825 DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANTICHOLINERGIC MEDICATION INDEX (ACMI)

Introduction

Medications with Anticholinergic (AC) properties, are prescribed to treat a range of conditions. Older people are increasingly likely to be prescribed multiple AC medications, but are also more likely to experience unwanted adverse effects, such as falls and delirium. The risks of adverse outcomes increase with the number and potency of AC medications prescribed. The aim of this study was to use a prognostic modelling approach to develop an AC Medication Index (ACMI) that identifies patients at high risk of AC medication side effects.

Methods

The prognostic model was developed using data on patients aged 65–95 years, registered with a general practice contributing data to ‘Connected Bradford’ in 2019. A Time-dependent Cox model was fitted, with hospital admission for delirium or falls as the composite outcome and AC medications, age, sex and important clinical factors (e.g. dementia, arthritis, urinary incontinence) as predictors. Concordance and Negalkerke’s R2 derived from five-fold cross-validation were used to assess model performance.

Results

There were 151,604 patients included in the study, of whom 47,035 (31.0%) were prescribed ≥1 AC medication during 2019. Codeine, Prednisolone, Furosemide and Amitriptyline were most commonly prescribed with 7.4%, 4.0%, 3.8% and 3.1% of patients prescribed these medications at least once in 2019, respectively. During 2019, 6,078 (4.0%) patients experienced a hospital admission with delirium or a fall, with the rate being increased in those prescribed ≥1 AC medication during 2019 (4.8% vs 3.7%; p < 0.001). The prognostic model yielded a discrimination statistic of 0.86 with an R2 of 0.1.

Conclusion

The model used to develop the ACMI shows good discrimination. External validation will soon be performed using data from the SAIL databank and the ACMI will be further developed as a tool for use in primary care.

102 Process Evaluation Exploring the Delivery and Uptake of Posture and Mobility Training for Staff in Care Homes

Introduction

Provision of care for care home residents with complex needs is challenging. Physiotherapists can play a major role in enhancing the confidence, skills and abilities of care home staff. The Skilful Care Training Package (SCTP) aims to provide staff with an understanding of good posture and training in skilled facilitation of movement. This process evaluation explored barriers and facilitators to delivery and uptake of the SCTP within the context of a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in 10 care homes.

Methods

A mixed methods process evaluation, incorporating non-participant observations and interviews, conducted in the five care homes receiving the SCTP intervention. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim; resident conversations were captured via a Dictaphone and/or field-notes. Data analysis used the Framework approach.

Results

Fourteen staff training sessions were observed. Interviews with 22 staff and four trainers, and 13 conversations with residents were completed. Five factors influenced delivery and uptake of the SCTP:Organisational factors: strategies to publicise and facilitate access to training improved attendance; a convenient training location and trainer flexibility encouraged attendance and staff engagement.Intervention delivery: a practical participatory element to the training was highly valued; adapting the training to meet the needs of the homes was well-received.Engagement and interaction: relating training to workplace and residents’ experiences engaged staff; high levels of engagement and positive interaction within the training sessions were reported; challenges relating to staff hierarchy affected training delivery in some homes.Intervention content: posture and mobility elements were seen as important; however, some repetition with prior training was highlighted.Training impact: there were indications that staff adopted SCTP techniques. Staff reported an increase in their wellbeing and confidence in movement facilitation; cascade training was reported in some homes.

Conclusions

Training was well-received, and feedback on its impact was largely positive. Practical elements were viewed favourably over classroom-based learning. Intervention content should be revised to optimise focus and avoid overlap with other training.

101 A Posture and Mobility Training Package for Care Home Staff: Results of A Cluster Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial

Introduction

Provision of care for care home residents with complex needs is challenging. Physiotherapy and activity interventions can improve physical well-being but are often time-limited and resource intensive. A sustainable approach is to enhance the confidence, skills and abilities of care home staff. This trial assessed the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of the Skilful Care Training Package (SCTP) - a posture and mobility training programme developed by physiotherapists for care home staff.

Methods

A parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was undertaken in ten care homes in Yorkshire. Five were randomised to receive SCTP, five to usual care. SCTP was delivered by specialist physiotherapists, with the intention of training all direct care staff. Following consent, data were collected from and about residents with restricted mobility (those fulfilling the eligibility criteria) at baseline, three and six months post-randomisation by blinded researchers. Outcome measurement included resident mobility, posture, pain and quality of life. The feasibility of recruitment, retention, data collection and intervention delivery was assessed.

