scholarly journals Effectiveness and cost-utility of a multifaceted eHealth strategy to improve back pain beliefs of patients with non-specific low back pain: a cluster randomised trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e030879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnela Suman ◽  
Frederieke G. Schaafsma ◽  
Johanna M. van Dongen ◽  
Petra J.M. Elders ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Beliefs ◽  
Cluster Randomised

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and cost-utility of a multifaceted eHealth strategy compared to usual care in improving patients’ back pain beliefs, and in decreasing disability and absenteeism.DesignStepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation.SettingDutch primary healthcare.ParticipantsPatients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain by their general practitioner or physiotherapist. Patients with serious comorbidities or confirmed pregnancy were excluded. 779 patients were randomised into intervention group (n=331, 59% female; 60.4% completed study) or control group (n=448, 57% female; 77.5% completed study).InterventionsThe intervention consisted of a multifaceted eHealth strategy that included a (mobile) website, digital monthly newsletters, and social media platforms. The website provided information about back pain, practical advice (eg, on self-management), working and returning to work with back pain, exercise tips, and short video messages from healthcare providers and patients providing information and tips. The control consisted of a digital patient information letter. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was back pain beliefs. Secondary outcome measures were disability and absenteeism, and for the preplanned economic evaluation quality of life and societal costs were measured.ResultsThere were no between-group differences in back pain beliefs, disability, or absenteeism. Mean intervention costs were €70— and the societal cost difference was €535—in favour of the intervention group, but no significant cost savings were found. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that the intervention dominated usual care and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.85 on a willingness-to-pay of €10.000/quality adjusted life year (QALY).ConclusionsA multifaceted eHealth strategy was not effective in improving patients’ back pain beliefs or in decreasing disability and absenteeism, but showed promising cost-utility results based on QALYs.Trial registration numberNTR4329.

Precommitting to choose wisely about low-value services: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 355-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Todd Kullgren ◽  
Erin Krupka ◽  
Abigail Schachter ◽  
Ariel Linden ◽  
Jacquelyn Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Choosing Wisely ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Intervention Period ◽  
Cluster Randomised

BackgroundLittle is known about how to discourage clinicians from ordering low-value services. Our objective was to test whether clinicians committing their future selves (ie, precommitting) to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations with decision supports could decrease potentially low-value orders.MethodsWe conducted a 12-month stepped wedge cluster randomised trial among 45 primary care physicians and advanced practice providers in six adult primary care clinics of a US community group practice.Clinicians were invited to precommit to Choosing Wisely recommendations against imaging for uncomplicated low back pain, imaging for uncomplicated headaches and unnecessary antibiotics for acute sinusitis. Clinicians who precommitted received 1–6 months of point-of-care precommitment reminders as well as patient education handouts and weekly emails with resources to support communication about low-value services.The primary outcome was the difference between control and intervention period percentages of visits with potentially low-value orders. Secondary outcomes were differences between control and intervention period percentages of visits with possible alternate orders, and differences between control and 3-month postintervention follow-up period percentages of visits with potentially low-value orders.ResultsThe intervention was not associated with a change in the percentage of visits with potentially low-value orders overall, for headaches or for acute sinusitis, but was associated with a 1.7% overall increase in alternate orders (p=0.01). For low back pain, the intervention was associated with a 1.2% decrease in the percentage of visits with potentially low-value orders (p=0.001) and a 1.9% increase in the percentage of visits with alternate orders (p=0.007). No changes were sustained in follow-up.ConclusionClinician precommitment to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations was associated with a small, unsustained decrease in potentially low-value orders for only one of three targeted conditions and may have increased alternate orders.Trial registration numberNCT02247050; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of workplace active rest programme on low back pain in office workers: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e040101
Author(s):  
Yamato Tsuboi ◽  
Tomohiro Oka ◽  
Kiyomasa Nakatsuka ◽  
Tsunenori Isa ◽  
Rei Ono
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of workplace active rest programme (WARP) on chronic low back pain (LBP) among office workers.DesignA closed cohort, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted. The total duration of the study was 16 weeks (4 weeks for each step). Sequence allocation was randomised, but no one was blinded.SettingThis study was conducted in three offices in a Japanese electronics company. One office was for the administrative department, the others are for the engineering department.ParticipantsWe recruited 29 office workers with LBP greater than 3 months. LBP due to specific injury or disease was excluded. The median age was 38 years, and 26 (90%) were male. All participants completed the study.InterventionsIn the intervention phase, participants performed WARP comprising frequent stand-up and individualised brief exercise/physical activity during work. Physical therapists held an LBP workshop and developed tailor-made programmes before introducing WARP. We instructed participants to perform WARP at five timings during work. Control phase was set before the intervention and participants stayed as usual.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity of LBP assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. The secondary outcomes were work productivity loss measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire, LBP disability assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, psychosocial subscale assessed using the STarT Back Screening Tool and physical activity measured using triaxial accelerometers. These outcomes were collected at baseline and at 4-month follow-up evaluation.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, WARP did not show any significant effects on pain intensity (β, 0.01; 95% CI −0.50 to 0.52) and on the secondary outcomes. The median adherence to WARP was 28.6% (IQR, 16.8–41.1), which was equal to 1.43 times per day. No adverse effect was observed.ConclusionsThe present study was unable to confirm the effectiveness of active rest in improving LBP. Hence, further study needs to investigate its effectiveness.Trial registration numberUMIN000033210.

Effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve emergency department care of low back pain: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjqs-2020-012337
Author(s):  
Danielle M Coombs ◽  
Gustavo C Machado ◽  
Bethan Richards ◽  
Chris Needs ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Healthcare Utilisation ◽  
Multifaceted Intervention ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Care

BackgroundOveruse of lumbar imaging is common in the emergency department (ED). Few trials have examined interventions to address this. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain in the emergency department.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. After a 13-month control phase of usual care, the EDs received a multifaceted intervention to support guideline-endorsed care in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, every 4 weeks over a 4-month period. All sites were followed up for at least 3 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of low back pain presentations receiving lumbar imaging. Secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes included prescriptions of opioid and non-opioid pain medicines, inpatient admissions, length of ED stay, specialist referrals and re-presentations. Clinician beliefs and knowledge about low back pain care were measured before and after the intervention. Patient-reported pain, disability, quality of life and satisfaction were measured at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post ED presentation.ResultsA total of 269 ED clinicians and 4625 episodes of care for low back pain (4491 patients) were included. The data did not provide clear evidence that the intervention reduced lumbar imaging (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.29). It did reduce opioid use (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; p=0.006) and improved clinicians’ beliefs (mean difference (MD), 2.85; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.85; p<0.001; on a scale from 9 to 45) and knowledge about low back pain care (MD, 0.48; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83; p<0.01; on a scale from 0 to 11). There was no difference in pain scores at 1-week follow-up (MD, 0.04; 95% CI −1.00 to 1.08; p=0.94; on a scale from 0 to 10). A similar trend was observed for all other patient-reported outcomes and time points. This study found no effect on the other secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes.ConclusionIt is uncertain if a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain care decreased lumbar imaging in the ED; however, it did reduce opioid prescriptions without adversely affecting patient outcomes.Trial registration number ACTRN12617001160325.

scholarly journals ‘Screen and Treat for Anaemia Reduction (STAR)’ strategy: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in rural Telangana, India

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052238
Author(s):  
Bharati Kulkarni ◽  
Little Flower Augustine ◽  
Raghu Pullakhandam ◽  
Anju Sinha Pradhan ◽  
Teena Dasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Areas ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Population Mean ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionCurrent anaemia control programme focusing on prophylactic iron supplementation and facility-based screening with haemoglobin estimation is inadequate to reduce the high prevalence of anaemia in India. This study aims to examine the impact of community level ‘screen and treat’ strategy for increasing population mean haemoglobin and reducing anaemia prevalence in the rural population.Methods and analysisAn open-labelled cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in rural areas of Medchal district, Telangana, India. All individuals served by one Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) constitute one cluster and will be randomised in the ratio of 1:1 by covariate constrained randomisation. Eligible members aged between 6 months and 50 years (men, women, children and adolescents) will be included in the study. Intervention group will be screened for anaemia using a point of care haemoglobin estimation followed by treatment with iron–folic acid for 3 months. The intervention delivered by the ASHAs will be supported by an electronic decision support system and simplified medication regimen. Educational videos and interactive voice response system will be used to enhance compliance. The control group will continue to receive benefits of ongoing anaemia control programmes but there will be no active intervention by the study team. At 6 months, haemoglobin will be measured in participants from both arms. The primary outcome will be the difference in population mean haemoglobin in two arms and the secondary outcome will be the difference in the anaemia prevalence in two arms among 6–59 months old children. Multilevel models will be used for analysis accounting for data clustering.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the institutional ethics committee of National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to policymakers. Findings will also be shared with study participants and community leaders.Trial registration numberCTRI/2019/01/016918.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document