What are the costs of managing neck and low back pain in Brazil? Investigation of a ten-year period from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the prospects of increased prevalence and disability due to neck and low back pain, it is relevant to investigate the care processes adopted, to assist future public policies and decision-making for a better allocation of resources. Objective: the aim of this study was to estimate the costs arising from inpatient and outpatient care of individuals with Neck Pain (NP) and Low Back Pain (LBP) in Brazil, between 2010 and 2019. METHODS: This is a cost-of-illness study from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system, based on health conditions with high prevalence (neck and low back pain). Data were presented descriptively using absolute and relative values. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, the health system spent more than $600 million (R$ 2.3 billion) to treat NP and LBP in adults, and LBP accounted for most of the expenses. Female had higher absolute expenses in inpatient care and in the outpatient system. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the costs with NP and LBP in Brazil were considerable. Female patients had higher outpatient costs and male patients had higher hospitalization costs. Healthcare expenses were concentrated for individuals between 34 and 63 years of age.

This study focused on understanding how much it cost to treat neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) in Brazil between 2010 and 2019, from the point of view of the public health system (i.e. Unified Health System ­ SUS). The idea was to find out how much money was spent and where. It turned out that the SUS spent, in total, more than US$600 million (R$2.3 billion) with LBP responsible for most of these expenses. Furthermore, we noted that women had higher outpatient care costs, while men had higher hospitalization costs. Those costs were more concentrated in people aged between 34 and 63 years.

(Cost-)effectiveness of personalised multimodal physiotherapy compared to surgery in patients with cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review.

RATIONALE: Cervical radiculopathy is initially typically managed conservatively. Surgery is indicated when conservative management fails or with severe/progressive neurological signs. Personalised multimodal physiotherapy could be a promising conservative strategy. However, aggregated evidence on the (cost-)effectiveness of personalised multimodal physiotherapy compared to surgery with/without post-operative physiotherapy is lacking. AIM/OBJECTIVES: To systematically summarise the literature on the (cost-)effectiveness of personalised multimodal physiotherapy compared to surgery with or without post-operative physiotherapy in patients with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1st of March 2023. Primary outcomes were effectiveness regarding costs, arm pain intensity and disability. Neck pain intensity, perceived recovery, quality of life, neurological symptoms, range-of-motion, return-to-work, medication use, (re)surgeries and adverse events were considered secondary outcomes. Randomised clinical trials comparing personalised multimodal physiotherapy versus surgical approaches with/without post-operative physiotherapy were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data-extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2 and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Certainty of the evidence was determined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. RESULTS: From 2109 records, eight papers from two original trials, with 117 participants in total were included. Low certainty evidence showed there were no significant differences on arm pain intensity and disability, except for the subscale 'heavy work' related disability (12 months) and disability at 5-8 years. Cost-effectiveness was not assessed. There was low certainty evidence that physiotherapy improved significantly less on neck pain intensity, sensory loss and perceived recovery compared to surgery with/without physiotherapy. Low certainty evidence showed there were no significant differences on numbness, range of motion, medication use, and quality of life. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Considering the clinical importance of accurate management recommendations and the current low level of certainty, high-quality cost-effectiveness studies are needed.

The contemporary management of neck pain in adults.

Neck pain is a common condition with a high prevalence worldwide. Neck pain is associated with significant levels of disability and is widely considered an important public health problem. Neck pain is defined as pain perceived between the superior nuchal line and the spinous process of the first thoracic vertebra. In some types of neck conditions, the pain can be referred to the head, trunk and upper limbs. This article aims to provide an overview of the available evidence on prevalence, costs, diagnosis, prognosis, risk factors, prevention and management of patients with neck pain.

