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

Biopsychosocial rehabilitation in the working population with chronic low back pain: a concept analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify the essential attributes of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain in the working population.

DESIGN

A concept analysis was conducted according to the 8-step method of Walker and Avant. This framework provides a clear concept and theoretical and operational definitions.

METHODS

Five databases were searched, followed by a systematic screening. Subsequently, attributes, illustrative cases, antecedents, consequences and empirical referents were formulated.

RESULTS

Of the 3793 studies identified, 42 unique references were included. Eleven attributes were identified: therapeutic exercise, psychological support, education, personalization, self-management, participation, follow-up, practice standard, goal-setting, social support, and dietary advice. Subsequently, illustrative cases were described. Antecedents, such as motivation, preparedness and a multidisciplinary team, were found, together with consequences such as decreased pain, less sick-leave and increased function and work status. Finally, examples of empirical referents were given.

CONCLUSION

This study identified the attributes that are necessary to develop biopsychosocial rehabilitation intervention programmes for chronic low back pain. The defined concept of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain may serve as a solid base to further develop and apply interventions. Future research should focus on the objectification of biopsychosocial rehabilitation and conceptualization regarding how personalization is done.

The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Education for Preventing and Treating Non-Specific Low Back Pain in the Hispanic Cultural Setting: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of education programs to prevent and treat low back pain (LBP) in the Hispanic cultural setting. Electronic and manual searches identified 1148 unique references. Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Back Pain Review Group. Education programs which were assessed focused on active management (3 studies), postural hygiene (7), exercise (4) and pain neurophysiology (1). Comparators were no intervention, usual care, exercise, other types of education, and different combinations of these procedures. Five RCTs had a low risk of bias. Results show that: (a) education programs in the school setting can transmit potentially useful knowledge for LBP prevention and (b) education programs for patients with LBP improve the outcomes of usual care, especially in terms of disability. Education on pain neurophysiology improves the results of education on exercise, and education on active management is more effective than “sham” education and education on postural hygiene. Future studies should assess the comparative or summatory effects of education on exercise, education on pain neurophysiology and education on active management, as well as explore their efficiency.

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL intervention for non-specific SUBACUTE low back pain in a working population: a cluster randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial condition with individual and societal impact that affects populations globally. Current guidelines for the treatment of LBP recommend pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. The aim of this study was to compare usual clinical practice with the effectiveness of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in reducing disability, severity of pain and improving quality of life in a working population of patients with subacute (2-12 weeks), non-specific LBP.

METHODS

Longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 39 Primary Health Care Centres (PHCC) of Barcelona, with patients aged 18-65 years (n = 501; control group = 239; 26 PHCC, intervention group = 262; 13 PHCC). The control group received usual clinical care. The intervention group received usual clinical care plus a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention, which consisted of physiotherapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy and medication. The main outcomes were changes in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the minimal clinically important differences. Secondary outcomes were changes in the McGill Pain (MGPQ) and Quality of Life (SF-12) questionnaires. Assessment was conducted at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat and analyst-blinded. Multiple imputations were used.

RESULTS

Of the 501 enrolled patients, 421 (84%) provided data at 3 months, and 387 (77.2%) at 12 months. Mean age was 46.8 years (SD: 11.5) and 64.7% were women. In the adjusted analysis of the RMDQ outcome, only the intervention group showed significant changes at 3 months (- 1.33 points, p = 0.005) and at 12 months (- 1.11 points, p = 0.027), but minimal clinically important difference were detected in both groups. In the adjusted analysis of the RMDQ outcome, the intervention group improvement more than the control group at 3 months (- 1.33 points, p = 0.005) and at 12 months (- 1.11 points, p = 0.027). The intervention group presented a significant difference. Both groups presented a minimal clinically important difference, but more difference in the intervention group. The intervention group presented significant differences in the MGPQ scales of current pain intensity and VAS scores at 3 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the physical and mental domains of the SF-12.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention in a working population with non-specific subacute LBP has a small positive impact on disability, and on the level of pain, mainly at short-term, but no difference on quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN21392091 (17 oct 2018) (Prospectively registred).

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is associated with enormous personal and societal burdens, especially when it reaches the chronic stage of the disorder (pain for a duration of more than three months). Indeed, individuals who reach the chronic stage tend to show a more persistent course, and they account for the majority of social and economic costs. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the importance of intervening at the early stages of LBP.According to the biopsychosocial model, LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological, and social influences. 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.This review is an update of a Cochrane Review on MBR for subacute LBP, which was published in 2003. It is part of a series of reviews on MBR for musculoskeletal pain published by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of MBR for subacute LBP (pain for a duration of six to 12 weeks) among adults, with a focus on pain, back-specific disability, and work status.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant trials in any language by a computer-aided search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and two trials registers. Our search is current to 13 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with subacute LBP. We included studies that investigated a MBR program compared to any type of control intervention. We defined MBR as an intervention that included a physical component (e.g. pharmacological, physical therapy) in combination with either a psychological, social, or occupational component (or any combination of these). We also required involvement of healthcare professionals from at least two different clinical backgrounds with appropriate training to deliver the component for which they were responsible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In particular, the data extraction and 'risk of bias' assessment were conducted by two people, independently. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias and the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of nine RCTs (981 participants) in this review. Five studies were conducted in Europe and four in North America. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 351. The mean age across trials ranged between 32.0 and 43.7 years.All included studies were judged as having high risk of performance bias and high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding, and four of the nine studies suffered from at least one additional source of possible bias.In MBR compared to usual care for subacute LBP, individuals receiving MBR had less pain (four studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.21, moderate-quality of evidence due to risk of bias) and less disability (three studies with 240 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.01, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency), as well as increased likelihood of return-to-work (three studies with 170 participants; OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.98, very low-quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision) and fewer sick leave days (two studies with 210 participants; SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.66 to -0.10, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) at 12-month follow-up. The effect sizes for pain and disability were low in terms of clinical meaningfulness, whereas effects for work-related outcomes were in the moderate range.However, when comparing MBR to other treatments (i.e. brief intervention with features from a light mobilization program and a graded activity program, functional restoration, brief clinical intervention including education and advice on exercise, and psychological counselling), we found no differences between the groups in terms of pain (two studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), functional disability (two studies with 345 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.18, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), and time away from work (two studies with 158 participants; SMD -0.25 95% CI -0.98 to 0.47, very low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias). Return-to-work was not reported in any of the studies.Although we looked for adverse events in both comparisons, none of the included studies reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On average, people with subacute LBP who receive MBR will do better than if they receive usual care, but it is not clear whether they do better than people who receive some other type of treatment. However, the available research provides mainly low to very low-quality evidence, thus additional high-quality trials are needed before we can describe the value of MBP for clinical practice.

How to engage occupational physicians in recruitment of research participants: a mixed-methods study of challenges and opportunities

PURPOSE

To investigate barriers and facilitators for research participant recruitment by occupational physicians (OPs).

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with OPs to explore perceived barriers and facilitators for recruitment. Based on data of a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cluster-RCT), univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate associations between OPs' personal and work characteristics and the number of recruited participants for the cluster-RCT per OP.

RESULTS

Perceived barriers and facilitators for recruitment were categorised into: study characteristics (e.g. concise inclusion criteria); study population characteristics; OP's attention; OP's workload; context (e.g. working at different locations); and OP's characteristics (e.g. motivated to help). Important facilitators were encouragement by colleagues and reminders by information technology tools. Multivariate analyses showed that the number of OPs within the clinical unit who recruited participants was positively associated with the number of recruited participants per OP [rate ratio of 1.43, 95 % confidence interval 1.24-1.64].

CONCLUSIONS

When mobilising OPs for participant recruitment, researchers need to engage entire clinical units rather than approach OPs on an individual basis. OPs consider regular communication, especially face-to-face contact and information technology tools serving as reminders, as helpful.

Management of low back pain in computer users: A multidisciplinary approach

Background:

Low back pain is a very common phenomenon in computer users. More than 80% people using computers for more than 4 h complain of back pain.

Objective:

To compare the effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment approach and conventional treatment approach amongst computer users.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective interventional study was carried out at a private spine clinic amongst the computer users with the complaint of low back pain. The study participants were randomly distributed in two groups. The first group comprised the study participants treated by conventional approach and the second group was treated by multidisciplinary approach. Primary outcomes analyzed were pain intensity, sick leave availed, and quality of life. Statistical analysis was done using proportions, unpaired “t” test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results:

Totally 44 study participants were randomly assigned to groups I and II, and each group had 22 study participants. Intensity of pain was reduced significantly in the group treated by multidisciplinary approach (t = 5.718; P = 0.0001). Similarly only 4 (19.19%) of the study participants of the group treated by multidisciplinary approach availed sick leave due to low back pain, while 14 (63.63%) study participants availed sick leave in the other group (P = 0.02). The quality of life amongst the study participants treated by multidisciplinary approach was significantly improved compared to the group treated by conventional approach (t = 7.037; P = 0.0001).

Conclusion and Recommendation:

The multidisciplinary treatment approach was better than the conventional treatment approach in low back pain cases when some factors like pain and quality of life were assessed. The multidisciplinary approach for treatment of low back pain should be promoted over conventional approach. Larger studies are required to confirm the findings in different settings.

Does the diagnosis influence the outcome in a multimodal outpatient pain management program for low back pain and sciatica? A comparative study

The literature describes multimodal pain-management programs as successful therapy options in the conservative treatment of chronic low back pain. Yet, the intensity and inclusion criteria of such programs remain debatable. In many studies, the pain originating from spinal structures is described as nonspecific low back pain - a diffuse diagnosis without serious implications. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes between patients suffering from sciatica due to a discus intervertebralis herniation and those suffering from low back pain caused by facet joint disease after 3 weeks of treatment in an intense multimodal outpatient program in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the university hospital.

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

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP), with high incidence and prevalence rate, is one of the most common reasons to consult the health system and is responsible for a significant amount of sick leave, leading to high health and social costs. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial educational group intervention (MBEGI) of non-specific sub-acute LBP in comparison with the usual care in the working population recruited in primary healthcare centres.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study design is a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a MBEGI in comparison with the usual care of non-specific sub-acute LBP.Measures on effectiveness and costs of both interventions will be obtained from a cluster randomised controlled clinical trial carried out in 38 Catalan primary health care centres, enrolling 932 patients between 18 and 65 years old with a diagnosis of non-specific sub-acute LBP. Effectiveness measures are: pharmaceutical treatments, work sick leave (% and duration in days), Roland Morris disability, McGill pain intensity, Fear Avoidance Beliefs (FAB) and Golberg Questionnaires. Utility measures will be calculated from the SF-12. The analysis will be performed from a social perspective. The temporal horizon is at 3 months (change to chronic LBP) and 12 months (evaluate the outcomes at long term).Assessment of outcomes will be blinded and will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

DISCUSSION

We hope to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of MBEGI, see an improvement in the patients' quality of life, achieve a reduction in the duration of episodes and the chronicity of non-specific low back pain, and be able to report a decrease in the social costs. If the intervention is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, it could be applied to Primary Health Care Centres.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN58719694.