Behavioural 'nudging' interventions to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): protocol for a 2×2 factorial, before-after, cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural 'nudge' interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623001000695.

Cognitive Functional Therapy compared with usual physiotherapy care in people with persistent low back pain: a mixed methods feasibility randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of completing a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT), evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) in comparison to usual physiotherapy care (UPC), for people with persistent low back pain (LBP). DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm parallel feasibility RCT completed in a United Kingdom (UK) Secondary Care National Health Service (NHS) physiotherapy service. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty adult participants who reported LBP lasting for more than three months, that was not attributable to a serious (e.g. cancer) or specific (e.g. radiculopathy) underlying cause, were invited to participate. Participants were allocated at random to receive CFT or UPC. INTERVENTIONS: Cognitive Functional Therapy and Usual Physiotherapy Care for persistent LBP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the feasibility of completing a definitive RCT, defined by recruitment of at least 5 participants per month, delivery of CFT per protocol and securing relevant and acceptable outcome measures. Data concerning study processes, resources, management and participant reported outcome measures were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty participants (n = 30 CFT and n = 30 UPC) were recruited with 80% (n = 48), 72% (n = 43) and 53% (n = 32) retained at 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up respectively. NHS physiotherapists were trained to competence and delivered CFT with fidelity. CFT was tolerated by participants with no adverse events. Relevant and clinically important outcome data were collected at all time points (0.4%, 3%, 1% and 0.8% of data was missing from the returned outcome measure booklets at baseline and 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up respectively). The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was considered the most suitable primary outcome measure with a proposed sample size of 540 participants for a definitive cluster RCT. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to conduct a randomised study of CFT in comparison to UPC for NHS patients. A future study should incorporate an internal pilot to address aspects of feasibility further, including participant retention strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12965286 CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER.

mHealth Apps for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the rapid development of mobile health (mHealth) technology, many health apps have been introduced to the commercial market for people with back pain conditions. However, little is known about their content, quality, approaches to care for low back pain (LBP), and associated risks of use. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this research were to (1) identify apps for the self-management of LBP currently on the market and (2) assess their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk-related approaches. METHODS: The UK iTunes and Google Play stores were initially searched for apps related to the self-management of LBP in May 2022. A repeat search in June 2023 was conducted to ensure that any relevant new apps developed in the last year were incorporated into the review. A total of 3 keywords recommended by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group were used to search apps "low back pain," "back pain," and "lumbago." The quality of the apps was assessed by using the 5-point Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). RESULTS: A total of 69 apps (25 iOS and 44 Android) met the inclusion criteria. These LBP self-management apps mainly provide recommendations on muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%), yoga (n=19, 27.5%), and information about LBP mechanisms (n=17, 24.6%). Most interventions (n=14, 78%) are consistent with the recommendations in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The mean (SD) MARS overall score of included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points. The functionality dimension was associated with the highest score (3.0), whereas the engagement and information dimension resulted in the lowest score (2.1). Regarding theoretical and risk-related approaches, 18 (26.1%) of the 69 apps reported the rate of intervention progression, 11 (15.9%) reported safety checks, only 1 (1.4%) reported personalization of care, and none reported the theoretical care model or the age group targeted. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth apps are potentially promising alternatives to help people manage their LBP; however, most of the LBP self-management apps were of poor quality and did not report the theoretical approaches to care and their associated risks. Although nearly all apps reviewed included a component of care listed in the NICE guidelines, the model of care delivery or embracement of care principles such as the application of a biopsychosocial model was unclear.

