The Clinical Effectiveness of a Physiotherapy Delivered Physical and Psychological Group Intervention for Older Adults With Neurogenic Claudication: The BOOST Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic claudication (NC) is a debilitating spinal condition affecting older adults' mobility and quality of life. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 438 participants evaluated the effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST program) compared to physiotherapy assessment and tailored advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with NC. Participants were identified from spinal clinics (community and secondary care) and general practice records and randomized 2:1 to the BOOST program or BPA. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data were also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and falls. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 74.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.0) and 57% (246/435) were female. There was no significant difference in ODI scores between treatment groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference [MD]: -1.4 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -4.03, 1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favored the BOOST program (adjusted MD: -3.7 [95% CI -6.27, -1.06]). At 12 months, the BOOST program resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD: 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD: -0.2 [95% CI -0.45, -0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio: 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA. No serious adverse events were related to either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST program substantially improved mobility for older adults with NC. Future iterations of the program will consider ways to improve long-term pain-related disability. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN12698674.

Progressive exercise compared with best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for rotator cuff disorders: the GRASP factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design). SETTING: Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment. LIMITATIONS: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The rotator cuff is a group of muscles and tendons that stabilise the shoulder and allow it to move. Problems with the rotator cuff are very common. Symptoms include pain, which can affect a person's ability to work, sleep well or perform daily tasks. It is not known which treatments work best for shoulder pain, how exactly they should be delivered and whether or not people do better if they are given a steroid injection. The GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial tested whether or not people with a rotator cuff disorder would do better after a progressive exercise programme (supervised by a physiotherapist over six appointments spread out over 16 weeks) compared with a one-off best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. The trial also tested whether or not giving a corticosteroid injection in the shoulder before starting either regime would help people recover more. We assessed the cost of delivering these treatments to the NHS. We recruited 708 people from 20 NHS-based musculoskeletal centres in the UK. People were allocated to one of four treatment groups at random: (1) progressive exercise (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (one physiotherapy session). Trial participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that asked about their level of shoulder pain and their ability to perform basic daily tasks before treatment, and then again at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. Participants' shoulder pain and function improved over time in each of the four treatment groups. The GRASP trial showed that there was no difference between the best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist and the more comprehensive exercise programme. Corticosteroid injection improved people's shoulder pain and function, but only by a small amount and in the short term. No serious side effects were observed during the 12-month follow-up period. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection is likely to be most cost-effective to the NHS.

Progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of patients with rotator cuff disorders (GRASP): a multicentre, pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy exercise programmes are commonly used to treat rotator cuff disorders but the treatments' effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme with a single session of best practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial (2 × 2 factorial), we recruited patients from 20 UK National Health Service trusts. We included patients aged 18 years or older with a rotator cuff disorder (new episode within the past 6 months). Patients were excluded if they had a history of significant shoulder trauma (eg, dislocation, fracture, or full-thickness tear requiring surgery), neurological disease affecting the shoulder, other shoulder conditions (eg, inflammatory arthritis, frozen shoulder, or glenohumeral joint instability), received corticosteroid injection or physiotherapy for shoulder pain in the past 6 months, or were being considered for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (centralised computer-generated system, 1:1:1:1) to progressive exercise (≤6 sessions), best practice advice (one session), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise, or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (statistical significance set at 1%). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ISRCTN16539266, and EuDRACT, 2016-002991-28. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2017, and May 2, 2019, we screened 2287 patients. 708 patients were randomly assigned to progressive exercise (n=174), best practice advice (n=174), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n=182), or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (n=178). Over 12 months, SPADI data were available for 166 (95%) patients in the progressive exercise group, 164 (94%) in the best practice advice group, 177 (97%) in the corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise group, and 175 (98%) in the corticosteroid injection then best practice advice group. We found no evidence of a difference in SPADI score between progressive exercise and best practice advice when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -0·66 [99% CI -4·52 to 3·20]). We also found no evidence of a difference between corticosteroid injection compared with no injection when analysed over 12 months (-1·11 [-4·47 to 2·26]). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best practice advice session with a physiotherapist in improving shoulder pain and function. Subacromial corticosteroid injection provided no long-term benefit in patients with rotator cuff disorders. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment Programme.

