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

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

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

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

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. A Cochrane review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of active rehabilitation on functional outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery when compared with "usual postoperative care." SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery rates for lumbar spinal stenosis have risen, yet outcomes remain suboptimal. Postoperative rehabilitation has been suggested as a tool to improve postoperative function but, to date, there is limited evidence to support its use. METHODS: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro electronic databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of active rehabilitation with usual care in adults with lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone primary spinal decompression surgery were included. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data in line with the recommendations of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Study results were pooled in a meta-analysis when appropriate using functional status as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including measures of leg pain, low back pain, and global improvement/general health. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Our searches yielded 1726 articles, of which 3 studies (N = 373 participants) were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis. All included studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. There was moderate evidence suggesting that active rehabilitation was more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term functional status after surgery. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain. CONCLUSION: We obtained moderate-quality evidence indicating that postoperative active rehabilitation after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is more effective than usual care. Further work is required particularly with respect to the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of back pain that can also give rise to pain in the buttock, thigh or leg, particularly when walking. Several possible treatments are available, of which surgery appears to be best at restoring function and reducing pain. Surgical outcome is not ideal, and a sizeable proportion of patients do not regain good function. No accepted evidence-based approach to postoperative care is known-a fact thathas prompted this review. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether active rehabilitation programmes following primary surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis have an impact on functional outcomes and whether such programmes are superior to 'usual postoperative care'. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their first issues to March 2013: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, most recent issue), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of active rehabilitation versus usual care in adults (> 18 years of age) with confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone spinal decompressive surgery (with or without fusion) for the first time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials by using a predeveloped form. We contacted authors of original trials to request additional unpublished data as required. We recorded baseline characteristics of participants, interventions, comparisons, follow-up and outcome measures to enable assessment of clinical homogeneity. Clinical relevance was independently assessed by using the five questions recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG), and risk of bias within studies was determined by using CBRG criteria.We pooled individual study results in a meta-analysis when appropriate. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) when the same measurement scales were used in all studies and the standardised mean difference (SMD) when different measurement scales were used. Whenreported means and standard deviations of the outcomes showed that outcome data were skewed, we log-transformed data for all studies in the comparison and performed a meta-analysis on the log-scale. Results of analyses performed on the log-scale were converted back to the original scale. We used a fixed-effect inverse variance model to measure treatment effect when no substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity was found. When we detected substantial statistical heterogeneity, we used a random-effects inverse variance model.The primary outcome measure was functional status as measured by a back-specific functional scale. Secondary outcomes included measures of leg pain, low back pain and global improvement/general health. We considered statistical significance and clinical relevance of outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome on the basis of five criteria, for which evidence was ranked from high to very low quality, depending on the number of criteria met. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches yielded 1,726 results, and a total of three studies (N = 373 participants) were included in the review and meta-analysis. All studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. Also, no unacceptably unbalanced dropout rates, unacceptably low adherence rates or non-adherence to the protocol or clearly significant unbalanced baseline differences were noted for the primary outcome. Outcomes in the short term (within six months postoperative)Evidence of moderate quality from three RCTs (N = 340) shows that active rehabilitation is more effective than usual care for functional status (log SMD -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 0.00, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in standardised functional score) of 20%, 95% CI 0% to 36%) and for reported low back pain (log MD -0.18, 95% CI-0.35 to -0.02, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 16%, 95% CI 2% to 30%). In contrast, evidence of low quality suggests that rehabilitation is no more effective than usual care for leg pain (log MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.19, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 16%, 95% CI 21% worsening to 41% improvement). Low-quality evidence from two RCTs (N = 238) indicates that rehabilitation has no additional benefit on general health status as compared to usual care (MD 1.30, 95% CI -4.45 to 7.06). Outcomes in the long term (at 12 months postoperative)Evidence of moderate quality from three RCTs (N = 373) shows that rehabilitation is more effective than usual care for functional status (log SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in standardised functional score) of 23%, 95% CI 5% to 37%), for reported low back pain (log MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.05, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 18%, 95% CI 5% to 30%]. Evidence of moderate quality (N = 373) and for leg pain (log MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.01, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 21%, 95% CI 1% to 37%). In contrast, evidence of low quality from two studies (N = 273) suggests that rehabilitation is no more effective than usual care with respect to improvement in general health (MD -0.48, 95% CI -6.41 to 5.4).None of the included papers reported any relevant adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that active rehabilitation is more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term (back-related) functional status. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain, although limited impact was observed in relation to improvements in general health status. The clinical relevance of these effects is medium to small. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of relevant studies identified, and further research is required.

Management of work-relevant upper limb disorders: a review.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb disorders (ULDs) are clinically challenging and responsible for considerable work loss. There is a need to determine effective approaches for their management. AIM: To determine evidence-based management strategies for work-relevant ULDs and explore whether a biopsychosocial approach is appropriate. METHODS: Literature review using a best evidence synthesis. Data from articles identified through systematic searching of electronic databases and citation tracking were extracted into evidence tables. The information was synthesized into high-level evidence statements, which were ordered into themes covering classification/diagnosis, epidemiology, associations/risks and management/treatment, focusing on return to work or work retention and taking account of distinctions between non-specific complaints and specific diagnoses. RESULTS: Neither biomedical treatment nor ergonomic workplace interventions alone offer an optimal solution; rather, multimodal interventions show considerable promise, particularly for occupational outcomes. Early return to work, or work retention, is an important goal for most cases and may be facilitated, where necessary, by transitional work arrangements. The emergent evidence indicates that successful management strategies require all the players to be on side and acting in a coordinated fashion; this requires engaging employers and workers to participate. CONCLUSIONS: The biopsychosocial model applies: biological considerations should not be ignored, but psychosocial factors are more influential for occupational outcomes. Implementation of interventions that address the full range of psychosocial issues will require a cultural shift in the way the relationship between upper limb complaints and work is conceived and handled. Dissemination of evidence-based messages can contribute to the needed cultural shift.

Do community pharmacists have the attitudes and knowledge to support evidence based self-management of low back pain?

BACKGROUND: In many countries, community pharmacists can be consulted without appointment in a large number of convenient locations. They are in an ideal position to give advice to patients at the onset of low back pain and also reinforce advice given by other healthcare professionals. There is little specific information about the quality of care provided in the pharmacy for people with back pain. The main objectives of this survey were to determine the attitudes, knowledge and reported practice of English pharmacists advising people who present with acute or chronic low back pain. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed for anonymous self-completion by pharmacists attending continuing education sessions. Demographic questions were designed to allow comparison with a national pharmacy workforce survey. Attitudes were measured with the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and questions based on the Working Backs Scotland campaign. Questions about the treatment of back pain in the community pharmacy were written (or adapted) to reflect and characterise the nature of practice. In response to two clinical vignettes, respondents were asked to select proposals that they would recommend in practice. RESULTS: 335 responses from community pharmacists were analysed. Middle aged pharmacists, women, pharmacy managers and locums were over-represented compared to registration and workforce data. The mean (SD) BBQ score for the pharmacists was 31.37 (5.75), which was slightly more positive than in similar surveys of other groups. Those who had suffered from back pain seem to demonstrate more confidence (fewer negative feelings, more advice opportunities and better advice provision) in their perception of advice given in the pharmacy. Awareness of written information that could help to support practice was low. Reponses to the clinical vignettes were generally in line with the evidence base. Pharmacists expressed some caution about recommending activity. Most respondents said they would benefit from more education about back pain. CONCLUSION: Those sampled generally expressed positive attitudes about back pain and were able to offer evidence based advice. Pharmacists may benefit from training to increase their ability and confidence to offer support for self-care in back pain. Further research would be useful to clarify the representativeness of the sample.

Fear avoidance and prognosis in back pain: a systematic review and synthesis of current evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Fear of pain, which is hypothesized to result in avoidance behavior, has been described as an obstacle to recovery in populations of patients with low back pain. However, the evidence to support the link between high levels of fear at early stages of pain and poor prognosis has yet to be systematically assessed. We undertook this review to explore current evidence and to propose further development of theoretical models. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of all prospective inception cohorts of patients with acute low back pain that measured fear of pain (often described as fear avoidance) at baseline. RESULTS: We reviewed 9 studies reported between 2001 and 2006. Several of these had acceptable/good methodology. Three studies, of which at least 1 had excellent methodology, showed no link between measures of fear at baseline and poor prognosis in the short term (3 months) or the long term (12 months). Three studies with acceptable methodology showed weak evidence for such a link, but the effect sizes were small. The only study with acceptable methodology to find a clear link suggested that fear of movement was linked to long-term pain. CONCLUSION: Despite the prevalent focus on fear of pain at early stages of back pain, there is little evidence to link such fear states with poor prognosis. There is some evidence to suggest that fear may play a role when pain has become persistent. There is a growing consensus that distress/depression plays an important role at early stages, and clinicians should focus on these factors.

The implementation of occupational health guidelines principles for reducing sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders.

BACKGROUND: Occupational health guidelines recommend a biopsychosocial approach to manage sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), with a primary focus on early intervention through provision of a supportive network. AIMS: To investigate the implementation of a guidelines-based intervention (early contact of absentees; addressing psychosocial obstacles; offering temporary modified work; communicating among the players), and to determine whether this is effective for reducing return-to-work times and duration of future absence. METHODS: A non-randomized controlled trial was conducted within a UK company. Occupational health nurses at two experimental sites (1,435 workers) were trained to deliver the intervention to workers taking absence due to MSDs (low back and upper limb disorders), while usual care was delivered at three control sites (1,483 workers). Company-recorded absence data were collected over a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The implementation of the experimental intervention was impeded by unforeseen organizational obstacles at one site (policies, procedures and individual approaches) which had a detrimental effect on uptake and delivery. At the site where the intervention was delivered per protocol, absence was significantly less compared with controls; 6.5 and 10.8 days, respectively. However, the duration of future absence was not significantly different (13.0 and 25.1 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: An early intervention addressing psychosocial obstacles to recovery can be effective for reducing absence due to MSDs. Successful implementation, where the key players are onside and organizational obstacles are overcome, is difficult to achieve.

How to prevent low back pain.

This chapter summarizes the European Guidelines for Prevention in Low Back Pain, which consider the evidence in respect of the general population, workers and children. There is limited scope for preventing the incidence (first-time onset) of back pain and, overall, there is limited robust evidence for numerous aspects of prevention in back pain. Nevertheless, there is evidence suggesting that prevention of various consequences of back pain is feasible. However, for those interventions where there is acceptable evidence, the effect sizes are rather modest. The most promising approaches seem to involve physical activity/exercise and appropriate (biopsychosocial) education, at least for adults. Owing to its multidimensional nature, no single intervention is likely to be effective at preventing the overall problem of back pain, although there is likely to be benefit from getting all the players onside. However, innovative studies are required to better understand the mechanisms and delivery of prevention in low back pain.

Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of low back pain.

This chapter develops rehabilitation principles for the clinical and occupational management of non-specific low back pain (LBP). Rehabilitation has traditionally been a secondary intervention, which focused on permanent impairment, but this is inappropriate for LBP. Most patients with LBP do not have any irremediable impairment and long-term incapacity is not inevitable: given the right care, support and opportunity, most should be able to return to work. Rehabilitation should then address obstacles to recovery and barriers to (return to) work. Rehabilitation should not be a separate, second stage after 'treatment' is complete: rehabilitation principles should be integral to clinical and occupational management. It should be possible to reduce sickness absence and long-term incapacity due to LBP by at least 30-50%, but this will require a fundamental shift in management culture.

Long-term follow-up of patients with low back pain attending for manipulative care: outcomes and predictors.

Psychosocial factors are known to act as obstacles to recovery from low back pain, but predictors of longer-term outcomes are not established. An average 4-year follow-up of a cohort of 252 low back pain patients attending for manipulative care was conducted to describe the longer-term course of low back pain, and to identify predictors of outcomes. Clinical and psychosocial data were obtained at baseline. Mailed questionnaires collected self-reported outcomes (pain, disability, recurrence and care seeking). Among the 60% who responded, the statistically significant reduction in mean Roland Disability Questionnaire score seen at 1 year did not improve further during follow-up. At the 4-year point, 49% of respondents reported residual disability, and 59% reported at least 'mild' pain. Symptom recurrence beyond the 1-year point was reported by 78% of respondents, with half of them seeking further care. Recurrence and care seeking were related to fear avoidance beliefs and duration of presenting symptoms. The disability score at 4-years was statistically significantly related to baseline depressive symptoms and higher pain intensity. Low back pain presenting for manipulative care is characterized by high levels of recurrence and care seeking over at least 4-years for many patients. Because psychosocial factors at presentation exert a long-term influence, they need to be considered by manual therapists.

A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of prospective cohort studies in low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence implicating psychological factors in the development of chronicity in low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The biopsychosocial model is gaining acceptance in low back pain, and has provided a basis for screening measurements, guidelines and interventions; however, to date, the unique contribution of psychological factors in the transition from an acute presentation to chronicity has not been rigorously assessed. METHODS: A systematic literature search was followed by the application of three sets of criteria to each study: methodologic quality, quality of measurement of psychological factors, and quality of statistical analysis. Two reviewers blindly coded each study, followed by independent assessment by a statistician. Studies were divided into three environments: primary care settings, pain clinics, and workplace. RESULTS: Twenty-five publications (18 cohorts) included psychological factors at baseline. Six of these met acceptability criteria for methodology, psychological measurement, and statistical analysis. Increased risk of chronicity (persisting symptoms and/or disability) from psychological distress/depressive mood and, to a lesser extent, somatization emerged as the main findings. Acceptable evidence generally was not found for other psychological factors, although weak support emerged for the role of catastrophizing as a coping strategy. CONCLUSION: Psychological factors (notably distress, depressive mood, and somatization) are implicated in the transition to chronic low back pain. The development and testing of clinical interventions specifically targeting these factors is indicated. In view of the importance attributed to other psychological factors (particularly coping strategies and fear avoidance) there is a need to clarify their role in back-related disability through rigorous prospective studies.