A randomized controlled trial investigating the impact of a single flash cupping session on patients with chronic lower back pain using multichannel surface electromyographic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common disorders worldwide. Flash cupping has the ability to relieve CLBP; nevertheless, its impact on CLBP and the likely mechanism of action have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of a single, brief cupping session on CLBP and low back muscle activity using multichannel surface electromyography (sEMG). METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 24 patients with CLBP were enrolled and randomly assigned to the control group (treated by acupuncture) and cupping group (treated by acupuncture and flash cupping). Acupuncture was applied on the shen shu (BL23), dachang shu (BL25), and wei zhong (BL40) acupoints in both the groups. A brief cupping treatment was applied to the shen shu (BL23), qihai shu (BL24), dachang shu (BL25), guanyuan shu (BL26), and xiaochang shu (BL27) acupoints on both sides of the lower back in the cupping group. The numeric rating scale (NRS) was used to assess therapy efficacy for lower back pain (LBP) before and after treatment. Surface EMG data collected during symmetrical trunk flexion-extension movements were utilized to measure lower back muscle activity and the effectiveness of LBP therapy. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference (P= 0.63) in pain intensity between the two groups before and after treatment. There was a statistically significant difference (P= 0.04) between the control group and the cupping group in the sEMG topographic map parameter CoGx-To-Midline. CONCLUSION: This study established a connection between the action mechanism of flash cupping and enhanced horizontal synchronization of lower back muscular activity.

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain. METHODS: We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count. RESULTS: 83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing low-value care for the management of low back pain in Iran: a qualitative multi-professional study.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder with a wide range of etiologies, ranging from self-limiting conditions to life-threatening diseases. Various modalities are available for the diagnosis and management of patients with LBP. However, many of these health services, known as low-value care (LVC), are unnecessary and impose undue financial costs on patients and health systems. The present study aimed to explore the perceptions of service providers regarding the facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC in the management of LBP in Iran. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study interviewed a total of 20 participants, including neurosurgeons, physiatrists, orthopedists, and physiotherapists, who were selected through purposive and snowball sampling strategies. The collected data were analyzed using the thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: Thirty-nine sub-themes, with 183 citations, were identified as barriers, and 31 sub-themes, with 120 citations, were defined as facilitators. Facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC for LBP, according to the interviewees, were categorized into five themes, including: (1) individual provider characteristics; (2) individual patient characteristics; (3) social context; (4) organizational context; and (5) economic and political context. The ten most commonly cited barriers included unrealistic tariffs, provider-induced demand, patient distrust, insufficient time allocation, a lack of insurance coverage, a lack of a comprehensive referral system, a lack of teamwork, cultural challenges, a lack of awareness, and defensive medicine. Barriers such as adherence to clinical guidelines, improving the referral system, improving the cultural status of patients, and facilitators such as strengthening teamwork, developing an appropriate provider-patient relationship, improving the cultural status of the public, motivating the patients, considering an individualized approach, establishing a desirable payment mechanism, and raising the medical tariffs were most repeatedly stated by participants. CONCLUSION: This study has pointed out a great number of barriers and facilitators that shape the provision of LVC in the management of LBP in Iran. Therefore, it is essential for relevant stakeholders to consider these findings in order to de-implement LVC interventions in the process of LBP management.

A Regional Analysis of Low Back Pain Treatments in the Military Health System.

STUDY DESIGN: Claims-based analysis of cohorts of TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of utilization of 5 low back pain (LBP) treatments (physical therapy (PT), manual therapy, behavioral therapies, opioid, and benzodiazepine prescription) across catchment areas and assess their association with the resolution of LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Guidelines support focusing on nonpharmacologic management for LBP and reducing opioid use. Little is known about patterns of care for LBP across the Military Health System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Incident LBP diagnoses were identified data using the International Classification of Diseases ninth revision before October 2015 and 10th revision after October 2015; beneficiaries with "red flag" diagnoses and those stationed overseas, eligible for Medicare, or having other health insurance were excluded. After exclusions, there were 159,027 patients remained in the final analytic cohort across 73 catchment areas. Treatment was defined by catchment-level rates of treatment to avoid confounding by indication at the individual level; the primary outcome was the resolution of LBP defined as an absence of administrative claims for LBP during a 6 to 12-month period after the index diagnosis. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of opioid prescribing across catchment areas ranged from 15% to 28%, physical therapy from 17% to 39%, and manual therapy from 5% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression models showed a negative and marginally significant association between opioid prescriptions and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00; P = 0.051) but no significant association with physical therapy, manual therapy, benzodiazepine prescription, or behavioral therapies. When the analysis was restricted to the subset of only active-duty beneficiaries, there was a stronger negative association between opioid prescription and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variability across catchment areas within TRICARE for the treatment of LBP. Higher rates of opioid prescription were associated with worse outcomes.

