Effectiveness and costs of a vocational advice service to improve work outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a cluster randomised trial (SWAP trial ISRCTN 52269669).

Musculoskeletal pain is a common cause of work absence, and early intervention is advocated to prevent the adverse health and economic consequences of longer-term absence. This cluster randomised controlled trial investigated the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into primary care to provide occupational support. Six general practices were randomised; patients were eligible if they were consulting their general practitioner with musculoskeletal pain and were employed and struggling at work or absent from work <6 months. Practices in the intervention arm could refer patients to a vocational advisor embedded within the practice providing a case-managed stepwise intervention addressing obstacles to working. The primary outcome was number of days off work, over 4 months. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 158) had fewer days work absence compared with the control arm (n = 180) (mean 9.3 [SD 21·7] vs 14·4 [SD 27·7]) days, incidence rate ratio 0·51 (95% confidence interval 0·26, 0·99), P = 0·048). The net societal benefit of the intervention compared with best care was £733: £748 gain (work absence) vs £15 loss (health care costs). The addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients consulting with musculoskeletal pain led to reduced absence and cost savings for society. If a similar early intervention to the one tested in this trial was implemented widely, it could potentially reduce days absent over 12 months by 16%, equating to an overall societal cost saving of approximately £500 million (US $6 billion) and requiring an investment of only £10 million.

Employer Policies and Practices to Manage and Prevent Disability: Conclusion to the Special Issue.

Purpose Research of employer policies and practices to manage and prevent disability spans many disciplines and perspectives, and there are many challenges related to stakeholder collaboration, data access, and interventions. The purpose of this article is to synthesize the findings from a conference and year-long collaboration among a group of invited researchers intended to spur new research innovations in this field. Methods A multidisciplinary team of 26 international researchers with published research in employer-based disability management or related fields were invited to attend a 3-day conference in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The conference goals were to review the status of current research of workplace disability management and prevention, examine its relevance for employer decision-making, compare conceptual frameworks or theoretical perspectives, and recommend future research directions. In this paper, we summarize key points from the 6 resulting papers, compare them with an earlier 2005 conference on improving return-to-work research, and conclude with recommendations for further overarching research directions. Results/Conclusion In comparison with the 2005 conference, a greater emphasis was placed on organizational and social factors, employer roles and responsibilities, methods of implementation, non-clinical approaches, and facilitating stay-at-work as well as return-to-work. A special panel of employer consultants and representatives who were featured at the 2015 conference reinforced the importance of organizational culture, leadership style, and financial decision-making strategies at the employer level. Based on the conference proceedings, we recommend that future research in this area should strive for: (a) broader inclusion of workers and workplaces; (b) attention to multilevel influences in the workplace;

Pain assessment in context: a state of the science review of the McGill pain questionnaire 40 years on.

The McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) and its later derivative the short form-MPQ have been used widely both in experimental and clinical pain studies. They have been of considerable importance in stimulating research into the perception of pain and now, with the publication of its latest variant, the short form-MPQ-2, it is appropriate to appraise their utility in the light of subsequent research into the nature of pain and the purpose of pain assessment. Following a description of the content and development of the questionnaires, issues of validity, reliability, and utility are addressed, not only in terms of the individual pain descriptors and the scales, but also in terms of methods of quantification. In addition, other methods of pain depiction are considered. In the second part of the review, advances in pain measurement and methodology, in the elucidation of pain mechanisms and pathways, in the psychology of pain, and in the nature of pain behavior are presented and their implications for pain assessment in general and the MPQ family of measures in particular will be addressed. It is suggested that pain assessment needs to be cast in its social context. We need to understand the influences on pain expression using a socio-communication model of pain that recognizes the function of pain and the importance of both innate pain responses and the effects of social learning. The review concludes with recommendations for future use of the MPQ and identifies a number of research challenges which lie ahead.

Implementing the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines: a mixed methods study and cluster randomised trial of a model osteoarthritis consultation in primary care--the Management of OsteoArthritis In Consultations (MOSAICS) study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is as yet no evidence on the feasibility of implementing recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines in primary care, or of the effect these recommendations have on the condition. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a model OA consultation (MOAC), implementing the core recommendations from the NICE OA guidelines in primary care. Secondary aims are to investigate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of the MOAC intervention; to develop and evaluate a training package for management of OA by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses; test the feasibility of deriving 'quality markers' of OA management using a new consultation template and medical record review; and describe the uptake of core NICE OA recommendations in participants aged 45 years and over with joint pain. DESIGN: A mixed methods study with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial. METHOD: This study was developed according to a defined theoretical framework (the Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement). An overarching model (the Normalisation Process Theory) will be employed to undertake a comprehensive 'whole-system' evaluation of the processes and outcomes of implementing the MOAC intervention. The primary outcome is general physical health (Short Form-12 Physical component score [PCS]) (Ware 1996). The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention at practice level will be assessed by comparing intervention and control practices using a Quality Indicators template and medical record review. Impact and acceptability of the intervention for patients will be assessed via self-completed outcome measures and semi-structured interviews. The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention and training for GPs and practice nurses will be evaluated using a variety of methods including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations. DISCUSSION: The main output from the study will be to determine whether the MOAC intervention is clinically and cost effective. Additional outputs will be the development of the MOAC for patients consulting with joint pain in primary care, training and educational materials, and resources for patients and professionals regarding supported self-management and uptake of NICE guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN06984617.

