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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control). METHODS: 1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406. FINDINGS: 851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06-2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25-1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19-0·45) and 0·19 (0·04-0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group. INTERPRETATION: The results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK.

A randomised clinical trial of subgrouping and targeted treatment for low back pain compared with best current care. The STarT Back Trial Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a major health problem and many sufferers develop persistent symptoms. Detecting relevant subgroups of patients with non-specific low back pain has been highlighted as a priority area for research, as this could enable better secondary prevention through the targeting of prognostic indicators for persistent, disabling symptoms. We plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to establish whether subgrouping using a novel tool, combined with targeted treatment, is better than best current care at reducing long-term disability from low back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: We will recruit 800 participants aged 18 years and over with non-specific low back pain from 8-10 GP practices within two Primary Care Trusts in Staffordshire, England. Our primary outcome measures are low back pain disability and catastrophising. Secondary outcomes include back pain intensity, global change, leg pain, fear avoidance, anxiety, depression, illness perceptions, patient satisfaction, overall health status and cost-effectiveness. Data will be collected before randomisation, and 4 and 12 months later. Participants are randomised to receive either newly developed interventions, delivered by trained physiotherapists and targeted according to subgroups defined by tool scores, or best current care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents detail on the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37113406.