Healthcare resource utilization for chronic low back pain among high-utilizers.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of morbidity and is among the largest cost drivers for the healthcare system. Research on healthcare resource utilization of patients with low back pain who are not surgical candidates is limited, and few studies follow individuals who generate high healthcare costs over time. PURPOSE: This claims study aimed to identify patients with high-impact mechanical, chronic low back pain (CLBP), quantify their low back pain-related health resource utilization, and explore associated patient characteristics. We hypothesize that patients in the top quartile of healthcare resource utilization in the second year after initial diagnosis will continue to generate considerable back pain-related costs in subsequent years. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: IBM MarketScan Research Databases from 2009-2019 were retrospectively analyzed. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults in the United States with an initial diagnosis of low back pain between 2010 and 2014 who did not have cancer, spine surgery, recent pregnancy, or inflammatory spine conditions, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. To ensure patients had chronic low back pain, it was required that individuals had additional claims with a low back pain diagnosis 6 to 12 and 12 to 24 months after initial diagnosis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost and utilization of inpatient visits, outpatient visits, emergency room visits, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options and imaging for chronic low back pain. METHODS: Annual back pain-related costs and the use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for 5 years were analyzed. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with persistent high spending. RESULTS: Of 16,917 individuals who met the criteria for chronic low back pain, 4,229 met the criteria for having high healthcare utilization, defined as being in the top quartile of back pain-related costs in the 12 to 24 months after their initial diagnosis. The mean and median back pain-related cost in the first year after an initial diagnosis was $7,112 (SD $9,670) and $4,405 (Q1 $2,147, Q3 $8,461). Mean and median back pain related costs in the second year were $11,989 (SD $20,316) and $5,935 (Q1 $3,892, Q3 $10,678). Costs continued to be incurred in years 3 to 5 at a reduced rate. The cumulative mean cost for back pain over the 5 years following the initial diagnosis was $31,459 (SD $39,545). The majority of costs were from outpatient services. Almost a quarter of the high utilizers remained in the top quartile of back pain-related costs during years 3 to 5 after the initial diagnosis, and another 19% remained in the top quartile for 2 of the 3 subsequent years. For these two groups combined (42%), the 5-year cumulative mean cost for back pain was $43,818 (SD $48,270). Patient characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of remaining as high utilizers were diabetes, having a greater number of outpatient visits and pharmacologic prescriptions, and lower utilization of imaging services. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to use an administrative claims database to identify high healthcare resource utilizers among a population of United States individuals with nonsurgical, chronic low back pain and follow their utilization over time. There was a population of individuals who continued to experience high costs 5 years beyond their initial diagnosis, and the majority of individuals continued to seek outpatient services. Further longitudinal claims research that incorporates symptom severity is needed to understand the economic implications of this condition.

Physical Activity Supported by Low-Cost Mobile Technology for Back Pain (PAT-Back) to Reduce Disability in Older Adults: Results of a Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal program (PAT-Back) compared to best practice advice on pain and disability in older adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care. METHODS: This feasibility study took place in Fortaleza, Northeast Brazil. The PAT-Back intervention consisted of a program including exercises, pain education, and motivational text messages for the in-home component. The control group received an evidence-based educational booklet. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, adherence and retention rates, level of difficulty of the education and intervention content, perception of utility of mobile technology, and adverse events. The feasibility criteria were previously defined. RESULTS: A total of 248 people were screened, of which 46 older adults were eligible. The retention rate was high (100% in the PAT-Back group and 95% in the control group). The adherence rate to intervention was partially met (60%), whereas the adherence rate to unsupervised exercises was adequate (75%), and perception about safety to perform home exercise was partially acceptable (70%) in the PAT-Back group. In addition, 100% of older adults reported which text messages motivated them to perform the exercises in the PAT-Back group. Difficulty reported by participants in understanding and performing the intervention was small in both groups. Six participants reported transient adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSION: Older adults accepted both interventions. Results demonstrated that the program is feasible, although minor changes targeting adherence and safety in home exercise are needed. IMPACT: This feasibility study supports progression to a full trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal program (PAT-Back) on pain and disability in older adults with chronic LBP within a primary health care setting in low to middle income countries where such data from the older population are scarce and the burden of LBP is increasing.

Trends in Chiropractic Care and Physical Rehabilitation Use Among Adults with Low Back Pain in the United States, 2002 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: While nonpharmacologic treatments are increasingly endorsed as first-line therapy for low back pain (LBP) in clinical practice guidelines, it is unclear if use of these treatments is increasing or equitable. OBJECTIVE: Examine national trends in chiropractic care and physical rehabilitation (occupational/physical therapy (OT/PT)) use among adults with LBP. DESIGN/SETTING: Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2002 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 146,087 adults reporting LBP in prior 3 months. METHODS: We evaluated the association of survey year with chiropractic care or OT/PT use in prior 12 months. Logistic regression with multilevel linear splines was used to determine if chiropractic care or OT/PT use increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines. We also examined trends in use by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. When trends were similar over time, we present differences by these demographic characteristics as unadjusted ORs using data from all respondents. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2018, less than one-third of adults with LBP reported use of either chiropractic care or OT/PT. Rates did not change until 2016 when uptake increased with the introduction of clinical guidelines (2016-2018 vs 2002-2015, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.19). Trends did not differ significantly by sex, race, or ethnicity (p for interactions > 0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in chiropractic care or OT/PT use were identified and persisted over time. For example, compared to non-Hispanic adults, either chiropractic care or OT/PT use was lower among Hispanic adults (combined OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). By contrast, compared to White adults, Black adults had similar OT/PT use (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03) but lower for chiropractic care use (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.47-0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of chiropractic care or OT/PT for LBP increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines in 2016, only about a third of US adults with LBP reported using these services between 2016 and 2018 and disparities in use have not improved.

Fostering equitable change in health services: Using critical reflexivity to challenge dominant discourses in low back pain care in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Justice and equity-focused practices in health services play a critical but overlooked role in low back pain (LBP) care. Critical reflexivity - the ability to examine and challenge power relations, and broader social issues embedded in everyday life - can be a useful tool to foster practices that are more socially just. No research has yet explored this approach in back pain health services. This study sought to understand how clinicians construct LBP in relation to broader socio-cultural-political aspects of care and explore if those constructions changed when clinicians engaged with critically reflexive dialogues with researchers. METHODS: Using critical discourse analysis methods, this qualitative study explored institutionalised patterns of knowledge in the construction of LBP care. We conducted 22 critically reflexive dialogues with 29 clinicians from two health services in Australia - a private physiotherapy clinic and a public multidisciplinary pain clinic. RESULTS: Our analyses suggested that clinicians and services often constructed LBP care at an individual level. This dominant individualistic discourse constrained consideration of justice-oriented practices in the care of people with LBP. Through dialogues, discursive constructions of LBP care expanded to incorporate systems and health service workplace practices. This expansion fostered more equitable clinical and service practices - such as assisting patients to navigate health care systems, considering patients' socioeconomic circumstances when developing treatment plans, encouraging staff discussion of possible systemic changes to enhance justice, and fostering a more inclusive workplace culture. Although such expansions faced challenges, incorporating broader discourses enabled recommendations to address LBP care inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Critical reflexivity can be a tool to foster greater social justice within health services. By expanding constructions of LBP care beyond individuals, critical reflexive dialogues can foster discussion and actions towards more equitable workplace cultures, services and systems.

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Narrative review. RESULTS: NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis With Use of Physical Therapy and Chiropractic Care Among Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: A Group-Based Trajectory Analysis.