Evaluating the impact of a champion on implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme in Canada: a mixed methods feasibility study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is global recognition that low back pain (LBP) should be managed with a biopsychosocial approach. Previous implementation of this approach resulted in low uptake and highlighted the need for ongoing support. This study aims to explore the feasibility of (i) training and using a champion to support implementation, (ii) using a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), (iii) collecting patient reported outcome measures in a Canadian public healthcare setting and to identify contextual barriers to implementation. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster RCT with embedded qualitative study with physiotherapists treating LBP in publicly funded physiotherapy departments in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Participants will complete a previously developed online training course to equip them to deliver a biopsychosocial intervention for LBP. Clusters randomised to the intervention arm will receive additional support from a champion. A minimum champion training package has been developed based on known barriers in the literature. This includes strategies to target barriers relating to group-based scheduling issues, lack of managerial support, perceived patient factors such as addressing patient expectations for other types of treatments or selecting which patients might be best suited for this intervention, and anxiety about delivering something new. This package will be further codeveloped with study champions based on identified implementation barriers using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Clusters will be monitored for 6 months to assess champion and physiotherapist recruitment and retention, acceptability and implementation of the champion training, and the viability of conducting a cluster RCT in this setting. A purposive sample of physiotherapists will be interviewed from both arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Authority in December 2018. Results will be disseminated to academic audiences through conferences and peer reviewed publications; to all study participants, their clinical leads, and patients with LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04377529; Memorial University of Newfoundland Protocol Record 20190025; Pre-results.

Evaluation of the implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme using online training: a cohort implementation study.

OBJECTIVES: 1) Evaluate implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme, a group cognitive behavioural approach for patients with low back pain (LBP) developed for a clinical trial, into the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom; 2) Compare patient outcomes with the BeST Trial results. DESIGN: Two stage observational cohort implementation study. PARTICIPANTS: Stage 1: NHS Clinicians enrolled in BeST online training. Stage 2: Patients with LBP attending NHS physiotherapy departments and enrolled in the BeST programme. INTERVENTION: An online training and implementation programme. OUTCOMES: Stage 1: LBP attitudes and beliefs, self-rated competence, intention and actual implementation were collected before, immediately, 4- and 12-months post-training. Stage 2: Patients rated pain, function, recovery and satisfaction before and up to one year after attending the BeST programme. RESULTS: Stage 1: 1324 clinicians (157 NHS Trusts) enrolled in the training; 586 (44%) clinicians (101 NHS Trusts) completed training; 443/586 (76%) clinicians provided post-training data; 253/443 (57%) clinicians intended to implement the programme; 148/381 (39%) clinicians (54 NHS Trusts) provided follow-up data; 49/148 (33.1%) clinicians (27 NHS Trusts) implemented the programme. Attitudes and beliefs shifted towards a biopsychosocial model post-training. Stage 2: 923 patients were enrolled. Patients reported improvements in function (mean change: 1.55; 95%CI: 1.25, 1.86) and pain (-0.84; -1.1, -0.58) at follow-up. The majority rated themselves improved and satisfied with the programme. CONCLUSION: Online training had good reach into NHS Trusts although, not everyone went onto implement the programme. Improvements in function that were consistent with the original trial were demonstrated.

