Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack). METHODS: Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference -0·5 [97·5% CI -1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (-0·6 [-1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care. INTERPRETATION: The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).

Reflections on co-production: Developing a dementia research funding application with a diverse lived experience group.

Introduction and Background to Study: Published work on dementia research co-production focuses on developing health and social care interventions. Less is written about practicalities and experiences of co-producing dementia research funding applications. UK public contributors are typically from white middle class populations. Widening involvement is essential for co-produced research that meaningfully addresses health inequalities. We provide an example of a diverse lived experience group co-producing a dementia research funding application. An NIHR Dementia Career Development award funded PPIE work to develop a broad research idea. A culturally diverse lived experience group consisted of one person living with dementia, four carers and one former carer. Virtual group sessions drew on each person's unique experiences and expertise. Two co-leads collaborated closely with the researcher. Methods: We reflected on our experiences of diversity and inclusion within the group, based on a coproduced set of questions to guide reflection. Written records of reflections were captured and refined by the group. Results: We structured reflections into three overarching categories: Diversity and inclusion, Benefits to group members and Challenges. The group felt empowered, heard, and like equals in the process. Members valued diversity and mutual learning within the group. Involvement of co-leads was seen as democratic and inclusive. Some members felt Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) discussions were challenging. Discussion and Conclusions: We share valuable lessons learned in the process, including suggestions for facilitating EDI discussions, building in funding for time and travel to support relationship building, and ensuring PPIE remuneration processes are accessible and streamlined.