Comparison of health-care utilization, costs and health-related quality of life across the subgroups defined by the Keele STarT MSK Tool.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe and compare health economic outcomes [health-care utilization and costs, work outcomes, and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L)] in patients classified into different levels-of-risk subgroups by the Keele STarT MSK Tool. METHODS: Data on health-care utilization, costs and EQ-5D-5L were collected from a health-care perspective within a primary care prospective observational cohort study. Patients presenting with one (or more) of the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations were included: back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain. Participants at low, medium and high risk of persistent disabling pain were compared in relation to mean health-care utilization and costs, health-related quality of life, and employment status. Regression analysis was used to estimate costs. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the mean (s.d.) total health-care (National Health Service and private) costs associated with the low, medium, and high-risk subgroups were £132.92 (167.88), £279.32 (462.98) and £476.07 (716.44), respectively. Mean health-related quality of life over the 6-month period was lower and more people changed their employment status in the high-risk subgroup compared with the medium- and low-risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subgroups of people with different levels of risk for poor musculoskeletal pain outcomes also have different levels of health-care utilization, health-care costs, health-related quality of life, and work outcomes. The findings show that the STarT MSK Tool not only identifies those at risk of a poorer outcome, but also those who will have more health-care visits and incur higher costs.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Matching the Outcomes to Treatment Targets of Exercise for Low Back Pain: Does it Make a Difference? Results of Secondary Analyses From Individual Patient Data of Randomised Controlled Trials and Pooling of Results Across Trials in Comparative Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether using a single matched or composite outcome might affect the results of previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing exercise for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The first objective was to explore whether a single matched outcome generated greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) when compared with the original unmatched primary outcome SMD. The second objective was to explore whether a composite measure, composed of matched outcomes, generated a greater SMD when compared with the original primary outcome SMD. DESIGN: We conducted exploratory secondary analyses of data. SETTING: Seven RCTs were included, of which 2 were based in the USA (University research clinic, Veterans Affairs medical center) and the UK (primary care clinics, nonmedical centers). One each were based in Norway (clinics), Brazil (primary care), and Japan (outpatient clinics). PARTICIPANTS: The first analysis comprised 1) 5 RCTs (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included (some) matched outcomes as secondary outcomes, and the second analysis comprised 2) 4 RCTs (n=864) that included multiple matched outcomes by developing composite outcomes (N=1897). INTERVENTION: Exercise compared with no exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite consisted of standardized averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the RCTs' primary outcome analyses. RESULTS: Of 5 RCTs, 3 had greater SMDs with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.04, 0.56], P=.02) compared with an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.19 [95% CI -0.03, 0.40] P=.09). Of 4 composite outcome analyses, 3 RCTs had greater SMDs in the composite outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.05, 0.51] P=.02) compared with the primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.24 [95% CI -0.04, 0.53] P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses suggest that using an outcome matched to exercise treatment targets in NSLBP RCTs may produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Composite outcomes could offer a meaningful way of investigating superiority of exercise than single domain outcomes.

Supported self-management for all with musculoskeletal pain: an inclusive approach to intervention development: the EASIER study.

BACKGROUND: Supported self-management interventions for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions may not adequately support those with limited health literacy, leading to inequalities in care and variable outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model for inclusive supported self-management intervention(s) for MSK pain that take account of health literacy. METHODS: A mixed methods study with four work-packages was conducted: work package 1: secondary analysis of existing data to identify potential targets for intervention; work package 2: evidence synthesis to assess effective components of self-management interventions taking into account health literacy; work package 3: views of community members and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on essential components; work package 4: triangulation of findings and an online modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on key components of a logic model. FINDINGS: Findings identified targets for intervention as self-efficacy, illness perceptions, and pain catastrophizing. A range of intervention components were identified (e.g. information in diverse formats offered at specific times, action planning and visual demonstrations of exercise). Support should be multi-professional using a combination of delivery modes (e.g. remote, face-to-face). CONCLUSIONS: This research has developed a patient-centred model for a multi-disciplinary, multi-modal approach to supported self-management for patients with MSK pain and varying levels of health literacy. The model is evidence-based and acceptable to both patients and HCPs, with potential for significant impact on the management of MSK pain and for improving patient health outcomes. Further work is needed to establish its efficacy.