Is Myofascial Release Therapy Cost-Effective When Compared With Manual Therapy to Treat Workers' Mechanical Neck Pains?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to do a cost-benefit analysis of myofascial release therapy (MRT) compared to manual therapy (MT) for treating occupational mechanical neck pain. METHODS: Variables regarding the outcomes of the intervention were intensity of neck pain, cervical disability, quality of life, craniovertebral angle, and ranges of cervical motion. Costs were assessed based on a social perspective using diary costs. Between-groups differences in average cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were assessed using bootstrap parametric techniques. The economic cost-benefit evaluation was with regard to an experimental parallel group study design. There were 59 participants. RESULTS: Myofascial released therapy showed significant improvement over MT for cervical mobility (side bending, rotation, and craniovertebral angle). The total cost of MRT was approximately 20% less (-$519.81; 95% confidence interval, -$1193.67 to $100.31) than that of MT, although this was not statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that MRT could be associated with lower economic costs. CONCLUSION: With probabilities of 93.9% and 95.8%, MRT seems to be cost-effective for treating mechanical neck pain without the need to add any additional cost to obtain a better clinical benefit. Consequently, we believe it could be included in the clinical practice guidelines of different Spanish health care institutions.

Influence of Psychosocial and Sociodemographic Variables on Sickness Leave and Disability in Patients with Work-Related Neck and Low Back Pain.

The purpose of this study was to describe the association between psychosocial factors in patients with work-related neck or low back pain (n = 129), in order to study sickness leave, its duration, the disability reported, and to analyze the relationship of these factors with different sociodemographic variables. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. Data on kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, disability, and pain were gathered. Sociodemographic variables analyzed included sex, age, occupational, and educational level. Other data such as location of pain, sick leave status and duration of sickness absence were also collected. Educational level (p = 0.001), occupational level (p < 0.001), and kinesiophobia (p < 0.001) were found to be associated with sickness leave; kinesiophobia (b = 1.47, p = 0.002, r = 0.35) and catastrophizing (b = 0.72, p = 0.012, r = 0.28) were associated with the duration of sickness leave. Educational level (p =0.021), kinesiophobia (b = 1.69, p < 0.000, r = 0.505), catastrophizing (b = 0.76, p < 0.000, r = 0.372), and intensity of pain (b = 4.36, p < 0.000, r = 0.334) were associated with the degree of disability. In the context of occupational insurance providers, educational and occupational factors, as well as kinesiophobia and catastrophizing, may have an influence on sickness leave, its duration and the degree of disability reported.

Chronic Spinal Pain and Financial Worries in the US Adult Population.

STUDY DESIGN: Epidemiological study based on cross-sectional data of a representative sample. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether financial worries are associated with chronic spinal pain in the US adult population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: This study used data from the US 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The sample size was 33,672 and the study population is defined as aged 18 to 85 years. METHODS: To account for the complex sampling design, the Taylor linearized variance estimation method was used. Spinal pain was defined in two ways: chronic low back pain and neck pain, chronic low back pain and/or neck pain. Eight types of financial worries were assessed: paying monthly bills, maintaining standard of living, credit card payments, paying rent/mortgage/housing costs, medical costs for healthcare, money for retirement, medical costs of illness/accident, and paying for children's college. RESULTS: Different types of financial worries were significantly associated with chronic spinal pain, controlling for demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status. These worries included paying monthly bills (odds ratio [OR] 2.5), maintaining standard of living (OR 2.5), credit card payments (OR 2.2), paying rent/mortgage/housing costs (OR 2.2), medical costs for healthcare (OR 2.2), money for retirement, (OR 2.3), medical costs of illness/accident (OR 2.2), and paying for children's college (OR 1.4). CONCLUSION: This study shows that financial worries were significantly associated with chronic spinal pain. Financial worries may be important to be taken into consideration by clinicians managing patients with spinal pain. More future research is needed to explore the association between financial worries and spinal pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Using the value-based care paradigm to compare physical therapy access to care models in cervical spine radiculopathy: a case report.

