Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Integrating Lay Health Coaches Into Primary Care: Acceptability, Credibility, and Effectiveness From the Provider Perspective.

The purpose of this mixed-methods, cross-sectional study was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness, and credibility of lay health coaches from the perspective of primary care personnel during coach integration into primary care teams through the Management of Diabetes in Everyday Life (MODEL) study. Surveys of 46 primary care clinic personnel were conducted in June 2017 and July 2017 to assess the acceptability, effectiveness, and credibility of lay health coaches in the clinics. Clinic personnel rated coach acceptability, impact, and credibility on a five-point Likert scale as 3.78, 3.76-4.04, and 3.71-3.95, respectively. Additionally, interviews revealed support for a team-based approach and recognition of the potential of coaches to enhance care. In the interviews clinic personnel also reported a lack of provider time to counsel patients as well as a need for improved provider-coach communication.

Design of the Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure Trial (SPINE CARE) study: Methods and lessons from a multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain (together, spine pain) are among the leading causes of medical visits, lost productivity, and disability. For most people, episodes of spine pain are self-limited; nevertheless, healthcare spending for this condition is extremely high. Focusing care on individuals at high-risk of progressing from acute to chronic pain may improve efficiency. Alternatively, postural therapies, which are frequently used by patients, may prevent the overuse of high-cost interventions while delivering equivalent outcomes. METHODS: The SPINE CARE (Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure) trial is a cluster-randomized multi-center pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and healthcare utilization of two interventions for primary care patients with acute and subacute spine pain. The study was conducted at 33 primary care clinics in geographically distinct regions of the United States. Individuals ≥18 years presenting to primary care with neck and/or back pain of ≤3 months' duration were randomized at the clinic-level to 1) usual care, 2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary approach called the Identify, Coordinate, and Enhance (ICE) care model, or 3) Individualized Postural Therapy (IPT), a standardized postural therapy method of care. The trial's two primary outcomes are change in function at 3 months and spine-related spending at one year. 2971 individuals were enrolled between June 2017 and March 2020. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. DISCUSSION: The SPINE CARE trial will determine the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of two interventions for patients with spine pain presenting to primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03083886.

Using Best Practices to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Case for the Motivational Interviewing Approach.

Future control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is dependent on the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Many factors have swayed the public's perception of this coronavirus and the new vaccinations, including misinformation, heightened emotions, and the divisive and tumultuous partisan climate. As such, vaccine hesitancy may be more prevalent for the COVID-19 vaccine than others. Healthcare workers are trusted sources of information and have the opportunity to influence an individual's choice to take the vaccine. For those who initially present as unwilling to be vaccinated, trying to persuade them with facts and scare tactics may cause more resistance. By using the communication approach of motivational interviewing, practitioners can support autonomy to reduce defensiveness, use a guiding style to elicit ambivalence and provide information, address personal agency to ensure that their patients understand that their efforts can reduce risk, and evoke a person's own argument for vaccination to decrease vaccine hesitancy.

Commitment strength in motivational interviewing and movement in exercise stage of change in women.

PURPOSE: Motivational interviewing (MI) increasingly is used in behavior change counseling. We explored whether commitment verbalized in an initial MI session predicted subsequent physical activity behavior. DATA SOURCES: As part of a 12-week walking program targeted at rural women, an initial MI session was held that was audio-recorded. We measured commitment strength during this MI session, stage of change (SOC) pre- and postintervention, and minutes of physical activity performed during the 12-week intervention for the 20 women in the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Commitment strength was significantly correlated with SOC, and SOC was significantly correlated with physical activity behavior. However, commitment strength did not predict physical activity. Further research is needed to determine if commitment strength predicts subsequent physical activity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding the role of the strength of a commitment statement made during an initial MI session could assist the APN in directing follow-up MI sessions. This information could be useful in improving the cost effectiveness and efficiency of conducting MI.

The Healthy Ageing Model: health behaviour change for older adults.