Results

All residents (348) at participating homes were screened for eligibility. 250 were eligible and 146 took part. Follow-up was balanced between arms, with an overall loss-to-follow-up rate of 28.8% at six months. Where residents were available for six-month follow-up, proxy data provision was excellent (97.1% - 100% of expected data). Difficulty collecting data directly from residents was experienced (43.3% of expected data) due to high levels of cognitive impairment. Staff attendance at training met or was close to pre-specified criteria for acceptability in three homes, with 63.0%, 63.6% and 65.8% direct care staff attending all sessions, and >85% attending at least one session across all three homes. However attendance fell short of acceptability in two homes, with only 21.4% and 12.5% staff attending all sessions.

Conclusions

It is feasible to recruit and follow-up residents in a randomised trial comparing SCTP and usual care. Proxy data collection is a successful method, but collection of data from residents is difficult. Intervention delivery success was variable, illustrating heterogeneity between care homes. Future research will be informed by learning from those homes with greater intervention compliance. Work should be undertaken to investigate how best to collect meaningful data from residents.

Longer-term effectiveness of systemic family therapy compared with treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: An extended follow up of pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition frequent. Evidence for effective interventions to reduce self-harm is limited. Long term follow-up of existing studies is rare.

METHODS

Extended follow up, from 18 to at least 36-months, of the SHIFT trial: a pragmatic, multi-centre, individually-randomised, controlled trial involving young people (11-17) who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). SHIFT evaluated manualised family therapy (FT) versus treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months post-randomisation.We obtained ONS mortality data, adult mental health data, and further details of hospital attendance from routine Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data plus researcher follow-up. We assessed longer-term differences in outcome using multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards regression analysis, and assessed all-cause mortality and morbidity relating to hospital attendances for reasons other than self-harm.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 59793150.

OUTCOMES

The original sample of 832 were randomised between April 2010 and December 2013. Extended follow-up continued until February 2017 for a median 55·4 months (range 0-82·5 months), providing post 18-month data for 804 (96·6%) participants, of whom 785 (94·4%) had a minimum of 36-months follow-up.There was no evidence of a between-group difference in the primary outcome during the extended follow-up period (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·03; 95% CI: 0·83, 1·28; p-value=0·78), consistent with our findings in the original trial with 18 months follow-up (HR 1·14, 95% CI 0·87, 1·49; p-value 0·33). There was a reduced rate of self-harm in older participants aged 15-17 (HR 0·7, 95% CI 0·56, 0·88), as compared with those aged 11-14; and significantly increased rates of self-harm in participants whose index episode combined self-injury and poisoning (HR 1·8, 95% CI 1·2, 2·7). Two deaths were reported during the extended follow up period.

INTERPRETATION

For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, trial FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing subsequent hospitalisation for self-harm over 18 months or 36 months.

FUNDING

NIHR HTA Reference: 07/33/01.

Randomized controlled feasibility trial of supported self-management in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and an intellectual disability: OK Diabetes

AIMS

To undertake a feasibility randomized controlled trial of supported self-management vs treatment as usual in a population of adults with obesity, Type 2 diabetes and an intellectual disability.

METHODS

We conducted an individually randomized feasibility trial. Participants were adults aged >18 years with a mild or moderate intellectual disability, living in the community with Type 2 diabetes, on any therapy other than insulin. Participants had mental capacity to consent to research and the intervention. Inclusion criteria included HbA_1c > 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), BMI >25 kg/m² , or self-reported physical activity below national guideline levels. The experimental intervention was standardized supported self-management delivered by diabetes specialist nurses plus treatment as usual, compared with treatment as usual alone. Feasibility outcomes included: recruitment and retention; intervention acceptability and feasibility; data collection and completeness for physiological state and values for candidate primary outcomes (HbA_1c and BMI).

RESULTS

A total of 82 participants (89% of those contacted and eligible) were randomized. All supported self-management sessions were completed by 35/41 participants (85%); only four completed no sessions. Data on the follow-up candidate primary outcomes HbA_1c and BMI were obtained for 75/82 (91%) and 77/82 participants (94%), respectively. The mean baseline HbA_1c was 56±16.5 mmol/mol (7.3±1.5%) and the mean BMI was 34±7.6 kg/m² .

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to supported self-management and willingness to have blood taken for outcome measurement was good. A definitive randomized controlled trial is feasible in this population. (Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033).

A cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke: the TRACS trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of stroke patients are discharged home dependent on informal caregivers, usually family members, to provide assistance with activities of daily living (ADL), including bathing, dressing and toileting. Many caregivers feel unprepared for this role and this may have a detrimental effect on both the patient and caregiver.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether or not a structured, competency-based training programme for caregivers [the London Stroke Carer Training Course (LSCTC)] improved physical and psychological outcomes for patients and their caregivers after disabling stroke, and to determine if such a training programme is cost-effective.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Stratified randomisation of 36 stroke rehabilitation units (SRUs) to the intervention or control group by geographical region and quality of care.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 930 stroke patient and caregiver dyads were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had a confirmed diagnosis of stroke, were medically stable, were likely to return home with residual disability at the time of discharge and had a caregiver available, willing and able to provide support after discharge. The caregiver was defined as the main person--other than health, social or voluntary care provider--helping with ADL and/or advocating on behalf of the patient.

INTERVENTION

The intervention (the LSCTC) comprised a number of caregiver training sessions and competency assessment delivered by SRU staff while the patient was in the SRU and one recommended follow-up session after discharge. The control group continued to provide usual care according to national guidelines. Recruitment was completed by independent researchers and participants were unaware of the SRUs' allocation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were self-reported extended ADL for the patient and caregiver burden measured at 6 months after recruitment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, mood and cost-effectiveness, with final follow-up at 12 months.

RESULTS

No differences in primary outcomes were found between the groups at 6 months. Adjusted mean differences were -0.2 points [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to 2.5 points; p = 0.866; intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.027] for the patient Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living score and 0.5 points (95% CI -1.7 to 2.7 points; p = 0.660; ICC = 0.013) for the Caregiver Burden Scale. Furthermore, no differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. Intervention compliance varied across the units. Half of the participating centres had a compliance rating of > 60%. Analysis showed no evidence of higher levels of patient independence or lower levels of caregiver burden in the SRUs with better levels of intervention compliance. The economic evaluation suggests that from a patient and caregiver perspective, health and social care costs, societal costs and outcomes are similar for the intervention and control groups at 6 months, 12 months and over 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

We have conducted a robust multicentre, cluster randomised trial, demonstrating for the first time that this methodology is feasible in stroke rehabilitation research. There was no difference between the LSCTC and usual care with respect to improving stroke patients' recovery, reducing caregivers' burden, or improving other physical and psychological outcomes, nor was it cost-effective compared with usual care. Compliance with the intervention varied, but analysis indicated that a dose effect was unlikely. It is possible that the immediate post-stroke period may not be the ideal time for the delivery of structured training. The intervention approach might be more relevant if delivered after discharge by community-based teams.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49208824.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the MRC and is managed by the NIHR (project number 09/800/10) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Trials in primary care: statistical issues in the design, conduct and evaluation of complex interventions

Trials carried out in primary care typically involve complex interventions that require considerable planning if they are to be implemented successfully. The role of the statistician in promoting both robust study design and appropriate statistical analysis is an important contribution to a multi-disciplinary primary care research group. Issues in the design of complex interventions have been addressed in the Medical Research Council's new guidance document and over the past 7 years by the Royal Statistical Society's Primary Health Care Study Group. With the aim of raising the profile of statistics and building research capability in this area, particularly with respect to methodological issues, the study group meetings have covered a wide range of topics that have been of interest to statisticians and non-statisticians alike. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the statistical issues that have arisen over the years related to the design and evaluation of trials in primary care, to provide useful examples and references for further study and ultimately to promote good practice in the conduct of complex interventions carried out in primary care and other health care settings. Throughout we have given particular emphasis to statistical issues related to the design of cluster randomised trials.

Do baseline characteristics predict response to treatment for low back pain? Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset [ISRCTN32683578]

OBJECTIVES

To identify characteristics of randomized controlled trial participants which predict greater benefits from physical treatments for low back pain. If successful, this would allow more appropriate selection of patients for different treatments.

METHODS

We did a secondary analysis of the UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation trial (UK BEAM n = 1334) dataset to identify baseline characteristics predicting response to manipulation, exercise and manipulation followed by exercise (combined treatment). Rather than simply identifying factors associated with overall outcome, we tested for the statistical significance of the interaction between treatment allocation, baseline characteristics and outcome to identify factors that predicted response to treatment. We also did a post-hoc subgroup analysis to present separate results for trial participants with subacute and chronic low back pain to inform future evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

Age, work status, age of leaving school, 'pain and disability', 'quality of life' and 'beliefs' at baseline all predicted overall outcome. None of these predicted response to treatment. In those allocated to combined treatment, there was a suggestion that expecting treatment to be helpful might improve outcome at 1 yr. Episode length at study entry did not predict response to treatment.