Rationale, design and methods of the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP): a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain (ISRCTN 52269669).

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is a major contributor to short and long term work absence. Patients seek care from their general practitioner (GP) and yet GPs often feel ill-equipped to deal with work issues. Providing a vocational case management service in primary care, to support patients with musculoskeletal problems to remain at or return to work, is one potential solution but requires robust evaluation to test clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol describes a cluster randomised controlled trial, with linked qualitative interviews, to investigate the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into general practice, to provide a structured approach to managing work related issues in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain who are absent from work or struggling to remain in work. General practices (n = 6) will be randomised to offer best current care or best current care plus a vocational advice service. Adults of working age who are absent from or struggling to remain in work due to a musculoskeletal pain problem will be invited to participate and 330 participants will be recruited. Data collection will be through patient completed questionnaires at baseline, 4 and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported work absence at 4 months. Incremental cost-utility analysis will be undertaken to calculate the cost per additional QALY gained and incremental net benefits. A linked interview study will explore the experiences of the vocational advice service from the perspectives of GPs, nurse practitioners (NPs), patients and vocational advisors. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the rationale, design, and methods of the Study of Work And Pain (SWAP) trial. The results of this trial will provide evidence to inform primary care practice and guide the development of services to provide support for musculoskeletal pain patients with work-related issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52269669.

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.

The importance of psychosocial influences on chronic pain.

SUMMARY Recent experimental and clinical studies into the nature of chronic pain and its development have highlighted the importance of psychosocial factors on the perception of pain and response to it. There have been advances in the understanding of not only the biological substrate, but also the nature and influence of specific psychological and social factors in particular. A range of new explanatory models have stimulated new approaches to treatment directed not only at the reduction of pain and its impact, but also at the identification of early indicators or risk factors for the development of chronicity. The purpose of this paper is to attempt a summary and integration of these diverse research findings and identify the next set of research challenges that might serve as a basis for more clearly focused and targeted approaches to multifaceted pain management and perhaps contribute to reduction in the burden of chronic pain.

The cost effectiveness of NHS physiotherapy support for occupational health (OH) services.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is detrimental to quality of life (QOL) and disruptive to activities of daily living. It also places a major economic burden on healthcare systems and wider society. In 2006, the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) established a three tiered self-referral Occupational Health Physiotherapy Pilot Project (OHPPP) comprising: 1.) telephone advice and triage, 2.) face-to-face physiotherapy assessment and treatment if required, and 3.) workplace assessment and a return-to-work facilitation package as appropriate. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the pilot service. METHODS: A pragmatic cohort study was undertaken, with all OHPPP service users between September 2008 and February 2009 being invited to participate. Participants were assessed on clinical status, yellow flags, sickness absence and work performance at baseline, after treatment and at 3 month follow up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from both top-down and bottom-up perspectives and cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (cost/QALY) was calculated. The cost-effectiveness analysis assessed the increase in service cost that would be necessary before the cost-effectiveness of the service was compromised. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients completed questionnaires at baseline. Of these, 486 were referred for face to face assessment with a physiotherapist and were included in the analysis for the current study. 264 (54.3%) and 199 (40.9%) were retained at end of treatment and 3 month follow up respectively. An improvement was observed at follow up in all the clinical outcomes assessed, as well as a reduction in healthcare resource usage and sickness absence, and improvement in self-reported work performance. Multivariate regression indicated that baseline and current physical health were associated with work-related outcomes at follow up. The costs of the service were £194-£360 per service user depending on the method used, and the health gains contributed to a cost/QALY of £1386-£7760, which would represent value for money according to current UK thresholds. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the service would remain cost effective until the service costs were increased to 160% per user. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic evaluation of the OHPPP indicated that it was likely to be feasible in terms of service usage and could potentially be cost effective in terms of QALYs. Further, the study confirmed that improving physical health status for musculoskeletal pain patients is important in reducing problems with work capacity and related costs. This study suggests that this type of service could be potentially be useful in reducing the burden of pain and should be further investigated, ideally via randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

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.

Overcoming pain as a barrier to work.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To consider whether pain is a barrier to work and if so how this can be overcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent findings demonstrate that in addition to absence, pain can lead to a significant loss of productivity. The reasons why employees take absence or attend work while ill are complex and include personal, social and moral pressures around absence, and personally and institutionally mediated presenteeism. Interventions have moved on from a purely biomedical or psychosocial focus towards integrated programmes supporting individuals in managing their pain in the workplace. SUMMARY: Pain is one of the leading causes of absenteeism and presenteeism with related costs for both employees and employers. Ongoing pain presents a number of physical, psychological and social obstacles to work, which may or may not be modifiable. A range of interventions has been tested in randomized trials with a recent move towards identifying and tackling musculoskeletal pain in the wider context as conceptualized by the flags framework. However, in order for any intervention to be successful in ensuring employees overcome pain as a barrier to work, there needs to be widespread change in behaviour with regard to occupational health in general and effective interventions need to be implemented in both workplace and healthcare settings.