Nonpharmacologic approaches are recommended as first-line treatment for chronic pain, and their importance is heightened among individuals with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom opioid therapies may be particularly detrimental. Our objectives were to assess the receipt and trajectories of nonpharmacologic pain treatment and determine the association of OUD diagnosis with these trajectories. This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from 2016 to 2018 and applied group-based trajectory models to identify distinct patterns of physical therapy (PT) or chiropractic care treatment over the 12 months following a new episode of chronic low back pain. We used logistic regression models to estimate the association of co-occurring OUD with group membership in PT and chiropractic trajectories. Our sample comprised 607,729 beneficiaries at least 18 years of age, of whom 11.4% had a diagnosis of OUD. The 12-month prevalence of PT and chiropractic treatment receipt was 24.7% and 27.1%, respectively, and lower among Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring OUD (PT: 14.6%; chiropractic: 6.8%). The final models identified 3 distinct trajectories each for PT (no/little use [76.6% of sample], delayed and increasing use [8.2%], and early and declining use [15.2%]); and chiropractic (no/little use [75.0% of sample], early and declining use [17.3%], and early and sustained use [7.7%]). People with OUD were more likely to belong in trajectories with little/no PT or chiropractic care as compared to other trajectories. The findings indicate that people with co-occurring chronic pain and OUD often do not receive early or any nonpharmacologic pain therapies as recommended by practice guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: PT and chiropractic care use were low overall and even lower among Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring OUD compared with those without OUD. As updated guidelines on pain management are promulgated, targeted interventions (eg, insurance policy, provider, and patient education) are needed to ensure equitable access to guideline-recommended pain therapies.

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy. CONCLUSION: Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes. IMPACT: Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

Minimal important difference of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in persons with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP. METHODS: We analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF. RESULTS: Of 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79). CONCLUSIONS: Using an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.

Patient profiling and outcome assessment in spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and/or leg pain (the PROSTIM study): a study protocol.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option in the multidisciplinary approach to chronic back and leg pain. Nevertheless, careful patient selection remains crucial to provide the most optimal treatment and prevent treatment failure. We report the protocol for the PROSTIM study, an ongoing prospective, multicentric and observational clinical study (NCT05349695) that aims to identify different patient clusters and their outcomes after SCS. Patients are recruited in different centers in Europe. Analysis focuses on identifying significant patient clusters based on different health domains and the changes in biopsychosocial variables 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after implantation. This study is the first to include a biopsychosocial cluster analysis to identify significant patient groups and their response to treatment with SCS.

What is the study about? Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a treatment for chronic back and leg pain, in which an electrical stimulation is delivered to the spinal cord in order to reduce pain experience. It is important to choose the right patients to make sure the treatment works well. The PROSTIM study is a research project in which we study patients selected to be treated with SCS. We want to understand how different groups of patients selected for this treatment do after getting SCS. The study includes patients in different European centers, following them for 6 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after getting SCS. This study is the first one to use a cluster analysis to group patients based on different aspects of their psychological and physical health and see how they respond differently to SCS treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05349695 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing pain susceptibility and increasing social engagement in patients with chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in improving social engagement and pain susceptibility in patients with chronic low back pain (≥6 months duration). METHODS: From the initial to January 2023, 5 databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, literature screening, quality evaluation, and data extraction were performed by 2 independent researchers throughout, Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for different indicators, and the combined experimental and control groups were calculated using random-effects models or fixed-effects models effect sizes, and forest plots were drawn to present the results. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies containing 2527 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain, all of whom had pain lasting longer than 6 months, were included, and after treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was superior to other treatments in improving social participation [SMD = -0.30, 95%CI (-0.60, -0.01), Z = 2.02, P = .04]. There was no significant difference from other treatments in improving patient depression [SMD = -0.07, 95%CI (-0.19, 0.05), Z = 1.11, P = .27] and anxiety [SMD = -0.07, 95%CI (-0.30, 0.16), Z = 0.52, P = .57]. Three papers describe the superiority of CBT over other treatments in improving sleep quality, but the metrics could not be combined due to too little literature. CONCLUSION: CBT can improve patients' social participation and pain susceptibility to some extent, but it does not show advantages for managing negative emotions (depression, anxiety). Due to the limited number and low quality of included literature, the above findings still need to be validated by conducting a large sample of high-quality RCTs.

Chronic Low Back Pain with and without Concomitant Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study of Patients in England.

