Cognitive functional therapy with or without movement sensor biofeedback versus usual care for chronic, disabling low back pain (RESTORE): a randomised, controlled, three-arm, parallel group, phase 3, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally, but most interventions have only short-lasting, small to moderate effects. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is an individualised approach that targets unhelpful pain-related cognitions, emotions, and behaviours that contribute to pain and disability. Movement sensor biofeedback might enhance treatment effects. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and economic efficiency of CFT, delivered with or without movement sensor biofeedback, with usual care for patients with chronic, disabling low back pain. METHODS: RESTORE was a randomised, controlled, three-arm, parallel group, phase 3 trial, done in 20 primary care physiotherapy clinics in Australia. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with low back pain lasting more than 3 months with at least moderate pain-related physical activity limitation. Exclusion criteria were serious spinal pathology (eg, fracture, infection, or cancer), any medical condition that prevented being physically active, being pregnant or having given birth within the previous 3 months, inadequate English literacy for the study's questionnaires and instructions, a skin allergy to hypoallergenic tape adhesives, surgery scheduled within 3 months, or an unwillingness to travel to trial sites. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via a centralised adaptive schedule to usual care, CFT only, or CFT plus biofeedback. The primary clinical outcome was activity limitation at 13 weeks, self-reported by participants using the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Participants in both interventions received up to seven treatment sessions over 12 weeks plus a booster session at 26 weeks. Physiotherapists and patients were not masked. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001396213. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018 and Aug 3, 2020, we assessed 1011 patients for eligibility. After excluding 519 (51·3%) ineligible patients, we randomly assigned 492 (48·7%) participants; 164 (33%) to CFT only, 163 (33%) to CFT plus biofeedback, and 165 (34%) to usual care. Both interventions were more effective than usual care (CFT only mean difference -4·6 [95% CI -5·9 to -3·4] and CFT plus biofeedback mean difference -4·6 [-5·8 to -3·3]) for activity limitation at 13 weeks (primary endpoint). Effect sizes were similar at 52 weeks. Both interventions were also more effective than usual care for QALYs, and much less costly in terms of societal costs (direct and indirect costs and productivity losses; -AU$5276 [-10 529 to -24) and -8211 (-12 923 to -3500). INTERPRETATION: CFT can produce large and sustained improvements for people with chronic disabling low back pain at considerably lower societal cost than that of usual care. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Curtin University.

RESTORE-Cognitive functional therapy with or without movement sensor biofeedback versus usual care for chronic, disabling low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally and its costs exceed those of cancer and diabetes combined. Recent evidence suggests that individualised cognitive and movement rehabilitation combined with lifestyle advice (cognitive functional therapy (CFT)) may produce larger and more sustained effects than traditional approaches, and movement sensor biofeedback may enhance outcomes. Therefore, this three-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the clinical effectiveness and economic efficiency of individualised CFT delivered with or without movement sensor biofeedback, with usual care for patients with chronic, disabling LBP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised, parallel group, superiority RCT comparing usual care (n=164) with CFT (n=164) and CFT-plus-movement-sensor-biofeedback (n=164). Inclusion criteria include: adults with a current episode of LBP >3 months; sought primary care ≥6 weeks ago for this episode of LBP; average LBP intensity of ≥4 (0-10 scale); at least moderate pain-related interference with work or daily activities. The CFT-only and CFT-plus-movement-sensor-biofeedback participants will receive seven treatment sessions over 12 weeks plus a 'booster' session at 26 weeks. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 13, 26, 40 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome is pain-related physical activity limitation (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). Linear mixed models will be used to assess the effect of treatment on physical activity limitation across all time points, with the primary comparison being a formal test of adjusted mean differences between groups at 13 weeks. For the economic (cost-utility) analysis, the primary outcome of clinical effect will be quality-adjusted life years measured across the 12-month follow-up using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2018-0062, 6 Feb 2018). Study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001396213).

Young people's experiences of persistent musculoskeletal pain, needs, gaps and perceptions about the role of digital technologies to support their co-care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate young people's experiences of persistent musculoskeletal pain, including care needs and current service gaps as well as perceptions about the role of digital technologies to support their co-care. METHODS: A qualitative study employing two independent data collection modes: in-depth individual semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: Community settings throughout Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were included if they had experienced persistent musculoskeletal pain of >3-month duration with an average of ≥3 on the visual analogue scale over the preceding 3 months, including non-specific conditions (eg, low back pain) and specific conditions (eg, juvenile idiopathic arthritis and other systemic arthritides), with/without pre-existing or current diagnosed mental health conditions. 23 young people (87.0% women; mean (SD) age: 20.8 (2.4) years) from across 6 Australian jurisdictions participated. Almost two-thirds of participants with persistent musculoskeletal pain reported comorbid mental health conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inductive and deductive approaches to analyse and derive key themes from verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Participants described their daily experiences of living with persistent musculoskeletal pain, their fears and the challenges imposed by the invisibility of pain, and the two-way relationship between their pain and mental well-being. A lack of relevant and accessible information and resources tailored to young people's unique needs, integrated and youth-relevant healthcare services and adequately skilled healthcare practitioners were identified as key care gaps. Participants strongly advocated for the use of digital technologies to improve access to age-appropriate resources and support for co-care. CONCLUSIONS: Young people living with persistent musculoskeletal pain described the absence of age-appropriate pain services and clearly articulated their perceptions on the role of, and opportunities provided by, digital technologies to connect with and support improved pain healthcare. Innovative and digitally-enabled models of pain care are likely to be helpful for this group.