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).

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.

Risk-stratified and stepped models of care for back pain and osteoarthritis: are we heading towards a common model?

The overall quality of care for musculoskeletal pain conditions is suboptimal, partly due to a considerable evidence-practice gap. In osteoarthritis and low back pain, structured models of care exist to help overcome that challenge. In osteoarthritis, focus is on stepped care models, where treatment decisions are guided by response to treatment, and increasingly comprehensive interventions are only offered to people with inadequate response to more simple care. In low back pain, the most widely known approach is based on risk stratification, where patients with higher predicted risk of poor outcome are offered more comprehensive care. For both conditions, the recommended interventions and models of care share many commonalities and there is no evidence that one model of care is more effective than the other. Limitations of existing models of care include a lack of integrated information on social factors, comorbid conditions, and previous treatment experience, and they do not support an interplay between health care, self-management, and community-based activities. Moving forwards, a common model across musculoskeletal conditions seems realistic, which points to an opportunity for reducing the complexity of implementation. We foresee this development will use big data sources and machine-learning methods to combine stepped and risk-stratified care and to integrate self-management support and patient-centred care to a greater extent in future models of care.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. DESIGN: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. FUTURE WORK: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. 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. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sciatica is pain that spreads into the leg because of a trapped nerve in the lower back. It can be a very painful condition that affects everyday life and ability to work. People with sciatica usually see their general practitioner first; if they do not get better over time, they may be referred to a physiotherapist or, eventually, to a spinal specialist. It is difficult to know which sciatica patient will do well without much treatment and who might need to see a physiotherapist or spinal specialist sooner. Stratified care is an approach aiming to help decide, early on, which patients need to see which health professionals. It has previously been shown to be helpful for patients with lower-back pain. In a trial of 476 patients with sciatica a stratified care model was tested to see if it led to faster improvements in sciatica-related leg pain, when compared with usual care. Adults seeing their general practitioner with sciatica were invited to attend a research clinic. Those willing to take part were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care. Patients in the stratified care arm were referred either to physiotherapy for a short or a longer course of treatment, or to undergo magnetic resonance imaging and see a spinal specialist with the magnetic resonance imaging results within 4 weeks. Pain, function and quality-of-life data were collected over 12 months using text messages and questionnaires. Although patients in the stratified care arm improved slightly more quickly (2 weeks, on average), we did not find convincing evidence that stratified care led to better results than usual care. On average, most patients in both trial arms improved in a similar way over 12 months. The stratified care model tested in this trial did not lead to faster recovery for patients with sciatica than usual care.

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

INTRODUCTION: Self-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the 'SupportBack' internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12 months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14736486.

Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care. METHODS: We did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care. INTERPRETATION: The stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Computer-Based Stratified Primary Care for Musculoskeletal Consultations Compared With Usual Care: Study Protocol for the STarT MSK Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a major cause of pain and disability. We previously developed a prognostic tool (Start Back Tool) with demonstrated effectiveness in guiding primary care low back pain management by supporting decision making using matched treatments. A logical next step is to determine whether prognostic stratified care has benefits for a broader range of common MSK pain presentations. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to determine, in patients with 1 of the 5 most common MSK presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multisite pain), whether stratified care involving the use of the Keele Start MSK Tool to allocate individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, and matching these subgroups to recommended matched clinical management options, is clinical and cost-effective compared with usual nonstratified primary care. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm parallel (stratified vs nonstratified care), cluster randomized controlled trial, with a health economic analysis and mixed methods process evaluation. The setting is UK primary care, involving 24 average-sized general practices randomized (stratified by practice size) in a 1:1 ratio (12 per arm) with blinding of trial statistician and outcome data collectors. Randomization units are general practices, and units of observation are adult MSK consulters without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records are tagged and individuals invited using a general practitioner (GP) point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention is supported by an EMR template (computer-based) housing the Keele Start MSK Tool (to stratify into prognostic subgroups) and the recommended matched treatment options. The primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis is pain intensity, measured monthly over 6 months. Secondary outcomes include physical function and quality of life, and an anonymized EMR audit to capture clinician decision making. The economic evaluation is focused on the estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life years and MSK pain-related health care costs. The process evaluation is exploring a range of potential factors influencing the intervention and understanding how it is perceived by patients and clinicians, with quantitative analyses focusing on a priori hypothesized intervention targets and qualitative approaches using focus groups and interviews. The target sample size is 1200 patients from 24 general practices, with >5000 MSK consultations available for anonymized medical record data comparisons. RESULTS: Trial recruitment commenced on May 18, 2018, and ended on July 15, 2019, after a 14-month recruitment period in 24 GP practices. Follow-up and interview data collection was completed in February 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is the first attempt, as far as we know, at testing a prognostic stratified care approach for primary care patients with MSK pain. The results of this trial should be available by the summer of 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15366334; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15366334. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17939.