Background: The efficiency and effectiveness of multiple physical therapy care delivery models can be measured using the value-based care paradigm. Entering physical therapy through direct access can decrease health-care utilization and improve patient outcomes. Limited evidence exists which compares direct access physical therapy to referral using the value-based care paradigm specific to cervical spine radiculopathy. Case Description: The patient was a 39-year-old woman who presented to physical therapy through physician referral with the diagnoses of acute cervical radiculopathy. The patient was evaluated, provided guideline adherent treatment and discharged with a home exercise program. Sixteen months from being discharged, the same patient returned through direct access due to an acute onset of cervical spine symptoms and was evaluated and provided treatment that same morning. Outcomes: Direct access physical therapy saved the patient and third-party payer $434.30 and $3264.75 respectively. A 5×'s higher efficiency per visit and a 6.2×'s higher value in reducing disability was demonstrated when the patient accessed physical therapy directly. Physician referral and direct access entry pathways demonstrated neck disability index improvements of 6% and 16%, respectively. Discussion: This case report describes a clinical example of previous research that demonstrates improved cost efficiency, outcomes, and increased value with a patient who presented to physical therapy with cervical radiculopathy through two different access to care models. The results of this case demonstrate a clinical example of the use of the value-based care paradigm in comparing value and efficiency of two access to care models in a patient with cervical radiculopathy without other neurological deficits.

Chiropractic maintenance care - what's new? A systematic review of the literature.

Background: Maintenance Care is a traditional chiropractic approach, whereby patients continue treatment after optimum benefit is reached. A review conducted in 1996 concluded that evidence behind this therapeutic strategy was lacking, and a second review from 2008 reached the same conclusion. Since then, a systematic research program in the Nordic countries was undertaken to uncover the definition, indications, prevalence of use and beliefs regarding Maintenance Care to make it possible to investigate its clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness. As a result, an evidence-based clinical study could be performed. It was therefore timely to review the evidence. Method: Using the search terms "chiropractic OR manual therapy" AND "Maintenance Care OR prevention", PubMed and Web of Science were searched, and the titles and abstracts reviewed for eligibility, starting from 2007. In addition, a search for "The Nordic Maintenance Care Program" was conducted. Because of the diversity of topics and study designs, a systematic review with narrative reporting was undertaken. Results: Fourteen original research articles were included in the review. Maintenance Care was defined as a secondary/tertiary preventive approach, recommended to patients with previous pain episodes, who respond well to chiropractic care. Maintenance Care is applied to approximately 30% of Scandinavian chiropractic patients. Both chiropractors and patients believe in the efficacy of Maintenance Care. Four studies investigating the effect of chiropractic Maintenance Care were identified, with disparate results on pain and disability of neck and back pain. However, only one of these studies utilized all the existing evidence when selecting study subjects and found that Maintenance Care patients experienced fewer days with low back pain compared to patients invited to contact their chiropractor 'when needed'. No studies were found on the cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care. Conclusion: Knowledge of chiropractic Maintenance Care has advanced. There is reasonable consensus among chiropractors on what Maintenance Care is, how it should be used, and its indications. Presently, Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method to perform secondary or tertiary prevention in patients with previous episodes of low back pain, who report a good outcome from the initial treatments. However, these results should not be interpreted as an indication for Maintenance Care on all patients, who receive chiropractic treatment.

The impact of patient preferences and costs on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Although the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective-i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered. METHODS: We examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. RESULTS: The majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: Protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neck Pain (NP) has been ranked as one of the top chronic pain conditions in terms of prevalence and years lived with disability in the latest Global Burden of Disease. NP has remarkable socio-economic consequences however, research efforts are limited. Discrepancies among guidelines recommendations on management of chronic neck pain exist. The purpose of this study protocol is to provide the methods for a review with network meta-analysis to identify the most effective interventions for chronic neck pain. METHODS: The following databases will be searched from their inception to February 2019: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological and not pharmacological interventions will be included and their risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes will be reduction in pain and disability. A network meta-analysis will be carried out and pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using Stata 15 software. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) will be applied to assess quality of the body of the evidence. RESULTS: The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive review on the most effective treatments for the management of chronic neck pain providing key evidence-based information to patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders. Registration: PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019124501).