CONCLUSION

Baseline participant characteristics did not predict response to the UK BEAM treatment packages. Using recognized prognostic variables to select patients for different treatment packages, without first demonstrating that these factors affect response to treatment, may be inappropriate. In particular, this analysis suggests that the distinction between subacute and chronic low back pain may not be useful when considering treatment choices.

What are the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of doctors and nurses undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

DESIGN

The study was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Zelen's randomisation before consent was used to minimise distortion of existing practice in the participating sites. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial, assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of nurses and doctors.

SETTING

The study was undertaken in 23 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales. In six hospitals nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 'centres'. The study was coordinated and managed from Swansea. Randomisation, data management and analysis were undertaken at York. Analysis was by intention-to-scope.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-seven doctors and 30 nurses took part in the study. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, 4128 (83%) were randomised. Of these, 1888 (45%) were recruited to the study from 29 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

The procedures under study were diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy undertaken by nurses or doctors, with or without sedation, using the preparation, techniques and protocols of participating hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Questionnaire (GSRQ). The secondary outcome measures were EuroQol (EQ5D), Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), cost-effectiveness, immediate and delayed complications, quality of examination by blinded assessment of endoscopic video recordings, quality of procedure reports, patients' preferences for operator 1 year after endoscopy, and new diagnoses at 1 year.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinical characteristics. Significantly more patients changed from a planned endoscopy by a doctor to a nurse than vice versa, mainly for staffing reasons. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary or secondary outcome measures at 1 day, 1 month or 1 year after endoscopy, with the exception of patient satisfaction at 1 day, which favoured nurses. Nurses were significantly more thorough in the examination of stomach and oesophagus, but no different from doctors in the examination of duodenum and colon. There was no significant difference in costs to the NHS or patients, although doctors cost slightly more. Although quality of life measures showed improvement in some scores in the doctor group, this did not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. Even so, the economic evaluation, taking account of uncertainty in both costs and quality of life, suggests that endoscopy by doctors has an 87% chance of being more cost-effective than endoscopy by nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant difference between doctors and nurses in their clinical effectiveness in diagnostic endoscopy. However, nurses are significantly more thorough in the examination of oesophagus and stomach, and patients are significantly more satisfied after endoscopy by a nurse. Endoscopy by doctors is associated with better outcome at 1 year at higher cost, but overall is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurses undertaking a greater role in other settings, to monitor the cost-effectiveness of nurse endoscopists as they become more experienced and to assess, the effect of increasing the number of nurse endoscopists on waiting times for patients, and the career implications and opportunities for nurses who become trained endoscopists. Evaluation of the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic endoscopy for all current indications is also needed.

SETTING STANDARDS FOR TRAINING AND COMPETENCE: THE UK ALCOHOL TREATMENT TRIAL

AIMS

To examine factors that influence the recruitment and training of therapists and their achievement of competence to practise two psychological therapies for alcohol dependence, and the resources required to deliver this.

METHODS

The protocol for the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial required trial therapists to be competent in one of the two trial treatments: Social Behaviour and Network Therapy (SBNT) or Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET). Therapists were randomised to practise one or other type of therapy. To ensure standardisation and consistent delivery of treatment in the trial, the trial training centre trained and supervised all therapists.

RESULTS

Of 76 therapists recruited and randomised, 72 commenced training and 52 achieved competence to practise in the trial. Length of prior experience did not predict completion of training. However, therapists with a university higher qualification, and medical practitioners compared to other professionals, were more likely to complete. The average number of clients needed to be treated before the trainee achieved competence was greater for MET than SBNT, and there was a longer duration of training for MET.

CONCLUSIONS

Training therapists of differing professional backgrounds, randomised to provide a specific therapy type, is feasible. Supervision after initial training is important, and adds to the training costs.

Pharmaceutical care for elderly patients shared between community pharmacists and general practitioners: a randomised evaluation. RESPECT (Randomised Evaluation of Shared Prescribing for Elderly people in the Community over Time) [ISRCTN16932128]

BACKGROUND

This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness and cost implications of 'pharmaceutical care' provided by community pharmacists to elderly patients in the community. As the UK government has proposed that by 2004 pharmaceutical care services should extend nationwide, this provides an opportunity to evaluate the effect of pharmaceutical care for the elderly.