Integrating case-finding and initial management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression into primary care long-term condition reviews: results from the ENHANCE pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is increasingly the norm; however, primary care remains focused on single diseases. Osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression are frequently comorbid with other long-term conditions (LTCs), but rarely prioritized by clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention integrating case-finding and management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression within LTC reviews. METHODS: A pilot stepped-wedge RCT across 4 general practices recruited patients aged ≥45 years attending routine LTC reviews. General practice nurses provided usual LTC reviews (control period), then, following training, delivered the ENHANCE LTC review (intervention period). Questionnaires, an ENHANCE EMIS-embedded template and consultation audio-recordings, were used in the evaluation. RESULTS: General practice recruitment and training attendance reached prespecified success criteria. Three hundred and eighteen of 466 (68%) of patients invited responded; however, more patients were recruited during the control period (206 control, 112 intervention). Eighty-two percent and 78% returned their 6-week and 6-month questionnaires, respectively. Integration of the ENHANCE LTC review into routine LTC reviews varied. Case-finding questions were generally used as intended for joint pain, but to a lesser extent for anxiety and depression. Initial management through referrals and signposting were lacking, and advice was more frequently provided for joint pain. The stepped-wedge design meant timing of the training was challenging and yielded differential recruitment. CONCLUSION: This pilot trial suggests that it is feasible to deliver a fully powered trial in primary care. Areas to optimize include improving the training and reconsidering the stepped-wedge design and the approach to recruitment by targeting those with greatest need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN: 12154418). Date registered: 6 August 15. Date first participant was enrolled: 13 July 2015. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12154418?q=depression%20schizophrenia&filters=conditionCategory:Not%20Applicable&sort=&offset=5&totalResults=9&page=1&pageSize=20&searchType=basic-search.

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A multi-centre pilot & feasibility randomised controlled trial (RaCeR).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation following surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n = 73) with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears scheduled for repair were recruited and randomly allocated remotely prior to surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Early patient-directed rehabilitation (n = 37); advised to remove their sling as soon as able and move as symptoms allow. Standard rehabilitation (n = 36); sling immobilisation for four weeks. MEASURES: (1) Randomisation of 20% or more eligible patients. (2) Difference in time out of sling of 40% or more between groups. (3) Follow-up greater than 70%. RESULTS: 73/185 (39%) potentially eligible patients were randomised. Twenty participants were withdrawn, 11 due to not receiving rotator cuff repair. The between-group difference in proportions of participants who exceeded the cut-off of 222.6 hours out of the sling was 50% (80% CI = 29%, 72%), with the early patient-directed rehabilitation group reporting greater time out of sling. 52/73 (71%) and 52/53 (98%) participants were followed-up at 12 weeks when withdrawals were included and excluded respectively. Eighteen full-thickness re-tears were reported (early patient-directed rehabilitation = 7, standard rehabilitation = 11). Five serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: A main randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require allocation of participants following surgery to counter the issue of withdrawal due to not receiving surgery.

Optimising outcomes of exercise and corticosteroid injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome: a factorial randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of (1) physiotherapist-led exercise versus an exercise leaflet, and (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection versus unguided injection for pain and function in subacromial pain (formerly impingement) syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: This was a single-blind 2×2 factorial randomised trial. Adults with SAPS were randomised equally to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise, (2) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet, (3) unguided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise and (4) unguided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), collected at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months and compared at 6 weeks for the injection interventions and 6 months for the exercise interventions by intention to treat. RESULTS: We recruited 256 participants (64 treatment per group). Response rates for the primary outcome were 94% at 6 weeks, 88% at 6 months and 80% at 12 months. Greater improvement in total SPADI score was seen with physiotherapist-led exercise than with the exercise leaflet at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -8.23; 95% CI -14.14 to -2.32). There were no significant differences between the injection groups at 6 weeks (-2.04; -7.29 to 3.22), 6 months (-2.36; -8.16 to 3.44) or 12 months (1.59; -5.54 to 8.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SAPS, physiotherapist-led exercise leads to greater improvements in pain and function than an exercise leaflet. Ultrasound guidance confers no additional benefit over unguided corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42399123.

Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care. METHODS: This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1-7 by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1-7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference -0.18; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1-7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).

Can patients with low health literacy be identified from routine primary care health records? A cross-sectional and prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with low health literacy (HL) are at increased risk of poor health outcomes, and receive less benefit from healthcare services. However, healthcare practitioners can effectively adapt healthcare information if they are aware of their patients' HL. Measurements are available to assess HL levels but may not be practical for use within primary care settings. New alternative methods based on demographic indicators have been successfully developed, and we aim to test if such methodology can be applied to routinely collected consultation records. METHODS: Secondary analysis was carried out from a recently completed prospective cohort study that investigated a primary care population who had consulted about a musculoskeletal pain problem. Participants completed questionnaires (assessing general health, HL, pain, and demographic information) at baseline and 6 months, with linked data from the participants' consultation records. The Single Item Literacy Screener was used as a benchmark for HL. We tested the performance of an existing demographic assessment of HL, whether this could be refined/improved further (using questionnaire data), and then test the application in primary care consultation data. Tests included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Finally, the completed model was tested prospectively using logistic regression producing odds ratios (OR) in the prediction of poor health outcomes (physical health and pain intensity). RESULTS: In total 1501 participants were included within the analysis and 16.1% were categorised as having low HL. Tests for the existing demographic assessment showed poor performance (AUC 0.52), refinement using additional components derived from the questionnaire improved the model (AUC 0.69), and the final model using data only from consultation data remained improved (AUC 0.64). Tests of this final consultation model in the prediction of outcomes showed those with low HL were 5 times more likely to report poor health (OR 5.1) and almost 4 times more likely to report higher pain intensity (OR 3.9). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown the feasibility of the assessment of HL using primary care consultation data, and that people indicated as having low HL have poorer health outcomes. Further refinement is now required to increase the accuracy of this method.

Cost-effectiveness of a model consultation to support self-management in patients with osteoarthritis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a model OA consultation for OA to support self-management compared with usual care. Methods: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the three-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire was undertaken from a UK National Health Service perspective alongside a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Differences in health outcomes between the model OA consultation and usual care arms were not statistically significant. On average, visits to the orthopaedic surgeon were lower in the model OA consultation arm by -0.28 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.06). The cost-utility analysis indicated that the model OA consultation was associated with a non-significant incremental cost of £-13.11 (95% CI: -81.09 to 54.85) and an incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) of -0.003 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02), with a 44% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. The percentage of participants who took time off and the associated productivity cost were lower in the model OA consultation arm. Conclusion: Implementing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines using a model OA consultation in primary care does not appear to lead to increased costs, but health outcomes remain very similar to usual care. Even though the intervention seems to reduce the demand for orthopaedic surgery, overall it is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Uptake of the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: a survey of older adults with joint pain.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability. NICE OA guidelines (2008) recommend that patients with OA should be offered core treatments in primary care. Assessments of OA management have identified a need to improve primary care of people with OA, as recorded use of interventions concordant with the NICE guidelines is suboptimal in primary care. The aim of this study was to i) describe the patient-reported uptake of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and ii) determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey mailed to adults aged ≥45 years (n = 28,443) from eight general practices in the UK as part of the MOSAICS study. Respondents who reported the presence of joint pain, a consultation in the previous 12 months for joint pain, and gave consent to medical record review formed the sample for this study. RESULTS: Four thousand fifty-nine respondents were included in the analysis (mean age 65.6 years (SD 11.2), 2300 (56.7%) females). 502 (12.4%) received an OA diagnosis in the previous 12 months. More participants reported using pharmacological treatments (e.g. paracetamol (31.3%), opioids (40.4%)) than non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. exercise (3.8%)). Those with an OA diagnosis were more likely to use written information (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.26,1.96), paracetamol (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05,1.62) and topical NSAIDs (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04,1.62) than those with a joint pain code. People aged ≥75 years were less likely to use written information (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40,0.79) and exercise (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25,0.55) and more likely to use paracetamol (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.38,2.65) than those aged < 75 years. CONCLUSION: The cross-sectional population survey was conducted to examine the uptake of the treatments that are recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and to determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. Non-pharmacological treatment was suboptimal compared to pharmacological treatment. Implementation of NICE guidelines needs to examine why non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, remain under-used especially among older people.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis is limited and conflicting. The primary objective of the Hip Injection Trial (HIT) is to compare pain intensity over 6 months, in people with hip OA between those receiving an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride plus best current treatment with those receiving best current treatment alone. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and to explore, in a linked qualitative study, the lived experiences of patients with hip OA and experiences and impact of, ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection. METHODS: The HIT trial is a pragmatic, three-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial in patients with painful hip OA with a linked qualitative study. The current protocol is described, in addition to details and rationale for amendments since trial registration. 204 patients with moderate-to-severe hip OA will be recruited. Participants are randomised on an equal basis (1:1:1 ratio) to one of three interventions: (1) best current treatment, (2) best current treatment plus ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg) with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or (3) best current treatment plus an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride alone. The primary endpoint is patient-reported hip pain intensity across 2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Recruitment is over 29 months with a 6-month follow-up period. To address the primary objective, the analysis will compare participants' 'average' follow-up pain NRS scores, based on a random effects linear repeated-measures model. Data on adverse events are collected and reported in accordance with national guidance and reviewed by external monitoring committees. Individual semi-structured interviews are being conducted with up to 30 trial participants across all three arms of the trial. DISCUSSION: To ensure healthcare services improve outcomes for patients, we need to ensure there is a robust and appropriate evidence-base to support clinical decision making. The HIT trial will answer important questions regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 50550256 , 28th July 2015.

The effects of implementing a point-of-care electronic template to prompt routine anxiety and depression screening in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (the Primary Care Osteoarthritis Trial): A cluster randomised trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40721988.

The Estimation and Inclusion of Presenteeism Costs in Applied Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Given the significant costs of reduced productivity (presenteeism) in comparison to absenteeism, and overall societal costs, presenteeism has a potentially important role to play in economic evaluations. However, these costs are often excluded. The objective of this study is to review applied cost of illness studies and economic evaluations to identify valuation methods used for, and impact of including presenteeism costs in practice. METHODS: A structured systematic review was carried out to explore (i) the extent to which presenteeism has been applied in cost of illness studies and economic evaluations and (ii) the overall impact of including presenteeism on overall costs and outcomes. Potential articles were identified by searching Medline, PsycINFO and NHS EED databases. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from economic evaluations and cost of illness studies incorporating presenteeism costs. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review which also demonstrated that presenteeism costs are rarely included in full economic evaluations. Estimation and monetisation methods differed between the instruments. The impact of disease on presenteeism whilst in paid work is high. CONCLUSIONS: The potential impact of presenteeism costs needs to be highlighted and greater consideration should be given to including these in economic evaluations and cost of illness studies. The importance of including presenteeism costs when conducting economic evaluation from a societal perspective should be emphasised in national economic guidelines and more methodological work is required to improve the practical application of presenteeism instruments to generate productivity cost estimates.

Valuing productivity costs using the friction-cost approach: Estimating friction-period estimates by occupational classifications for the UK.

The friction cost approach has been proposed as an alternative to the human capital approach in estimating productivity costs. However, it is difficult, in practice, to apply this approach due to limited availability of context-specific data. Using national and firm-level data on vacancy durations sourced from 4 organisations, we estimated vacancy durations, and consequently, length of friction period for the United Kingdom disaggregated by occupational classification. We found comparable estimates to previously reported friction periods elsewhere. The disaggregated friction period analysis confirmed occupational class has an effect on the estimated length of the friction period. The research presents estimates on vacancy durations and friction periods necessary to use the friction cost approach in a practical way in economic evaluations.

Multisite peripheral joint pain: a cross-sectional study of prevalence and impact on general health, quality of life, pain intensity and consultation behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Research into musculoskeletal conditions often focusses on pain at single sites, such as the knee, yet several studies have previously reported the high prevalence of multiple sites of musculoskeletal pain. The most common form of musculoskeletal condition is arthritis, with osteoarthritis (OA) the most common cause of joint pain in adults 45 years and over. However, there is limited recognition of the prevalence of multisite peripheral joint pain in those either living with or at risk of OA, therefore this study set out to estimate the prevalence of multisite peripheral joint pain in adults 45 years and older, and its impact on several dimensions of health. METHODS: A cross-sectional population survey was mailed to adults (n = 28,443) aged 45 years and over from eight general practices in the North West Midlands, United Kingdom (UK). Prevalence rates were established for multisite peripheral joint pain (pain in two or more sites; hands, hips, knees, feet). Impact was measured for general health (SF-12 MCS & PCS), QoL (EQ-5D), pain intensity (0-10 numerical ratings scale) and the number of consultations with a range of health care professionals. RESULTS: Of 15,083 responders (53%), multisite peripheral joint pain was reported by 54%. Peripheral joint pain was present in n = 11,928, of which 68% reported pain in multiple sites. Multisite peripheral joint pain was shown to be significantly associated with reduced physical (Mean difference = -5.9 95% CI -6.3,-5.5) and mental (-2.8 95% CI -3.2,-2.4) components of the SF-12, reduced QoL (-0.14 95% CI -0.15, -0.13), increased pain (+0.70 95% CI 0.62, 0.79) and increased odds of consultations with GPs (OR 2.4 95% CI 2.2, 2.6) and practice nurses (OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.1, 3.2) when compared to single site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite peripheral joint pain is prevalent in the population in adults 45 years and over and has a significant negative impact on several dimensions of health. Health care professionals should consider joint pain beyond the index site in order to address holistic management.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581).

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Reliability among clinicians diagnosing low back-related leg pain.

PURPOSE: To investigate agreement and reliability among clinicians when diagnosing low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care consulters. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were assessed by one of six physiotherapists and diagnosed as having either leg pain due to nerve root involvement (sciatica) or referred leg pain. Assessments were video recorded. In part one, the physiotherapists each viewed videos of six patients they had not assessed. In part two, videos were viewed by another six health professionals. All clinicians made an independent differential diagnosis and rated their confidence with diagnosis (range 50-100 %). RESULTS: In part one agreement was 72 % with fair inter-rater reliability (K = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.07, 0.63). Results for part two were almost identical (K = 0.34, 95 % CI 0.02, 0.69). Agreement and reliability indices improved as diagnostic confidence increased. CONCLUSION: Reliability was fair among clinicians from different backgrounds when diagnosing LBLP but improved substantially with high confidence in clinical diagnosis.

The outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care (NLC) for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial, the assessment of clinical effects followed a non-inferiority design, while patient satisfaction and cost assessments followed a superiority design. Participants were 181 adults with RA randomly assigned to either NLC or rheumatologist-led care (RLC), both arms carrying out their normal practice. The primary outcome was the disease activity score (DAS28) assessed at baseline, weeks 13, 26, 39 and 52; the non-inferiority margin being DAS28 change of 0.6. Mean differences between the groups were estimated controlling for covariates following per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) strategies. The economic evaluation (NHS and healthcare perspectives) estimated cost relative to change in DAS28 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from EQ5D. RESULTS: Demographics and baseline characteristics of patients under NLC (n=91) were comparable to those under RLC (n=90). Overall baseline-adjusted difference in DAS28 mean change (95% CI) for RLC minus NLC was -0.31 (-0.63 to 0.02) for PP and -0.15 (-0.45 to 0.14) for ITT analyses. Mean difference in healthcare cost (RLC minus NLC) was £710 (-£352, £1773) and -£128 (-£1263, £1006) for PP and ITT analyses, respectively. NLC was more cost-effective with respect to cost and DAS28, but not in relation to QALY utility scores. In all secondary outcomes, significance was met for non-inferiority of NLC. NLC had higher 'general satisfaction' scores than RLC in week 26. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide robust evidence to support non-inferiority of NLC in the management of RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29803766.