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with Doin therapy for chronic neck pain: a study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Doin therapy is a manual therapy used in Korean rehabilitation medicine. Recently, the use of acupuncture with Doin has increased in clinics and clinical trials have demonstrated its effects. However, well-designed studies examining the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with Doin therapy are rare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with Doin therapy. A total of 124 patients (with a neck pain duration of 6 months or longer and a Numeric Rating Scale ≥5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospitals. Patients will be randomly allocated to acupuncture with Doin therapy (n=62) and acupuncture alone (n=62) for 5 weeks of treatment. This study will be carried out with outcome assessor and statistician blinding. The primary outcome measure will consist of improvement in neck pain using the Visual Analogue Scale at 6 weeks. The secondary outcomes including measures of pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life and economic evaluation will be conducted at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after treatment ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project is approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Jaseng Hospital of Korean Medicine and the Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine Hospital at Gangdong. Dissemination will occur after the findings from this study are published in other peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03558178; KCT0003068; Pre-results.

Patient Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Chronic Low Back Pain and Chronic Neck Pain.

Many recommended nonpharmacologic therapies for patients with chronic spinal pain require visits to providers such as acupuncturists and chiropractors. Little information is available to inform third-party payers' coverage policies regarding ongoing use of these therapies. This study offers contingent valuation-based estimates of patient willingness to pay (WTP) for pain reductions from a large (n = 1,583) sample of patients using ongoing chiropractic care to manage their chronic low back and neck pain. Average WTP estimates were $45.98 (45.8) per month per 1-point reduction in current pain for chronic low back pain and $37.32 (38.0) for chronic neck pain. These estimates met a variety of validity checks including that individuals' values define a downward-sloping demand curve for these services. Comparing these WTP estimates with patients' actual use of chiropractic care over the next 3 months indicates that these patients are likely "buying" perceived pain reductions from what they believe their pain would have been if they didn't see their chiropractor-that is, they value maintenance of their current mild pain levels. These results provide some evidence for copay levels and their relationship to patient demand, but call into question ongoing coverage policies that require the documentation of continued improvement or of experienced clinical deterioration with treatment withdrawal. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides estimates of reported WTP for pain reduction from a large sample of patients using chiropractic care to manage their chronic spinal pain and compares these estimates to what these patients do for care over the next 3 months, to inform coverage policies for ongoing care.

Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation.

A cluster-randomized controlled trial, WorkUp, was conducted for working-aged patients at risk of sick leave or on short-term sick leave due to acute/subacute neck and/or back pain in Sweden. The purpose of WorkUp was to facilitate participants to stay at work or in case of sick leave, return-to-work. The aim of this study was to study whether the WorkUp trial was cost-effective. Patients in the intervention and reference group received structured evidence-based physiotherapy, while patients in the intervention group also received a work place dialogue with the employer as an add-on. The participants, 352 in total, were recruited from 20 physiotherapeutic units in primary healthcare in southern Sweden. The economic evaluation was performed both from a healthcare and a societal perspective with a 12-month time frame with extensive univariate sensitivity analyses. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with outcomes measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and proportion working for at least 4 weeks in a row without reported sick leave at 12-month follow-up. From the healthcare perspective, the ICER was €23,606 (2013 price year) per QALY gain. From the societal perspective the intervention was dominating, i.e.. less costly and more effective than reference care. Bootstrap analysis showed that the probability of the intervention to be cost-effective at €50,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY was 85% from the societal perspective. Structured evidence-based physiotherapeutic care together with workplace dialogue is a cost-effective alternative from both a societal and a healthcare perspective for acute/subacute neck and/or back pain patients.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02609750.

Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation of Chuna manual therapy for chronic neck pain: protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a highly prevalent medical condition that incurs substantial social burden. Although manual therapy is widely used for treatment of neck pain, the body of evidence supporting its effectiveness and safety is not conclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the effect, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy, a traditional Korean manual therapy for treatment of various musculoskeletal complaints. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a two-armed parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. A total 108 patients with chronic neck pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, numeric rating scale [NRS] of neck pain ≥ 5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospital sites. Participants will be allotted to one of two groups (n = 54, respectively): the Chuna manual therapy group, and the usual care (conventional physical therapy and medication treatment) group. Ten sessions of Chuna manual therapy or usual care will be administered twice a week for five weeks. Since the study design does not permit patient or physician blinding, the outcome assessor and statistician will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck pain at 5 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the VAS of radiating arm pain, NRS of neck pain and radiating arm pain, Vernon-Mior neck disability index (NDI), Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), EQ-VAS, patient global impression of change (PGIC), economic evaluation, adverse effects, and drug consumption. Follow-up outcome assessments will be conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy and usual care on chronic neck pain. Adverse events, and costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be evaluated to assess safety and exploratory cost-effectiveness (economic evaluation). This study aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0002732 . Registered on 13 March 2018. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03294785 . Registered on 27 September 2017.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol.

Background: Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. Methods/design: We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted. Discussion: This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.

Timing of physical therapy consultation on 1-year healthcare utilization and costs in patients seeking care for neck pain: a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients seek care from physical therapists for neck pain but it is unclear what the association of the timing of physical therapy (PT) consultation is on 1-year healthcare utilization and costs. The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year healthcare utilization and costs between three PT timing groups: patients who consulted a physical therapist (PT) for neck pain within 14 days (early PT consultation), between 15 and 90 days (delayed PT consultation) or between 91 and 364 days (late PT consultation). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 308 patients (69.2% female, ages 48.7[±14.5] years) were categorized into PT timing groups. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each group. In adjusted regression models, 1-year healthcare utilization of injections, imaging, opioids and costs were compared between groups. RESULTS: Compared to early PT consultation, the odds of receiving an opioid prescription (aOR = 2.79, 95%CI: 1.35-5.79), spinal injection (aOR = 4.36, 95%CI:2.26-8.45), undergoing an MRI (aOR = 4.68, 95%CI:2.25-9.74), X-ray (aOR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.61-5.47) or CT scan (aOR = 3.36, 95%CI: 1.14-9.97) were increased in patients in the late PT consultation group. Similar increases in risk were found in the delayed group (except CT and Opioids). Compared to the early PT consultation group, mean costs were $2172 ($557, $3786) higher in the late PT contact group and $1063 (95%CI: $ 138 - $1988) higher in the delayed PT consultation group. DISCUSSION: There was an association with the timing of physical therapy consultation on healthcare utilization and costs, where later consultation was associated with increases costs and healthcare utilization. This study examined the association of timing of physical therapy consultation on costs and healthcare utilization, but not the association of increased access to physical therapy consultation. Therefore, the findings warrant further investigation to explore the effects of increased access to physical therapy consultation on healthcare utilization and costs in a prospective study.

Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the design, implementation and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) model. DESIGN: BAC is a new, community-based specialist service for assessing and managing neck and low back pain (LBP). The BAC pilot was supported by a Victorian Department of Health and Human Services grant and was evaluated using the Victorian Innovation Reform Impact Assessment Framework (VIRIAF). Data were obtained by auditing BAC activity (22 July 2014 to 30 June 2015) and conducting surveys and interviews of patients, stakeholders and referrers. SETTING: Tertiary and primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with neck and LBP referred for outpatient surgical consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VIRIAF outcomes: (1) access to care; (2) appropriate and safe care; (3) workforce optimisation and integration; and (4) efficiency and sustainability. RESULTS: A total of 522 patients were seen during the pilot. Most were referred to hospital services by general practitioners (87%) for LBP (63%) and neck pain (24%). All patients were seen within 10 weeks of referral and commenced community-based allied health intervention within 2-4 weeks of assessment in BAC. Of patients seen, 34% had medications adjusted, 57% were referred for physiotherapy, 3.2% to pain services, 1.1% to rheumatology and 1.8% for surgical review. Less MRI scans were ordered in BAC (6.4%) compared with traditional spinal surgical clinics (89.8%), which translated to a cost-saving of $52 560 over 12 months. Patient and staff satisfaction was high. There have been no patient complaints or adverse incidents. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the BAC pilot suggests it is a potentially safe and cost-saving alternative model of care. Results of the BAC pilot merit further evaluation to determine the potential cost-effectiveness, longer term and broader societal impact of implementing BAC more widely.

Review article: Best practice management of neck pain in the emergency department (part 6 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Neck pain and whiplash injuries are a common presentation to the ED, and a frequent cause of disability globally. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of musculoskeletal neck pain in the ED. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2017. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines were considered for inclusion. English-language articles published in the past 12 years addressing acute neck pain assessment, management or prognosis in the ED were included. Data extraction was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate levels of evidence where possible. The search revealed 2080 articles, of which 51 were included (n = 22 primary articles, n = 13 systematic reviews and n = 16 guidelines). Consistent evidence was found to support the use of 'red flags' to screen for serious pathologies, judicious use of imaging through clinical decision rule application and promotion of functional exercise coupled with advice and reassurance. Clinicians may also consider applying risk-stratification methods, such as using a clinical prediction rule, to guide patient discharge and referral plans; however, the evidence is still emerging in this population. This rapid review provides clinicians managing neck pain in the ED a summary of the best available evidence to enhance quality of care and optimise patient outcomes.

Long-term follow-up of whiplash injuries reported to insurance companies: a cohort study on patient-reported outcomes and impact of financial compensation.

PURPOSE: The long-term outcome of Whiplash-associated disorder (WADs) has been reported to be poor in populations from medical settings. However, no trials have investigated the long-term prognosis of patients from medico-legal environment. For this group, the "compensation hypothesis" suggests financial compensation being associated with worsened outcome. The aims of this study were to describe long-term (2-4 years) non-recovery rates in participants with WAD recruited from insurance companies and to investigate the association between self-reported non-recovery and financial compensation. METHODS: 144 participants, reporting neck pain after a motor vehicle accident, were recruited from two major insurance companies in Sweden. Self-reported recovery was measured at 6 months and 2-4 years. Those who received financial compensation from an insurance company were compared with those who received no compensation. RESULTS: The overall non-recovery rate after 2-4 years was 55.9% (66/118). In the non-compensated group, the non-recovery rate was 51.0% (25/49) and in the compensated group 73% (27/37) (p = 0.039). Adjusted OR was 4.33 (1.37-13.66). High level of pain at baseline was a strong predictor of non-recovery [OR 46 (4.7-446.0)]. However, no association was found between pain level at baseline and financial compensation. CONCLUSIONS: The non-recovery rate among patients making insurance claims is high, especially among those receiving financial compensation even if causal relationship cannot be determined based on this study. However, lack of association between baseline level of pain and compensation supports the compensation hypothesis.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tuina for Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Tuina with a No-Intervention Waiting List.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether tuina is more effective and cost-effective in reducing pain compared to no intervention in patients with chronic neck pain. DESIGN: Single-center randomized two-armed controlled trial. SETTING: University outpatient clinic specialized in Integrative Medicine. SUBJECTS: Outpatients with chronic neck pain were randomly allocated to tuina or no intervention. INTERVENTION: Six tuina treatments within 3 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean neck pain intensity during the previous 7 days on a visual analogue scale after 4 weeks (VAS, 0-100 mm, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain). Secondary outcomes included Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), health-related quality of life (12-item quality-of-life questionnaire [SF-12]), medication intake, and cost-effectiveness after 4 and 12 weeks. Statistical analysis included analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline values and a full economic analysis from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Altogether, 92 outpatients were included (46 in both groups, 87% female, mean age 45.4 [standard deviation ±9.7], and mean VAS 57.7 ± 11.5). Tuina treatment led to a clinically meaningful reduction in neck pain intensity (group differences, 4 weeks: -22.8 mm [95% confidence interval, -31.7 to -13.8]; p < 0.001 and 12 weeks: -17.9 mm [-27.1 to -8.8], p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were observed. Total costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) did not differ significantly between the groups. When taking group differences into account independently from their statistical significance, costs per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) would range within a cost-effective area from €7,566 (for costs €10.28 per session) to €39,414 (cost €35 per session). CONCLUSION: An additional treatment with six tuina sessions over 3 weeks was effective, safe and relatively cost-effective for patients with chronic neck pain. A future trial should compare tuina to other best care options.