DESIGN

The trial design is a randomised multiple interrupted time series. We aim to recruit 700 patients from about 20 general practices, each associated with about three community pharmacies, from each of the five Primary Care Trusts in North and East Yorkshire. We shall randomise the five resulting groups of practices, pharmacies and patients to begin pharmaceutical care in five successive phases. All five will act as controls until they receive the intervention in a random sequence. Until they receive training community pharmacists will provide their usual dispensing services and so act as controls. The community pharmacists and general practitioners will receive training in pharmaceutical care for the elderly. Once trained, community pharmacists will meet recruited patients, either in their pharmacies (in a consultation room or dispensary to preserve confidentiality) or at home. They will identify drug-related issues/problems, and design a pharmaceutical care plan in conjunction with both the GP and the patient. They will implement, monitor, and update this plan monthly. The primary outcome measure is the 'Medication Appropriateness Index'. Secondary measures include adverse events, quality of life, and patient knowledge and compliance. We shall also investigate the cost of pharmaceutical care to the NHS, to patients and to society as a whole.

UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578]

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has major health and social implications. Although there have been many randomised controlled trials of manipulation and exercise for the management of low back pain, the role of these two treatments in its routine management remains unclear. A previous trial comparing private chiropractic treatment with National Health Service (NHS) outpatient treatment, which found a benefit from chiropractic treatment, has been criticised because it did not take treatment location into account. There are data to suggest that general exercise programmes may have beneficial effects on low back pain. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded this major trial of physical treatments for back pain, based in primary care. It aims to establish if, when added to best care in general practice, a defined package of spinal manipulation and a defined programme of exercise classes (Back to Fitness) improve participant-assessed outcomes. Additionally the trial compares outcomes between participants receiving the spinal manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial using a 3 x 2 factorial design.

METHODS

We sought to randomise 1350 participants with simple low back pain of at least one month's duration. These came from 14 locations across the UK, each with a cluster of 10-15 general practices that were members of the MRC General Practice Research Framework (GPRF). All practices were trained in the active management of low back pain. Participants were randomised to this form of general practice care only, or this general practice care plus manipulation, or this general practice care plus exercise, or this general practice care plus manipulation followed by exercise. Those randomised to manipulation were further randomised to receive treatment in either NHS or private premises. Follow up was by postal questionnaire one, three and 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis will consider the main treatment effects before interactions between the two treatment packages. Economic analysis will estimate the cost per unit of health utility gained by adding either or both of the treatment packages to general practice care.

Effects of a medicine review and education programme for older people in general practice

AIMS

To determine whether a medicine review and education programme influences the compliance and knowledge of older people in general practice.

METHODS

Older people taking at least three medicines were randomly allocated to a control or intervention group. Both groups received three visits from a clinical pharmacist: Visit 1: Assessment and patients' medicines rationalized in intervention group. Visit 2: Intervention group given medicines education. Visit 3: Knowledge and compliance in both groups assessed by structured questionnaire

RESULTS

Compliance in the intervention group was 91.3%, compared with 79.5% in the control group (P < 0.0001). The number of intervention group patients correctly understanding the purpose of their medicines increased from 58% to 88% on the second visit, compared with 67% to 70% in the control group (P < 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

A general practice based medication review and education programme improved medicine compliance and knowledge of older people in the short term.

Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness of an exercise programme in a community setting for patients with low back pain to encourage a return to normal activities.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial of progressive exercise programme compared with usual primary care management. Patients' preferences for type of management were elicited independently of randomisation.

PARTICIPANTS

187 patients aged 18-60 years with mechanical low back pain of 4 weeks to 6 months' duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Exercise classes led by a physiotherapist that included strengthening exercises for all main muscle groups, stretching exercises, relaxation session, and brief education on back care. A cognitive-behavioural approach was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Assessments of debilitating effects of back pain before and after intervention and at 6 months and 1 year later. Measures included Roland disability questionnaire, Aberdeen back pain scale, pain diaries, and use of healthcare services.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks after randomisation, the intervention group improved marginally more than the control group on the disability questionnaire and reported less distressing pain. At 6 months and 1 year, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in the disability questionnaire score (mean difference in changes 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 2.57). At 1 year, the intervention group also showed significantly greater improvement in the Aberdeen back pain scale (4.44, 1.01 to 7.87) and reported only 378 days off work compared with 607 in the control group. The intervention group used fewer healthcare resources. Outcome was not influenced by patients' preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

The exercise class was more clinically effective than traditional general practitioner management, regardless of patient preference, and was cost effective.