Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL intervention for non-specific SUBACUTE low back pain in a working population: a cluster randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial condition with individual and societal impact that affects populations globally. Current guidelines for the treatment of LBP recommend pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. The aim of this study was to compare usual clinical practice with the effectiveness of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in reducing disability, severity of pain and improving quality of life in a working population of patients with subacute (2-12 weeks), non-specific LBP. METHODS: Longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 39 Primary Health Care Centres (PHCC) of Barcelona, with patients aged 18-65 years (n = 501; control group = 239; 26 PHCC, intervention group = 262; 13 PHCC). The control group received usual clinical care. The intervention group received usual clinical care plus a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention, which consisted of physiotherapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy and medication. The main outcomes were changes in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the minimal clinically important differences. Secondary outcomes were changes in the McGill Pain (MGPQ) and Quality of Life (SF-12) questionnaires. Assessment was conducted at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat and analyst-blinded. Multiple imputations were used. RESULTS: Of the 501 enrolled patients, 421 (84%) provided data at 3 months, and 387 (77.2%) at 12 months. Mean age was 46.8 years (SD: 11.5) and 64.7% were women. In the adjusted analysis of the RMDQ outcome, only the intervention group showed significant changes at 3 months (- 1.33 points, p = 0.005) and at 12 months (- 1.11 points, p = 0.027), but minimal clinically important difference were detected in both groups. In the adjusted analysis of the RMDQ outcome, the intervention group improvement more than the control group at 3 months (- 1.33 points, p = 0.005) and at 12 months (- 1.11 points, p = 0.027). The intervention group presented a significant difference. Both groups presented a minimal clinically important difference, but more difference in the intervention group. The intervention group presented significant differences in the MGPQ scales of current pain intensity and VAS scores at 3 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the physical and mental domains of the SF-12. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention in a working population with non-specific subacute LBP has a small positive impact on disability, and on the level of pain, mainly at short-term, but no difference on quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21392091 (17 oct 2018) (Prospectively registred).

[Estimation of the prevalence of cognitive impairment according to the test used]. / Estimaciones de la frecuencia de déficit cognitivo según el test empleado.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the findings of Folstein's Mini Mental Test (MMT), Lobo's Cognitive Mini Exam (CME) and the Isaacs Set test, in their detection of cognitive deficit in over-64 year olds; and to analyse the factors associated with variability in the scores obtained with these tests. DESIGN: An observational crossover study. SETTING: An urban Primary Care center. PATIENTS: Among the total of 1096 patients aged over 64 registered on 5 lists and with medical records, a random sample of 329 was chosen. INTERVENTIONS: The MMT, CME and Set test were administered to each patient in the same interview. Information on associated morbidity and social and demographic variables was gathered. MAIN RESULTS: 211 women (64%) and 118 men (36%) completed the tests. Women were older (73.0 +/- 6 against 71.2 +/- 6; p = 0.02) and had had less schooling (3.2 +/- 3.6 years against 4.2 +/- 3.7; p = 0.019). A higher percentage of women were illiterate (47.1% against 24.3%; p = 0.008). The MMT showed CD at 60.8%, the CME at 28% and the Set test at 11.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated prevalence of CD varies depending on the test used. Variability in the MMT and CME is basically due to years of schooling, whereas in the Set test it is because of age.