designed to facilitate the decisions of clinicians, patients, and others in health care by providing a careful review and interpretation of research studies published in the scientific literature.1Each article in thisPTJseries will summarize a Cochrane review or other scientific evidence resource on a single topic and will present clinical scenarios based on real patients to illustrate how the results of the review can be used to directly inform clinical decisions. This article focuses on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for nonspecific chronic low back pain.Can multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation help this patient with chronic low back pain?

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Exercise and Physical Activity on Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain

Back pain is a major health issue in Western countries and 60%–80% of adults are likely to experience low back pain. This paper explores the impact of back pain on society and the role of physical activity for treatment of non-specific low back pain. A review of the literature was carried out using the databases SPORTDiscuss, Medline and Google Scholar. A general exercise programme that combines muscular strength, flexibility and aerobic fitness is beneficial for rehabilitation of non-specific chronic low back pain. Increasing core muscular strength can assist in supporting the lumbar spine. Improving the flexibility of the muscle-tendons and ligaments in the back increases the range of motion and assists with the patient’s functional movement. Aerobic exercise increases the blood flow and nutrients to the soft tissues in the back, improving the healing process and reducing stiffness that can result in back pain.

Does Change Occur for the Reasons We Think It Does? A Test of Specific Therapeutic Operations During Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relative validity of 2 conceptual models-Specific, General-by which therapeutic mechanisms in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic pain achieve favorable outcomes.

METHODS

As part of a clinical trial of enhanced versus standard CBT, people with chronic pain received treatment consisting of 3 pain coping skill modules. In secondary analyses of a subsample (n=56), we examined pretreatment to session 4 (of 10 sessions) changes in Chronic Pain Coping Inventory subscales that corresponded to receipt of one of 3 modules; namely Relaxation, Exercise, and Cognitive Coping modules.

RESULTS

Findings indicated that: (1) participants receiving the Relaxation module improved more than other groups in relaxation skills, and improved substantially on other coping skills, as well; (2) participants receiving Exercise and Cognitive Coping modules showed mixed improvements and did not improve more than other groups on exercise use or cognitive coping, respectively; and (3) measures of patient-therapist working alliance and patient expectations of treatment benefit at session three correlated significantly with some coping skills changes.

DISCUSSION

Change with CBT may occur both by theory-specified mechanisms and general mechanisms. However, the results provide the most support for a General Mechanism model in which changes on coping skills have spreading effects on the use of other coping skills. Significant relationships between some skill changes and indexes of patient-therapist working alliance and outcome expectations suggest that nonspecific factors also play a role in treatment-related changes in the use of pain coping strategies.

Is exposure in vivo cost-effective for chronic low back pain? A trial-based economic evaluation

Background

Back pain is one of the most expensive health complaints. Comparing the economic aspects of back pain interventions may therefore contribute to a more efficient use of available resources. This study reports on a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) of two treatments as viewed from a societal perspective: 1) exposure in vivo treatment (EXP), a recently developed cognitive behavioral treatment for patients with chronic low back pain who have elevated pain-related fear and 2) the more commonly used graded activity (GA) treatment.

Methods

Sixty-two patients with non-specific chronic low back pain received either EXP or GA. Primary data were collected at four participating treatment centers in the Netherlands. Primary outcomes were self-reported disability (for the CEA) and quality-adjusted life years (for the CUA). Program costs, health care utilization, patient and family costs, and production losses were measured by analyzing therapy records and cost diaries. Data was gathered before, during, and after treatment, and at 6 and 12 months after treatment. Non-parametric bootstrap analyses were used to quantify the uncertainty concerning the cost-effectiveness ratio. In addition, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were performed.

Results

EXP showed a tendency to reduce disability, increase quality adjusted life years and decrease costs compared to GA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of both the CEA and CUA are in favor of EXP.

Conclusions

Based on these results, implementing EXP for this group of patients seems to be the best decision.

Trial registration

ISRCTN88087718

Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses

It is well known that small, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have limited validity. When comparing the results of meta-analyses with those of later large trials or with those of large trials removed from the meta-analyses, discrepancies were reported. This paper addresses two issues: (1) how measures of the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness, i.e., cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) are affected by the limited validity of small trials and (2) how to deal with this bias. To this end, the paper adopts a Bayesian approach. Using empirical estimates for the validity of small RCTs compared to larger RCTs, the probability of cost-effectiveness drops by almost 10 %, while the EVPI is three times higher. In conclusion, traditional CEACs and EVPI analyses based on (small) RCTs may need careful appraisal. Ignoring prior evidence on the validity of small-size trials leads to an underestimation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. For future economic analyses, it is important to incorporate aspects of uncertainty which are caused by flawed data on effectiveness .

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.

MAIN RESULTS

From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.

Pessoas com dor e necessidades de intervenção: revisão sistemática da literatura

Objectivou-se determinar qual o impacto económico e social e as necessidades de intervenção por parte dos serviços de saúde, relativamente às pessoas com dor. Foi efectuada uma pesquisa na EBSCO (CINAHL, MEDLINE, British Nursing Index), utilizando-se o método de PI[C]O e seleccionados 19 artigos do total de 325 encontrados. A dor de tipo neuropática e a com localização músculo-esquelética foram identificadas como as maiores responsáveis pelos gastos em saúde. Como factores positivamente associados à relação custo-eficácia, encontrou-se: associação do regime terapêutico com estratégias não farmacológicas, intervenção de equipas multidisciplinares especializadas no controlo da dor, continuidade de cuidados na comunidade e uma linha telefónica de apoio permanente. Conclui-se que a dor causa significativa deterioração na qualidade de vida, com incalculável impacto no desempenho das actividades de vida diária.

Evaluation of self-reported work ability and usefulness of interventions among sick-listed patients

AIM

To describe the types of intervention offered, to investigate the relationship between the type of intervention given, patient-reported usefulness of interventions and the effect on self-reported work ability in a cohort of sick-listed patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) or mental disorders (MD).

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed including 810 newly sick-listed patients (MSD 62 % and MD 38 %). The baseline questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and measures of work ability. The 3-month follow-up questionnaire included measures of work ability, type of intervention received, and judgment of usefulness.

RESULTS

Twenty-five percent received medical intervention modalities (MI) only, 45 % received a combination of medical and rehabilitative intervention modalities (CRI) and 31 % received work-related interventions combined with medical or rehabilitative intervention modalities (WI). Behavioural treatments were more common for patients with MD compared with MSD and exercise therapy were more common for patients with MSD. The most prevalent workplace interventions were adjustment of work tasks or the work environment. Among patients with MD, WI was found to be useful and improved work ability significantly more compared with only MI or CRI. For patients with MSD, no significant differences in improved work ability were found between interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MD who received a combination of work-related and clinical interventions reported best usefulness and best improvement in work ability. There was no difference in improvements in work ability between rehabilitation methods in the MSD group. There seems to be a gap between scientific evidence and praxis behaviour in the rehabilitation process. Unimodal rehabilitation was widely applied in the early rehabilitation process, a multimodal treatment approach was rare and only one-third received work-related interventions. It remains a challenge to understand who needs what type of intervention.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults

BACKGROUND

Psychological treatments are designed to treat pain, distress and disability, and are in common practice. This review updates and extends the 2009 version of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies for chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults, compared with treatment as usual, waiting list control, or placebo control, for pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapy by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psychlit from the beginning of each abstracting service until September 2011. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of retrieved papers and from discussion with investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Full publications of RCTs of psychological treatments compared with an active treatment, waiting list or treatment as usual. We excluded studies if the pain was primarily headache, or was associated with a malignant disease. We also excluded studies if the number of patients in any treatment arm was less than 20.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Forty-two studies met our criteria and 35 (4788 participants) provided data. Two authors rated all studies. We coded risk of bias as well as both the quality of the treatments and the methods using a scale designed for the purpose. We compared two main classes of treatment (cognitive behavioural therapy(CBT) and behaviour therapy) with two control conditions (treatment as usual; active control) at two assessment points (immediately following treatment and six months or more following treatment), giving eight comparisons. For each comparison, we assessed treatment effectiveness on four outcomes: pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking, giving a total of 32 possible analyses, of which there were data for 25.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall there is an absence of evidence for behaviour therapy, except a small improvement in mood immediately following treatment when compared with an active control. CBT has small positive effects on disability and catastrophising, but not on pain or mood, when compared with active controls. CBT has small to moderate effects on pain, disability, mood and catastrophising immediately post-treatment when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, but all except a small effect on mood had disappeared at follow-up. At present there are insufficient data on the quality or content of treatment to investigate their influence on outcome. The quality of the trial design has improved over time but the quality of treatments has not.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Benefits of CBT emerged almost entirely from comparisons with treatment as usual/waiting list, not with active controls. CBT but not behaviour therapy has weak effects in improving pain, but only immediately post-treatment and when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list. CBT but not behaviour therapy has small effects on disability associated with chronic pain, with some maintenance at six months. CBT is effective in altering mood and catastrophising outcomes, when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, with some evidence that this is maintained at six months. Behaviour therapy has no effects on mood, but showed an effect on catastrophising immediately post-treatment. CBT is a useful approach to the management of chronic pain. There is no need for more general RCTs reporting group means: rather, different types of studies and analyses are needed to identify which components of CBT work for which type of patient on which outcome/s, and to try to understand why.

Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Despite the importance of the information provided by cost-utility analyses (CUAs), there has been a lack of these types of studies performed in the area of spinal care.

PURPOSE

To systematically review cost-utility studies published on spinal care between 1976 and 2010.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

All CUAs pertaining to spinal care published between 1976 and 2010 were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) registry database (Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The keywords used to search both the registry databases were the following: spine, spinal, neck, back, cervical, lumbar, thoracic, and scoliosis. Search of the CEA registry provided a total of 28 articles, and the NHS EED yielded an additional 5, all of which were included in this review. Each article was reviewed for the study subject, methodology, and results. Data contained within the databases for each of the 33 articles were recorded, and the manuscripts were reviewed to provide insight into the funding source, analysis perspective, discount rate, and cost-utility ratios.

RESULTS

There was wide variation among the 33 studies in methodology. There were 17 operative, 13 nonoperative, and 3 imaging studies. Study subjects included lumbar spine (n=27), cervical spine (n=4), scoliosis (n=1), and lumbar and cervical spine (n=1). Twenty-three of the studies were based on the clinical data from prospective randomized studies, 7 on decision models, 2 on prospective observational data, and 1 on a retrospective case series. Sixty cost-utility ratios were reported in the 33 articles. Of the ratios, 19 of 60 (31.6%) were cost saving, 27 of 60 (45%) were less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain, and 14 of 60 (23.3%) were greater than $100,000/QALY gain. Only four of 33 (12%) studies contained the four key criteria of cost-effectiveness research recommended by the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-three CUA studies and 60 cost-utility ratios have been published on various aspects of spinal care over the last 30 years. Certain aspects of spinal care have been shown to be cost effective. Further efforts, however, are needed to better define the value of many aspects of spinal care. Future CUA studies should consider societal cost perspective and carefully consider the durability of clinical benefit in determining a study time horizon.

Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. Protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. General exercise seems to be an effective option for management of chronic low back pain (LBP) but very little is known about the management of a sub-acute LBP within sub-groups.

Recent research has developed clinical tests to identify a subgroup of patients with chronic non-specific LBP who have movement control dysfunction (MD).

Method/Design

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effects of general exercise and specific movement control exercise (SMCE) on disability and function in patients with MD within recurrent sub-acute LBP. The main outcome measure is the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Discussion

European clinical guideline for management of chronic LBP recommends that more research is required to develop tools to improve the classification and identification of specific clinical sub-groups of chronic LBP patients. Good quality RCTs are then needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions aimed at these specific target groups. This RCT aims to test the hypothesis whether patients within a sub-group of MD benefit more through a specific individually tailored movement control exercise program than through general exercises.

Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal disorders are a major cause of disability and compromise in health-related quality of life. The direct and indirect costs of treating spinal disorders are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. With limited resources, the cost-utility of interventions is important for allocating resources.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature on cost-utility for nonoperative and operative interventions for treating spinal disorders.

METHODS

We searched four databases for cost-utility analysis studies on low back pain management and identified 1004 items. The titles and abstracts of 752 were screened before selecting 27 studies for inclusion; full texts of these 27 studies were individually evaluated by five individuals.

RESULTS

Studies of nonoperative treatments demonstrated greater value for graded activity over physical therapy and pain management; spinal manipulation over exercise; behavioral therapy and physiotherapy over advice; and acupuncture and exercise over usual general practitioner care. Circumferential fusion and femoral ring allograft had greater value than posterolateral fusion and titanium cage, respectively. The relative cost-utility of operative versus nonoperative interventions was variable with the most consistent evidence indicating superior value of operative care for treating spinal disorders involving nerve compression and instability.

CONCLUSION

The literature on cost-utility for treating spinal disorders is limited. Studies addressing cost-utility of nonoperative and operative management of low back pain encompass a broad spectrum of diagnoses and direct comparison of treatments based on cost-utility thresholds for comparative effectiveness is limited by diversity among disorders and methods to assess cost-utility. Future research will benefit from uniform methods and comparison of treatments in cohorts with well-defined pathology.

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline.

Psychological treatment of chronic pain

Psychological treatment has emerged as a common component of a multidimensional and interdisciplinary plan of pain care for many persons with persistent pain. Treatments are informed by a biopsychosocial model of pain and a long history of psychological research that has identified the central role of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional factors that are believed to contribute to the perpetuation, if not the development, of chronic pain and pain-related disability and emotional distress. Empirically supported self-regulatory, behavioral, cognitive-behavioral, and acceptance and commitment interventions are reviewed, and current and future interventions are highlighted. Important issues related to individual differences and disparities in the experience of pain and pain treatment are discussed. In particular, race and ethnicity are considered, and special considerations for the management of pain in children and older adults are discussed.

Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Behavioural treatment is commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) to reduce disability through modification of maladaptive pain behaviours and cognitive processes. Three behavioural approaches are generally distinguished: operant, cognitive, and respondent; but are often combined as a treatment package.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of behavioural therapy for CLBP and the most effective behavioural approach.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 2009. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials on behavioural treatments for non-specific CLBP were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 randomised trials (3438 participants) in this review, up 11 from the previous version. Fourteen trials (47%) had low risk of bias. For most comparisons, there was only low or very low quality evidence to support the results. There was moderate quality evidence that:i) operant therapy was more effective than waiting list (SMD -0.43; 95%CI -0.75 to -0.11) for short-term pain relief;ii) little or no difference exists between operant, cognitive, or combined behavioural therapy for short- to intermediate-term pain relief;iii) behavioural treatment was more effective than usual care for short-term pain relief (MD -5.18; 95%CI -9.79 to -0.57), but there were no differences in the intermediate- to long-term, or on functional status;iv) there was little or no difference between behavioural treatment and group exercise for pain relief or depressive symptoms over the intermediate- to long-term;v) adding behavioural therapy to inpatient rehabilitation was no more effective than inpatient rehabilitation alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with CLBP, there is moderate quality evidence that in the short-term, operant therapy is more effective than waiting list and behavioural therapy is more effective than usual care for pain relief, but no specific type of behavioural therapy is more effective than another. In the intermediate- to long-term, there is little or no difference between behavioural therapy and group exercises for pain or depressive symptoms. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and may change the estimates.

Graded activity and graded exposure for persistent nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Graded activity and graded exposure are increasingly being used in the management of persistent low back pain; however, their effectiveness remains poorly understood.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of graded activity or graded exposure for persistent (>6 weeks in duration or recurrent) low back pain.

DATA SOURCES

Trials were electronically searched and rated for quality by use of the PEDro scale (values of 0-10).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of graded activity or graded exposure that included pain, disability, global perceived effect, or work status outcomes were included in the study.

DATA EXTRACTION

Outcomes were converted to a scale from 0 to 100. Trials were pooled with software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifteen trials with 1,654 patients were included. The trials had a median quality score of 6 (range=3-9). Pooled effects from 6 trials comparing graded activity with a minimal intervention or no treatment favored graded activity, with 4 contrasts being statistically significant: mean values (95% confidence intervals) for pain in the short term, pain in the intermediate term, disability in the short term, and disability in the intermediate term were -6.2 (-9.4 to -3.0), -5.5 (-9.9 to -1.0), -6.5 (-10.1 to -3.0), and -3.9 (-7.4 to -0.4), respectively. None of the pooled effects from 6 trials comparing graded activity with another form of exercise, from 4 trials comparing graded activity with graded exposure, and from 2 trials comparing graded exposure with a waiting list were statistically significant.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of this review include the low quality of the studies, primarily those that evaluated graded exposure; the use of various types of outome measures; and differences in the implementation of the interventions, adding to the heterogeneity of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that graded activity in the short term and intermediate term is slightly more effective than a minimal intervention but not more effective than other forms of exercise for persistent low back pain. The limited evidence suggests that graded exposure is as effective as minimal treatment or graded activity for persistent low back pain.

[Interdisciplinary treatment. Long-lasting, effective, and cost-effective]

The efficacy of intensive interdisciplinary pain management programs for patients with chronic low back pain has been repeatedly demonstrated. A controversial issue in previous studies is the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. Between 2001 and 2006, a total of 575 patients with chronic nonspecific back pain took part in an outpatient pain management program at the German Red Cross Pain Center (DRK Schmerz-Zentrum Mainz) in Mainz, Germany. Complete follow-up data were available for 351 patients 1 year after the end of treatment and were included in the study. No differences between these patients and the dropouts were found. Pain, impairment, and mental well-being had significantly improved after 1 year. For employed patients, the number of absent days decreased to almost one-quarter. On the basis of the study by Wenig, who calculated pain-related costs as a function of Von Korff pain grades, the treatment resulted in a savings of euro 3,329.50 per year per patient. Intensive multidisciplinary treatment of chronic back pain is highly effective and, at least for patients with high levels of disability, is also cost-effective.