Development and implementation of the physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for the treatment of rotator cuff disorders for the 'Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain' (GRASP) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain (GRASP) trial is a large-scale, multicentre, 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial investigating clinical and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme versus best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for treating people with rotator cuff disorders. Here we describe the development, implementation and details of the physiotherapy-led interventions. METHODS: Medical Research Council guidance for developing complex interventions were used, taking into account clinical guidelines, expert and patient opinion, research evidence, current practice variation, and deliverability. A stakeholder meeting of 26 experts, clinicians, researchers, and patient representatives was used to design key components of the interventions. Stakeholders prioritised strengthening posterior rotator cuff muscles and using practical, easy-to-do exercises. The interventions were designed to be deliverable across the UK National Health Service. RESULTS: Progressive exercise consists of up to six sessions with a physiotherapist over 16 weeks. The best-practice advice consists of one face-to-face session with a physiotherapist with substantially greater reliance on self-management. Both interventions include self-management advice, home-exercise instruction, and behaviour-change strategies to target exercise adherence. All participants receive a Participant Information Booklet. The best-practice advice intervention is a self-guided system of progressively challenging exercises, with demonstration videos and written materials. The progressive exercise intervention has a wider range of exercise options, and greater flexibility for tailoring, progression, supervised practice and feedback. CONCLUSION: GRASP has recruited 708 participants and will provide high quality evidence to inform management of people with shoulder pain due to a rotator cuff disorder. Results are anticipated in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16539266; EudraCT number:2016-002991-28.

Development and delivery of the BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults with Spinal Trouble) intervention for older adults with neurogenic claudication.

Neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis is a common cause of disability in older adults. Conservative treatments are a favourable treatment option. This paper describes the development and delivery of the BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults with Spinal Trouble) intervention, a physiotherapist-delivered physical and psychological intervention for the management of neurogenic claudication in older adults. The BOOST intervention is being tested in a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial in UK National Health Service Trusts; delivered by physiotherapists registered with the Health and Care Professionals Council. Participants are aged 65 years or older, registered with a primary care practice, and report symptoms consistent with neurogenic claudication. Intervention content and delivery was initially informed by clinical and patient experts, research evidence, and behaviour change guidelines; and refined following an intervention development day attended by researchers, health professionals, and Patient and Public Involvement representatives. The BOOST intervention comprises 12 group sessions, promoting sustained adherence with a long term home and physical activity programme. Each session includes education and group discussion, individually tailored exercises, and walking. Initial exercise levels are set at a one-to-one assessment. Continued home exercise adherence and increased physical activity following completion of the sessions is facilitated through support telephone calls. Trial registration ISRCTN12698674.

Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) Trial: a randomised controlled trial of a combined physical and psychological intervention for older adults with neurogenic claudication, a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis is common in older adults. The effectiveness of conservative interventions is not known. The aim of the study is to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentred, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to a combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme) or best practice advice (control). Community-dwelling adults, 65 years and over, with neurogenic claudication are identified from community and secondary care services. Recruitment is supplemented using a primary care-based cohort. Participants are registered prospectively and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (intervention:control) using a web-based service to ensure allocation concealment. The target sample size is a minimum of 402. The BOOST programme consists of an individual assessment and twelve 90 min classes, including education and discussion underpinned by cognitive behavioural techniques, exercises and walking circuit. During and after the classes, participants undertake home exercises and there are two support telephone calls to promote adherence with the exercises. Best practice advice is delivered in one to three individual sessions with a physiotherapist. The primary outcome is the Oswestry Disability Index at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the 6 Minute Walk Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Gait Self-Efficacy Scale. Outcomes are measured at 6 and 12 months by researchers who are masked to treatment allocation. The primary statistical analysis will be by 'intention to treat'. There is a parallel health economic evaluation and qualitative study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist. The results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. A plain English summary will be published on the BOOST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12698674; Pre-results.