Proposed is a model of primary care for older adults with chronic health conditions that focuses on active engagement in health care. The Healthy Ageing Model is anchored in established theory on motivation and health behaviour change. The model draws on empirical and applied clinical underpinnings in such diverse areas as health promotion and education, treatment of addictions or obesity, management of chronic diseases, goal-setting, and coaching techniques. The conceptual foundation for the Healthy Ageing Model is described first, followed by a brief description of the key characteristics of the model. In conclusion, suggestions are offered for the clinical application and for further developing the model.

Motivational interviewing-based health coaching as a chronic care intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of motivational interviewing-based health coaching on a chronically ill group of participants compared with non-participants. Specifically, measures that could be directly attributed to a health coaching intervention on chronic illness were assessed. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study design. SETTING: A large medical university in the north-west United States. METHODS: One hundred and six chronically ill programme participants completed a health risk survey instrument prior to enrolment and again at approximately 8 months. Outcomes were compared with 230 chronically ill non-participants who completed the survey twice over a similar time frame. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used in conjunction with the propensity score to correct for selection bias. RESULTS: Compared with non-participants, programme participants improved their self-efficacy (P = 0.01), patient activation (P = 0.02), lifestyle change score (P = 0.01) and perceived health status (P = 0.03). Fewer participants increased their stages of change risk over time than non-participants (P < 0.01), and more participants decreased their stages of change risk over time than non-participants (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: These results support motivational interviewing-based health coaching as an effective chronic care management intervention in impacting outcome measures that could also serve well as a proxy in the absence of other clinical or cost indices.

Influencing patient adherence to treatment guidelines.

BACKGROUND: As chronic disease continues to weigh more heavily on health care resources, lifestyle management and compliance to treatment become paramount to patient care and care coordination. Although a wealth of information is available to the public regarding the basic tenets on exercise, nutrition, weight management, power of medications, and so forth, patients do not always modify their behavior accordingly to improve their overall health. Motivation seems to be both the key element as well as the central puzzle in efforts to change behavior. OBJECTIVE: To identify several strategies, including motivational interviewing, that can be used to reduce resistance and improve the odds of achieving positive clinical outcomes among noncompliant/resistant patients. SUMMARY: Providers once thought the following about nonadherent patients: They don't see (are in denial or lack insight), they don't know, they don't know how, and/or they don't care. However, instead of focusing on the reasons why people do not change, researchers in behavior change science recognize that the best questions to ask are: "Why do people change?" and "What can we do to help?" A worst-case scenario undermining positive clinical outcomes is one in which the provider is arguing for change while the patient argues against it. It is, therefore, more effective to enlist strategies that address the complex interaction of motivations, cues to action, perception of benefits and consequences, expectancies, environmental and cultural influences, self-efficacy, state of readiness to change, ambivalence, and implementation intentions. Motivational interviewing is one such approach that is evidence based and increasingly well proven. Motivational interviewing is a client-centered, goal-oriented method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence, and it offers more than simply wellintentioned advice or scare tactics. CONCLUSION: A client-centered approach is the most important component of a health coaching skill set. Patients can ascertain whether you are truly attempting to understand their situation instead of merely trying to manipulate them into change. Respecting each patient's autonomy, drawing out ambivalence about change, evoking change talk, and allowing the patient to develop and/or own the treatment plan greatly improve the odds of achieving positive clinical outcomes.

Disease management interventions II: What else is in the black box?

The success of any disease management (DM) program ultimately depends upon the ability and willingness of participants to change and maintain desired health behaviors. To achieve those results, DM program administrators have several issues to consider, including the type of behavioral change desired, the scope of intervention that the organization is willing and capable of implementing, and whether the appropriate support structures are available to ensure successful achievement of program goals. An understanding of these issues will assist program designers in selecting the appropriate change models. This paper serves as an extension of our prior paper in which eight core psychosocial behavioral change models were described. Here, five more recently developed theory-based approaches are introduced, providing readers with up-to-date information in this area.