Measuring practitioner/therapist effects in randomised trials of low back pain and neck pain interventions in primary care settings.

In psychological health treatment studies it has been shown that differences between therapists account for some of the non-specific effect of treatment but this phenomenon has not so far systematically been investigated in musculoskeletal disorders. In this study we evaluated and compared the size and potential influence of the 'practitioner effect' (or 'therapist effect') in three randomised treatment trials of low back pain and neck pain patients in primary care. We calculated the proportion of variance in outcomes attributable to differences across practitioners, i.e. the practitioner-variance partition coefficient (p-vpc). As measures of outcome, we focused on self-reported disability as the primary outcome, but we also investigated assessed psychological outcomes. The p-vpc for the disability measures ranged from 2.6% to 7.1% across trials and time points (post treatment and follow up). Estimates differed between treatment subgroups within trials; being highest in treatment subgroups assigned to psychosocial-based interventions. A 'practitioner effect' does exist and is more pronounced in treatments involving greater psychosocial emphasis. This has implications for both practice and research in this clinical area. It highlights the importance of patient-practitioner interactions, and the need to address practitioner effects in designing and analysing outcome studies in low back pain and neck pain in primary care.

Examination of the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire in public sector workers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of the Work and Organization Assessment Questionnaire (WOAQ) for public sector data. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in public sector organizations measuring demographics, work characteristics, work perceptions (WOAQ), sickness absence, and work performance. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis of the WOAQ showed that factor structure derived for the manufacturing sector, for which the questionnaire was developed, could be replicated moderately well with public sector data. The study then considered whether a better more specific fit for public sector data was possible. Principal components analysis of the public sector data identified a two-factor structure linked to four of the five scales of the WOAQ assessing Management and Work Design, and Work Culture. These two factors may offer a context-sensitive scoring method for the WOAQ in public sector populations. These two factors were found to have good internal consistency, and correlated with the full WOAQ scales and the measures of performance and absence. CONCLUSIONS: The WOAQ is a useful and potentially transferable tool. The modified scoring may be used to assess work and organizational factors in the public sector.

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.

Service, advocacy and adjudication: balancing the ethical challenges of multiple stakeholder agendas in the rehabilitation of chronic pain.

PURPOSE: To highlight potentially conflicting roles of the rehabilitation professional in the treatment of clients with persistent pain conditions. In assisting clients requiring rehabilitation, the role of the rehabilitation professional is usually fairly clear and unambiguous. If however questions about the authenticity of the client's presenting disability have been raised, then a major role conflict can arise. Many clients present with symptoms of pain and disability yet there is no objectively discernible disease, and in these cases, the authenticity of the condition may be questioned. As rehabilitation professionals we may thus find ourselves acting in different roles: (i) We might be a clinical service provider working to reduce the client's suffering, (ii) We might become the client's advocate working to protect the client in conflicts with an insurer, (iii) We might become an adjudicator working to help the insurer detect evidence of our client's fraudulent behaviour. The principal objective of this paper is to distinguish these roles, and highlight their incompatibility. It is stressed that accreditation for and competence in clinical intervention does not guarantee or legitimize competence in advocacy or adjudication. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The paper concludes by suggesting that the primary role of the rehabilitation professional should be the provision of clinical service and that the adoption of the role of advocate or adjudicator may cross unacceptable ethical boundaries resulting in bringing harm, intentionally, or unintentionally, to the client.

A comparison of cognitive measures in low back pain: statistical structure and clinical validity at initial assessment.

Four cognitive measures--MHLC, PLC, CSQ and PRSS/PRCS--were directly compared in 120 U.K. patients with chronic low back pain. 80% of the individual items in the PLC and 86% in the CSQ had satisfactory test-retest reliability, as had most of the scales of the CSQ and the PLC PC scale. The items and the scales of the MHLC and the PRSS/PRCS had lower reliability. The factor structures of the PLC and the PRSS/PRCS bore close similarity to the original descriptions. The CSQ structure was similar to the original but further investigation of its psychometric properties is required. The structure of the MHLC was not replicated. Considerable communality was found between the cognitive measures. The strongest relationship found in this study was between the CSQ and PRSS catastrophising scales and depressive symptoms. There was also a relationship among cognitive measures and both disability and work loss which persisted even after controlling for severity of pain and depressive symptoms. The present results suggest that the concept of catastrophising has greatest potential for understanding current low back symptoms and that the CSQ may be the most useful measure of this. Other work, however, suggests that the PLC may also be of value in following change and predicting response to treatment.