Physiotherapist-delivered cognitive-behavioural interventions are effective for low back pain, but can they be replicated in clinical practice? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To determine if physiotherapist-led cognitive-behavioural (CB) interventions are effective for low back pain (LBP) and described sufficiently for replication. METHOD: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with LBP treated by physiotherapists using a CB intervention were included. Outcomes of disability, pain, and quality of life were assessed using the GRADE approach. Intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. RESULTS: Of 1898 titles, 5 RCTs (n = 1390) were identified. Compared to education and/or exercise interventions, we found high-quality evidence that CB had a greater effect (SMD; 95% CI) on reducing disability (-0.19; -0.32, -0.07), pain (-0.21; -0.33, -0.09); and moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quality of life (-0.06; -0.18 to 0.07). Sufficient information was provided on dose, setting, and provider; but not content and procedural information. Studies tended to report the type of CB component used (e.g., challenging unhelpful thoughts) with little detail on how it was operationalised. Moreover, access to treatment manuals, patient materials and provider training was lacking. CONCLUSIONS: With additional training, physiotherapists can deliver effective CB interventions. However, without training or resources, successful translation and implementation remains unlikely. Researchers should improve reporting of procedural information, provide relevant materials, and offer accessible provider training. Implications for Rehabilitation Previous reviews have established that traditional biomedical-based treatments (e.g., acupuncture, manual therapy, massage, and specific exercise programmes) that focus only on physical symptoms do provide short-term benefits but the sustained effect is questionable. A cognitive-behavioural (CB) approach includes techniques to target both physical and psychosocial symptoms related to pain and provides patients with long-lasting skills to manage these symptoms on their own. This combined method has been used in a variety of settings delivered by different health care professionals and has been shown to produce long-term effects on patient outcomes. What has been unclear is if these programmes are effective when delivered by physiotherapists in routine physiotherapy settings. Our study synthesises the evidence for this context. We have confirmed with high-quality evidence that with additional training, physiotherapists can deliver CB interventions that are effective for patients with back pain. Physiotherapists who are considering enhancing their treatment for patients with low back pain should consider undertaking some additional training in how to incorporate CB techniques into their practice to optimise treatment benefits and help patients receive long-lasting treatment effects. Importantly, our results indicate that using a CB approach, including a variety of CB techniques that could be easily adopted in a physical therapy setting, provides greater benefits for patient outcomes compared to brief education, exercise or physical techniques (such as manual therapy) alone. This provides further support that a combined treatment approach is likely better than one based on physical techniques alone. Notably, we identified a significant barrier to adopting any of these CB interventions in practice. This is because no study provided a description of the intervention or accessible training materials that would allow for accurate replication. Without access to provider training and/or resources, we cannot expect this evidence to be implemented in practice with optimal effects. Thus, we would urge physiotherapists to directly contact authors of the studies for more information on how to incorporate their interventions into their settings.

Exploring physiotherapists' experiences of implementing a cognitive behavioural approach for managing low back pain and identifying barriers to long-term implementation.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were two-fold: (i) to describe physiotherapists' experiences of implementing a cognitive behavioural approach (CBA) for managing low back pain (LBP) after completing an extensive online training course (iBeST), and (ii) to identify how iBeST could be enhanced to support long-term implementation before scale up for widespread use. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 physiotherapists from six National Health Service departments in the Midlands, Oxfordshire and Derbyshire. Questions centred on (i) using iBeST to support implementation, (ii) what barriers they encountered to implementation and (iii) what of information or resources they required to support sustained implementation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed using NVivo. Themes were categorised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Evidence-based techniques were identified using the behaviour change technique taxonomy to target relevant TDF domains. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from interviews: anxieties about using a CBA, experiences of implementing a CBA, and sustainability for future implementation of a CBA. Themes crossed multiple TDF domains and indicated concerns with knowledge, beliefs about capabilities and consequences, social and professional roles, social influences, emotion, and environmental context and resources. We identified evidence-based strategies that may support sustainable implementation of a CBA for LBP in a physiotherapy setting. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted potential challenges for physiotherapists in the provision of evidence-based LBP care within the current UK NHS. Using the TDF provided the foundation to develop a tailored, evidence-based, implementation intervention to support long term use of a CBA by physiotherapists managing LBP within UK NHS outpatient departments.