Objective: Despite the high prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA), few estimates of the economic cost of these conditions in England have been published. The aim of the present analysis was to characterise the economic burden of moderate-to-severe pain associated with CLBP + OA and CLBP alone compared with general population-matched controls without CLBP or OA. The primary objective was to describe the total healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs associated with the target patient populations. Secondary objectives were to describe treatment patterns and surgical procedures. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients receiving healthcare indicative of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with CLBP, with or without OA. We used linked longitudinal data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients (cases) were matched 1 : 1 with controls on age, sex, comorbidity burden, GP practice, and HES data availability. Results: The CLBP-alone cohort comprised 13 554 cases with CLBP and 13 554 matched controls; the CLBP + OA cohort comprised 7803 cases with both OA and CLBP and 7803 matched controls. Across all follow-up periods, patients with CLBP alone and those with CLBP + OA had significantly more GP consultations, outpatient attendances, emergency department visits, and inpatient stays than controls (all p < 0.0001). By 36 months after indexing, the mean (SD) per-patient total direct healthcare cost in the CLBP-alone cohort was £5081 (£5905) for cases and £1809 (£4451) for controls (p < 0.0001); in the CLBP + OA cohort, the mean (SD) per-patient total direct healthcare cost was £8819 (£7143) for cases and £2428 (£4280) for controls (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with CLBP-with or without OA-has a substantial impact on patients and healthcare providers, leading to higher HCRU and costs versus controls among people with CLBP alone or together with OA.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention Compared With Face-to-Face Physiotherapy in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide, and its socioeconomic burden is substantial. Self-management support is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP and may support cost-effective management. However, providing adequate individually tailored self-management support is difficult. The integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care) seems promising to optimize tailored treatment and enhance patients' self-management and, consequently, may reduce LBP-related costs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care physiotherapy. Patients with nonspecific LBP were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) (n=104) or face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104). The content of both interventions was based on the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary clinical outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a). For the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning were the primary outcomes. Secondary clinical outcomes included fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. Costs were measured from societal and health care perspectives using self-report questionnaires. Effectiveness was estimated using linear mixed models. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences for the economic evaluation. RESULTS: Neither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial differences were found between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy regarding physical functioning (mean difference [MD] -1.1, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.7) and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI -0.020 to 0.072) over 12 months. Regarding the secondary outcomes, fear avoidance beliefs showed a statistically significant improvement in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy (MD -4.3, 95% CI -7.3 to -1.3). Societal and health care costs were higher for stratified blended physiotherapy than for face-to-face physiotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (societal: €972 [US $1027], 95% CI -€1090 to €3264 [US -$1151 to $3448]; health care: €73 [US $77], 95% CI -€59 to €225 [US -$62 to $238]). Among the disaggregated cost categories, only unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher for stratified blended physiotherapy. From both perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability (ie, 0.23-0.81) of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective for improving physical functioning nor more cost-effective from societal or health care perspectives compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 94074203; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN94074203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Emergency presentations for older persons with low back pain: An increasing clinical and economic challenge.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences exist for older persons presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with lower back pain (LBP) in terms of management, health service resource use and cost when compared to younger patients with LBP. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of routinely collected electronic medical record data from January 2015 to July 2021. Data from 11,098 adults presenting with LBP to two large regional Australian EDs were analysed over a 5-year period. Rates of presentation, investigation, medication use, spinal surgery and cost were assessed for all participants with respect to age groups (over or under 65 years of age), diagnosis and time. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the contribution of presentation characteristics to the risk of inpatient admission and to investigate the variable effect of patient age. RESULTS: Older people represented 23% (n = 2565) of all LBP presentations, with a growing proportion of presentations over time. More than 1 in 4 patients over 65 were admitted (n = 703, 27%), with CT imaging being proportionately three times more prevalent (24% vs. 6%), and average cost double (AU$3973 vs. $1671) that of the younger population. Consultation by an ED physiotherapist was associated with lower admission risk across all adult presentations (OR 0.52, 95% CI [0.40 to 0.67]). CONCLUSIONS: Older persons are over-represented amongst gradually increasing rates of LBP presentations to EDs and associated with escalating cost of care and hospital resource use. Older patients present a different clinical and economic profile to younger patients, supporting the provision of individualised management recommendations.