Costing Methodology and Key Drivers of Health Care Costs Within Economic Analyses in Musculoskeletal Community and Primary Care Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Background: Identifying variation in musculoskeletal service costs requires the use of specific standardized metrics. There has been a large focus on costing, efficiency, and standardized metrics within the acute musculoskeletal setting, but far less attention in primary care and community settings. Objectives: To (a) assess the quality of costing methods used within musculoskeletal economic analyses based primarily in primary and community settings and (b) identify which cost variables are the key drivers of musculoskeletal health care costs within these settings. Methods: Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, BNI, and HBE electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of costing methods using an established checklist. Results: Twenty-two studies met the review inclusion criteria. The majority of studies demonstrated moderate- to high-quality costing methods. Costing issues included studies failing to fully justify the economic perspective, and not distinguishing between short- and long-run costs. Highest unit costs were hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and imaging. Highest mean utilization were the following: general practitioner (GP) visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Highest mean costs per patient were GP visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Conclusion: This review identified a number of key resource use variables that are driving musculoskeletal health care costs in the community/primary care setting. High utilization of these resources (rather than high unit cost) appears to be the predominant factor increasing mean health care costs. There is, however, need for greater detail with capturing these key cost drivers, to further improve the accuracy of costing information.

How does perinatal maternal mental health explain early social inequalities in child behavioural and emotional problems? Findings from the Wirral Child Health and Development Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess how maternal mental health mediates the association between childhood socio-economic conditions at birth and subsequent child behavioural and emotional problem scores. METHODS: Analysis of the Wirral Child Health and Development Study (WCHADS), a prospective epidemiological longitudinal study of the early origins of child mental health (n = 664). Household income at 20-weeks gestation, a measure of socio-economic conditions (SECs) in pregnancy, was the main exposure. The outcome measure was externalising and internalising problems, as measured by the Child Behaviour Checklist at 5 years. We assessed the association of household income with child behavioural outcomes in sequential linear models adjusting for maternal mental health in the pre- and post- natal period. RESULTS: Children of mothers in more disadvantaged households had higher scores for externalising behaviour with a difference of 3.6 points comparing the most affluent to the most disadvantaged families (the socio-economic (SEC) gap). In our regression model adjusting for baseline confounders, comparing children of mothers in the most disadvantaged households to the least disadvantaged, we found that most disadvantaged children scored 45 percentage points (95% CI 9, 93) higher for externalising problems, and 42% of this difference was explained in the fully adjusted model. Adjusting for prenatal maternal depressive symptomology attenuated the SEC gap in externalising problems by about a third, rendering the association non-significant, whilst adjusting for pre- and post-natal maternal mental health attenuated the SEC gap by 42%. There was no significant relationship between household income and internalising problems. CONCLUSION: Social disadvantage is associated with higher child externalising behaviour problems score at age 5, and about 40% of this was explained by maternal perinatal mental health. Policies supporting maternal mental health in pregnancy are important to address the early emergence of inequalities in child mental health.