Explaining How Cognitive Behavioral Approaches Work for Low Back Pain: Mediation Analysis of the Back Skills Training Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: This is secondary research examining the longitudinal mediation effect within a structural equation model. OBJECTIVE: To identify possible mechanisms that mediate the effects of a cognitive behavioral approach upon disability and pain in low back pain patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cognitive behavioral interventions (CBIs) can improve pain and disability in low back pain (LBP) but the mechanisms of action are unclear. We used data from a large randomized controlled trial to investigate mediators of the treatment effect of CBI. METHODS: Pain self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and physical and mental functioning were selected as candidate mediators based on the theoretical rationale of the intervention. The primary treatment outcomes were the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the modified Von Korff scale (MVK pain and disability) at 12 months. We used structural equation models to estimate the contribution of mediators. All models were tested for goodness-of-fit using χ , Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, and Bentler Comparative Fit Index. RESULTS: We included 701 adults with LBP. The average RMDQ score at baseline for those on the intervention arm was 8.8 (Standard Deviation 5.0). The intervention was effective in reducing disability and pain at 12 months. Change in mental functioning was not a significant mediator. Changes to pain self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and physical functioning were causal mediators of the treatment effect at 12 months (RMDQ b= -0.149, P < 0.001; MVK-pain b = -0.181, P < 0.001 and MVK-disability b = -0.180, P < 0.001). Overall, the SEM model exceeded the threshold for acceptable goodness-of-fit. CONCLUSION: Fear avoidance and self-efficacy were important causal mediators of the cognitive behavioral treatment effect. Self-assessed change in physical function was a causal mediator but mental functioning was not. This suggests people need to experience meaningful change in physical function and beliefs but not in mental functioning associated with LBP, to achieve a treatment benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of rotator cuff disorders: protocol for a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial (the GRASP trial).

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is very common, with around 70% of cases due to disorders of the rotator cuff. Despite widespread provision of physiotherapy, there is uncertainty about which type of exercise and delivery mechanisms are associated with best outcomes. There is also uncertainty around the long-term benefits and harms of corticosteroid injection therapy, which is often used in addition to physiotherapy. The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of individually tailored, progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a large multicentre randomised controlled trial (2×2 factorial design). We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to a rotator cuff disorder as per British Elbow and Shoulder Society guidelines, not currently receiving physiotherapy or being considered for surgery, from at least eight UK National Health Service primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=704) will be randomised (centralised computer-generated 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio) to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (≤6 physiotherapy sessions); (2) best practice advice (one physiotherapy session); (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (≤6 sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (one session). The primary outcome is the mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are: pain and function SPADI subdomains; health-related quality of life (Five-Level version of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L); sleep disturbance; return to activity; global impression of change; health resource use; out-of-pocket expenses; work disability. A parallel within-trial economic evaluation will be conducted. The primary analysis will be intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee approval (REC: 16/SC/0508) has been obtained. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16539266; EudraCT number: 2016-002991-28.

Using mixed methods evaluation to assess the feasibility of online clinical training in evidence based interventions: a case study of cognitive behavioural treatment for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural (CB) approaches are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain (LBP). We developed the CB Back Skills Training programme (BeST) and previously provided evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness in a large pragmatic trial. However, practice change is challenged by a lack of treatment guidance and training for clinicians. We aimed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of an online programme (iBeST) for providing training in a CB approach. METHODS: This mixed methods study comprised an individually randomised controlled trial of 35 physiotherapists and an interview study of 8 physiotherapists. Participants were recruited from 8 National Health Service departments in England and allocated by a computer generated randomisation list to receive iBeST (n = 16) or a face-to-face workshop (n = 19). Knowledge (of a CB approach), clinical skills (unblinded assessment of CB skills in practice), self-efficacy (reported confidence in using new skills), attitudes (towards LBP management), and satisfaction were assessed after training. Engagement with iBeST was assessed with user analytics. Interviews explored acceptability and experiences with iBeST. Data sets were analysed independently and jointly interpreted. RESULTS: Fifteen (94 %) participants in the iBeST group and 16 (84 %) participants in the workshop group provided data immediately after training. We observed similar scores on knowledge (MD (95 % CI): 0.97 (-1.33, 3.26)), and self-efficacy to deliver the majority of the programme (MD (95 % CI) 0.25 (-1.7; 0.7)). However, the workshop group showed greater reduction in biomedical attitudes to LBP management (MD (95 % CI): -7.43 (-10.97, -3.89)). Clinical skills were assessed in 5 (33 %) iBeST participants and 7 (38 %) workshop participants within 6 months of training and were similar between groups (MD (95 % CI): 0.17(-0.2; 0.54)). Interviews highlighted that while initially sceptical, participants found iBeST acceptable. A number of strategies were identified to enhance future versions of iBeST such as including more skills practice. CONCLUSIONS: Combined quantitative and qualitative data indicated that online training was an acceptable and promising method for providing training in an evidence based complex intervention. With future enhancement, the potential reach of this training method may facilitate evidence-based practice through large scale upskilling of the workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82203145 (registered prospectively on 03.09.2012).

The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether cognitive behavioural (CB) approaches improve disability, pain, quality of life and/or work disability for patients with low back pain (LBP) of any duration and of any age. METHODS: Nine databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to November 2014. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual trials. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for two contrasts: CB versus no treatment (including wait-list and usual care (WL/UC)), and CB versus other guideline-based active treatment (GAT). RESULTS: The review included 23 studies with a total of 3359 participants. Of these, the majority studied patients with persistent LBP (>6 weeks; n=20). At long term follow-up, the pooled SMD for the WL/UC comparison was -0.19 (-0.38, 0.01) for disability, and -0.23 (-0.43, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. For the GAT comparison, at long term the pooled SMD was -0.83 (-1.46, -0.19) for disability and -0.48 (-0.93, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. While trials varied considerably in methodological quality, and in intervention factors such as provider, mode of delivery, dose, duration, and pragmatism, there were several examples of lower intensity, low cost interventions that were effective. CONCLUSION: CB interventions yield long-term improvements in pain, disability and quality of life in comparison to no treatment and other guideline-based active treatments for patients with LBP of any duration and of any age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42014010536.

Treatment compliance and effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain: a complier average causal effect approach to the BeST data set.

BACKGROUND: Group cognitive behavioural intervention (CBI) is effective in reducing low-back pain and disability in comparison to advice in primary care. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the impact of compliance on estimates of treatment effect and to identify factors associated with compliance. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, 701 adults with troublesome sub-acute or chronic low-back pain were recruited from 56 general practices. Participants were randomised to advice (control n = 233) or advice plus CBI (n = 468). Compliance was specified a priori as attending a minimum of three group sessions and the individual assessment. We estimated the complier average causal effect (CACE) of treatment. RESULTS: Comparison of the CACE estimate of the mean treatment difference to the intention-to-treat (ITT) estimate at 12 months showed a greater benefit of CBI amongst participants compliant with treatment on the Roland Morris Questionnaire (CACE: 1.6 points, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.74; ITT: 1.3 points, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.07), the Modified Von Korff disability score (CACE: 12.1 points, 95% CI 6.07 to 18.17; ITT: 8.6 points, 95% CI 4.58 to 12.64) and the Modified von Korff pain score (CACE: 10.4 points, 95% CI 4.64 to 16.10; ITT: 7.0 points, 95% CI 3.26 to 10.74). People who were non-compliant were younger and had higher pain scores at randomisation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment compliance is important in the effectiveness of group CBI. Younger people and those with more pain are at greater risk of non-compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN54717854.

Group cognitive behavioural interventions for low back pain in primary care: extended follow-up of the Back Skills Training Trial (ISRCTN54717854).

Group cognitive behavioural intervention (CBI) is effective in reducing low back pain and disability over a 12-month period, in comparison to best practice advice in primary care. The aim was to study the effects of this CBI beyond 12 months. We undertook an extended follow-up of our original randomised, controlled trial of a group CBI and best practice advice in primary care, in comparison to best practice advice alone. Participants were mailed a questionnaire including measures of disability, pain, health services resource use, and health-related quality of life. The time of extended follow-up ranged between 20 and 50 months (mean 34 months). Fifty-six percent (395 of 701) of the original cohort provided extended follow-up. Those who responded were older and had less disability and pain at baseline than did the original trial cohort. After 12 months, the improvements in pain and disability observed with CBI were sustained. For disability measures, the treatment difference in favour of CBI persisted (mean difference 1.3 Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire points, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 2.26; 5.5 Modified von Korff Scale disability points, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 10.64). There was no between-group difference in Modified von Korff Scale pain outcomes. The results suggest that the effects of a group CBI are maintained up to an average of 34 months. Although pain improves in response to best practice advice, longer-term recovery of disability remains substantially less.

Group cognitive behavioural treatment for low-back pain in primary care: a randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain is a common and costly problem. We estimated the effectiveness of a group cognitive behavioural intervention in addition to best practice advice in people with low-back pain in primary care. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with parallel cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in England, 701 adults with troublesome subacute or chronic low-back pain were recruited from 56 general practices and received an active management advisory consultation. Participants were randomly assigned by computer-generated block randomisation to receive an additional assessment and up to six sessions of a group cognitive behavioural intervention (n=468) or no further intervention (control; n=233). Primary outcomes were the change from baseline in Roland Morris disability questionnaire and modified Von Korff scores at 12 months. Assessment of outcomes was blinded and followed the intention-to-treat principle, including all randomised participants who provided follow-up data. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54717854. FINDINGS: 399 (85%) participants in the cognitive behavioural intervention group and 199 (85%) participants in the control group were included in the primary analysis at 12 months. The most frequent reason for participant withdrawal was unwillingness to complete questionnaires. At 12 months, mean change from baseline in the Roland Morris questionnaire score was 1.1 points (95% CI 0.39-1.72) in the control group and 2.4 points (1.89-2.84) in the cognitive behavioural intervention group (difference between groups 1.3 points, 0.56-2.06; p=0.0008). The modified Von Korff disability score changed by 5.4% (1.99-8.90) and 13.8% (11.39-16.28), respectively (difference between groups 8.4%, 4.47-12.32; p<0.0001). The modified Von Korff pain score changed by 6.4% (3.14-9.66) and 13.4% (10.77-15.96), respectively (difference between groups 7.0%, 3.12-10.81; p<0.0001). The additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from cognitive behavioural intervention was 0.099; the incremental cost per QALY was 1786 pound sterling, and the probability of cost-effectiveness was greater than 90% at a threshold of 3000 pound sterling per QALY. There were no serious adverse events attributable to either treatment. INTERPRETATION: Over 1 year, the cognitive behavioural intervention had a sustained effect on troublesome subacute and chronic low-back pain at a low cost to the health-care provider. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Development and delivery of a physiotherapy intervention for the early management of whiplash injuries: the Managing Injuries of Neck Trial (MINT) Intervention.

This paper describes the development and implementation of a physiotherapy intervention for a large multicentred randomised controlled trial of the early management of whiplash injuries in a National Health Service setting. Participants were eligible if they were classified as having whiplash-associated disorder grades I to III and self-referred for treatment within 6 weeks of injury. The intervention development was informed through a variety of methods including the current evidence base, published guidelines, clinician opinion, a pilot study and expert opinion. The intervention was targeted at known, potentially modifiable risk factors for poor recovery, and utilised manual therapy, exercises and psychological strategies. The treatment was individually tailored, with a maximum of six treatments allowed within the trial protocol over an 8-week period. The intervention was delivered to 300 participants. The amount and types of treatments delivered are described.

Design considerations in a clinical trial of a cognitive behavioural intervention for the management of low back pain in primary care: Back Skills Training Trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Risk factors for the development and persistence of LBP include physical and psychological factors. However, most research activity has focused on physical solutions including manipulation, exercise training and activity promotion. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomised controlled trial will establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group programme, based on cognitive behavioural principles, for the management of sub-acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Our primary outcomes are disease specific measures of pain and function. Secondary outcomes include back beliefs, generic health related quality of life and resource use. All outcomes are measured over 12 months. Participants randomised to the intervention arm are invited to attend up to six weekly sessions each of 90 minutes; each group has 6-8 participants. A parallel qualitative study will aid the evaluation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we describe the rationale and design of a randomised evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain.