Does pain duration and other variables measured at baseline predict re-referral of low back pain patients managed on an evidence-based pathway? A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between baseline pain duration and the likelihood of re-referral of patients with low back pain (LBP) managed on the evidence-based North East of England Regional Back Pain and Radicular Pain Pathway (NERBPP). STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal, observational cohort study. METHODS: In all, 12,509 adults with LBP were identified as having been discharged from the pathway, between May 2015 and December 2019. To quantify any association between baseline pain duration and the likelihood of re-referral, two statistical modelling approaches, were used: logistic regression models for odds ratios and generalised linear models with a binomial link function in order to quantify risk differences. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of patients with LBP, who were discharged, re-referred for management over a 4.5-year period. A large difference in pain duration of 2 SD days was statistically associated with re-referral, with an odds ratio of 1.22 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.44) and a risk difference of 3.6% (95% CI: 0.6, 6.6). Nevertheless, the predictive value of an individual's pain duration was found to be weak for re-referral. Higher baseline disability [odds ratio of 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83)] and a younger age at baseline [odds ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61, 0.86)] were also associated with an increased risk of re-referral. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline pain duration, disability and younger age are statistically associated with re-referral onto the NERBPP. However, the value of these variables for predicting an individual's risk of re-referral is weak. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

Long-term improvements following a residential combined physical and psychological programme for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the outcomes and explore experiences of patients undergoing a residential combined physical and psychological programme (CPPP) for chronic low back pain. DESIGN: A longitudinal observational cohort design, with a parallel qualitative design using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Residential, multimodal rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: 136 adults (62 male/74 female) referred to the CPPP, 100 (44 male/56 female) of whom completed the programme, during the term of the study. Ten (2 male/8 female) participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTION: A 3-week residential CPPP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were the STarT Back screening tool score; pain intensity-11-point Numerical Rating Scale; function-Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); health status/quality of life-EQ-5D-5L EuroQol five-Dimension-five level; anxiety-Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depression-Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary outcome measures were the Global Subjective Outcome Scale; National Health Service Friends and Family Test;. RESULTS: At discharge, 6 and 12 months follow ups, there were improvements from baseline that were greater than minimum clinically important differences in each of the outcomes (with the sole exception of ODI at discharge). At 12 months, the majority of people considered themselves a lot better (57%) and were extremely likely (86%) to recommend the programme to a friend. The qualitative data showed praise for the residential nature of the intervention and the opportunities for interaction with peers and peer support. There were testimonies of improvements in understanding of pain and how to manage it better. Some participants said they had reduced, or stopped, medication they had been taking to manage their pain. CONCLUSIONS: Participants improved, and maintained long term, beyond minimum clinically important differences on a wide range of outcomes. Participants reported an enhanced ability to self-manage their back pain and support for the residential setting.

Does Duration of Pain at Baseline Influence Longer-term Clinical Outcomes of Low Back Pain Patients Managed on an Evidence-Based Pathway?

STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized longitudinal observational study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between baseline pain duration and medium-to-long term clinical outcomes, in low back pain (LBP) patients enrolled on the North East of England Regional Back Pain and Radicular Pain Pathway (NERBPP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The NERBPP is based upon National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. These guidelines no longer differentiate management of LBP patients based on pain duration. Medium-to-long term data from the NERBPP is lacking. METHODS: Between May 2015 and December 2019, 786 and 552 LBP patients from the NERBPP returned 6-month and 12-month follow-up outcome measures, respectively. Outcomes included pain (Numerical rating scale), function (Oswestry Disability Index) and quality-of-life (EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire), analyzed using a series of covariate-adjusted models. Patients were categorized into four groups based upon baseline pain duration: <3 months, ≥3 to <6 months, ≥6 months to <12 months, ≥12 months. RESULTS: Patients with <3 months duration demonstrated clinically important improvements on all outcomes, at both follow-ups. The improvements in outcomes from this group were larger than those in the ≥12 month's duration group (P < 0.05), these group differences in change, in some cases surpassed our threshold for clinical relevance. Functional improvements in those with ≥12 month's duration were not clinically relevant at either follow-up. All patients, regardless of baseline pain duration, reported similar levels of readiness to self-manage at the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Baseline pain duration would appear to be of clinical importance. Patients with shorter baseline pain duration demonstrated better outcomes. Those with ≥12 month's duration of pain may need additional support during their management to achieve clinically relevant functional improvements in the medium-to-long term. These findings raise questions about the decision by NICE to move away from duration of pain to differentiate management of LBP patients.Level of Evidence: 3.