A conceptual framework for increasing clinical staff member involvement in general practice: a proposed strategy to improve the management of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain affects about 80% of all adults, many of whom consult general practice. Providing management can be challenging, in part due to the scarcity of effective treatment methods. There is broad consensus in international clinical practice guidelines to provide patients with information about the nature of their pain and recommend them to stay active despite discomfort. Delivering this information is time-demanding and challenged by the limited available resources in general practice in many countries. Furthermore, general practice settings are highly variable in size and in their composition of clinical staff members - which presents difficulties, but also opportunities for developing alternative approaches to clinical management. Expanding the patient consultation time by involving clinical staff members (aside from the general practitioner) has been found feasible for other conditions. We propose that this approach is applied for non-specific low back pain. Consequently, we suggest the involvement of clinical staff members as part of a new strategy for managing low back pain in general practice. MAIN TEXT: Multifaceted implementation strategies have the potential to effectively enable change in the clinical management of patients with low back pain in general practice if they are based on theory and are tailored to stake holders. Inspired by the Medical Research Council's guidance for complex interventions and the ChiPP (Change in professional performance) statement, we suggest applying the following two policy categories: organizational change (environmental/social planning) and service provision. This will involve attention to environmental restructuring, modelling, enabling, education, training, persuasion, and incentivising of general practices, with an over-arching strategy of involving clinical staff members in the management of low back pain. CONCLUSION: This is a pre-clinical proposal of a multifaceted strategy to support the delivery of evidence-based treatment for patients with low back pain in general practice. As an original idea, we suggest it would be feasible to involve clinical staff members in the delivery of information and advice to patients, whilst the general practitioner remains responsible for diagnostic decision-making.

Mapping early environment using communication deviance: A longitudinal study of maternal sensitivity toward 6-month-old children.

Communication deviance (CD) reflects features of the content or manner of a person's speech that may confuse the listener and inhibit the establishment of a shared focus of attention. The construct was developed in the context of the study of familial risks for psychosis based on hypotheses regarding its effects during childhood. It is not known whether parental CD is associated with nonverbal parental behaviors that may be important in early development. This study explored the association between CD in a cohort of mothers (n = 287) at 32 weeks gestation and maternal sensitivity with infants at 29 weeks in a standard play procedure. Maternal CD predicted lower overall maternal sensitivity (B = -.385; p < .001), and the effect was somewhat greater for sensitivity to infant distress (B = -.514; p < .001) than for sensitivity to nondistress (B = -.311; p < .01). After controlling for maternal age, IQ and depression, and for socioeconomic deprivation, the associations with overall sensitivity and sensitivity to distress remained significant. The findings provide new pointers to intergenerational transmission of vulnerability involving processes implicated in both verbal and nonverbal parental behaviors.

Advancing practice for back pain through stratified care (STarT Back).

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, however research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments over the last two decades conclude either no or small differences in the average effects of different treatments. One suggestion to explain this is that patients are not all the same and important subgroups exist that might require different treatment approaches. Stratified care for LBP involves identifying subgroups of patients and then delivering appropriate matched treatments. Research has shown that stratified care for LBP in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs and increase the efficiency of health-care delivery in the UK. The challenge now is to replicate and evaluate this approach in other countries health care systems and to support services to implement it in routine clinical care. RESULTS: The STarT Back approach to stratified care has been tested in the National Health Service, within the UK, it reduces unnecessary overtreatment in patients who have a good prognosis (those at low risk) yet increases the likelihood of appropriate healthcare and associated improved outcomes for those who are at risk of persistent disabling pain. The approach is cost-effective in the UK healthcare setting and has been recommended in recent guidelines and implemented as part of new LBP clinical pathways of care. This approach has subsequently generated international interest, a replication study is currently underway in Denmark, however, some lessons have already been learnt. There are potential obstacles to implementing stratified care in low-and-middle-income settings and in other high-income settings outside of the UK, however, implementation science literature can inform the development of innovations and efforts to support implementation of stratified care. CONCLUSIONS: The STarT Back approach to stratified care for LBP is a promising method to advance practice that has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK. Over time, further evidence for both the effectiveness and the adaptations needed to test and implement the STarT Back stratified care approach in other countries is needed.

Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

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.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy versus brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depression (IMPACT): a multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although there are effective psychological treatments for unipolar major depression in adolescents, whether or not one or more of the available therapies maintain reduced depressive symptoms 1 year after the end of treatment is not known. This is a non-trivial issue because maintaining lowered depressive symptoms below a clinical threshold level reduces the risk for diagnostic relapse into the adult years. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not either of two specialist psychological treatments, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (STPP), is more effective than a reference brief psychosocial intervention (BPI) in maintaining reduction of depression symptoms in the year after treatment. DESIGN: Observer-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 15 outpatient NHS clinics in the UK from East Anglia, north-west England and North London. PARTICIPANTS: Adolescents aged 11-17 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition major depression including those with suicidality, depressive psychosis and conduct disorder. Patients were randomised using stochastic minimisation controlling for age, sex and self-reported depression sum score; 470 patients were randomised and 465 were included in the analyses. INTERVENTIONS: In total, 154 adolescents received CBT, 156 received STPP and 155 received BPI. The trial lasted 86 weeks and study treatments were delivered in the first 36 weeks, with 52 weeks of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean sum score on self-reported depressive symptoms (primary outcome) at final study assessment (nominally 86 weeks, at least 52 weeks after end of treatment). Secondary measures were change in mean sum scores on self-reported anxiety symptoms and researcher-rated Health of the Nation scales for children and adolescents measuring psychosocial function. Following baseline assessment, there were a further five planned follow-up reassessments at nominal time points of 6, 12, 52 and 86 weeks post randomisation. RESULTS: There were non-inferiority effects of CBT compared with STPP [treatment effect by final follow-up = -0.578, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.948 to 4.104; p = 0.748]. There were no superiority effects for the two specialist treatments (CBT + STPP) compared with BPI (treatment effect by final follow-up = -1.898, 95% CI -4.922 to 1.126; p = 0.219). At final assessment there was no significant difference in the mean depressive symptom score between treatment groups. There was an average 49-52% reduction in depression symptoms by the end of the study. There were no differences in total costs or quality-of-life scores between treatment groups and prescribing a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) during treatment or follow-up did not differ between the therapy arms and, therefore, did not mediate the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The three psychological treatments differed markedly in theoretical and clinical approach and are associated with a similar degree of clinical improvement, cost-effectiveness and subsequent maintenance of lowered depressive symptoms. Both STPP and BPI offer an additional patient treatment choice, alongside CBT, for depressed adolescents attending specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Further research should focus on psychological mechanisms that are associated with treatment response, the maintenance of positive effects, determinants of non-response and whether or not brief psychotherapies are of use in primary care and community settings. LIMITATIONS: Neither reason for SSRI prescribing or monitoring of medication compliance was controlled for over the course of the study, and the economic results were limited by missing data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83033550. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Heath Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 12. See the National Institute for Heath Research Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Department of Health. The funders had no role in the study design, patient recruitment, data collection, analysis or writing of the study, any aspect pertinent to the study or the decision to submit to The Lancet.

Cognitive behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy versus a brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder (IMPACT): a multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychological treatments for adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder are associated with diagnostic remission within 28 weeks in 65-70% of patients. We aimed to assess the medium-term effects and costs of psychological therapies on maintenance of reduced depression symptoms 12 months after treatment. METHODS: We did this multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial (IMPACT) at 15 National Health Service child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) clinics in three regions in England. Adolescent patients (aged 11-17 years) with a diagnosis of DSM IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a web-based randomisation service, to receive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychoanalytical therapy versus a reference brief psychological intervention. Randomisation was stochastically minimised by age, sex, self-reported depression sum score, and region. Patients and clinicians were aware of group allocation, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors. Patients were followed up and reassessed at weeks 6, 12, 36, 52, and 86 post-randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported depression symptoms at weeks 36, 52, and 86, as measured with the self-reported Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ). Because our aim was to compare the two psychological therapies with the brief psychosocial intervention, we first established whether CBT was inferior to short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy for the same outcome. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN83033550. FINDINGS: Between June 29, 2010, and Jan 17, 2013, we randomly assigned 470 patients to receive the brief psychosocial intervention (n=158), CBT (n=155), or short-term psychoanalytical therapy (n=157); 465 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population. 392 (84%) patients had available data for primary analysis by the end of follow-up. Treatment fidelity and differentiation were established between the three interventions. The median number of treatment sessions differed significantly between patients in the brief psychosocial intervention group (n=6 [IQR 4-11]), CBT group (n=9 [5-14]), and short-term psychoanalytical therapy group (n=11 [5-23]; p<0·0001), but there was no difference between groups in the average duration of treatment (27·5 [SD 21·5], 24·9 [17·7], 27·9 [16·8] weeks, respectively; Kruskal-Wallis p=0·238). Self-reported depression symptoms did not differ significantly between patients given CBT and those given short-term psychoanalytical therapy at weeks 36 (treatment effect 0·179, 95% CI -3·731 to 4·088; p=0·929), 52 (0·307, -3·161 to 3·774; p=0·862), or 86 (0·578, -2·948 to 4·104; p=0·748). These two psychological treatments had no superiority effect compared with brief psychosocial intervention at weeks 36 (treatment effect -3·234, 95% CI -6·611 to 0·143; p=0·061), 52 (-2·806, -5·790 to 0·177; p=0·065), or 86 (-1·898, -4·922 to 1·126; p=0·219). Physical adverse events (self-reported breathing problems, sleep disturbances, drowsiness or tiredness, nausea, sweating, and being restless or overactive) did not differ between the groups. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence for the superiority of CBT or short-term psychoanalytical therapy compared with a brief psychosocial intervention in maintenance of reduced depression symptoms 12 months after treatment. Short-term psychoanalytical therapy was as effective as CBT and, together with brief psychosocial intervention, offers additional patient choice for psychological therapy, alongside CBT, for adolescents with moderate to severe depression who are attending routine specialist CAMHS clinics. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, and the Department of Health.

Transcultural adaption and psychometric properties of the STarT Back Screening Tool among Finnish low back pain patients.

PURPOSE: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a 9-item questionnaire designed for screening low back pain (LBP) patients into three prognostic groups for stratified care. The stratified care approach has proven to be clinically more beneficial and cost-effective than the current best physiotherapy practice. The objective of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and study psychometric properties of the SBST among Finnish LBP patients. METHODS: The SBST was translated into Finnish using appropriate translation guidelines. A total of 116 patients were recruited from outpatient clinics. They were asked to fill out two questionnaires within 1-7 days. The first questionnaire set included the SBST, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) and intensities of back and leg pain (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale). The second questionnaire form included the SBST and a question about persistence of symptoms. RESULTS: Some linguistic and cultural differences emerged during the translation process with item 1 ("spread down my legs"), item 2 ("neck and shoulder pain"), item 6 ("worrying thoughts") and item 9 ("bothersome"). The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.78) and of the psychosocial subscale good (0.68). Cronbach's alpha for the psychosocial subscale was 0.55. Spearman's correlation coefficient between SBST total score and BDI was 0.38, ODI 0.39, ÖMPSQ 0.45, intensity of leg pain 0.45 and LBP 0.31. Based on analysis of variance, the SBST discriminated low- and medium-risk groups better than medium- and high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Finnish translation of the SBST is linguistically accurate and has been adapted to the Finnish-speaking population. It showed to be a valid and reliable instrument and comparable with the original English version. Therefore, it may be used in clinical work with Finnish LBP patients.

Effect of stratified care for low back pain in family practice (IMPaCT Back): a prospective population-based sequential comparison.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician's clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. METHODS: The IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: The 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8-3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended.