Causal mechanisms of a healthy lifestyle intervention for patients with musculoskeletal pain who are overweight or obese.

PURPOSE: To assess the causal mechanisms of a healthy lifestyle intervention for patients with chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese. METHODS: We conducted causal mediation analyses of aggregated data from two randomized controlled trials (RCTs); which included 160 patients with chronic low back pain, and 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis. The intervention consisted of brief advice and referral to a six-month telephone-based healthy lifestyle coaching service. We used causal mediation to estimate the indirect, direct and path-specific effects of hypothesized mediators including: self-reported weight, diet, physical activity, and pain beliefs. Outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The intervention did not reduce weight, improve diet or physical activity or change pain beliefs, and these mediators were not associated with the outcomes. Sensitivity analyses showed that our estimates were robust to the possible effects of unknown and unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the intervention did not cause a meaningful change in the hypothesized mediators, and these mediators were not associated with patient-reported outcomes.

Economic evaluation of a healthy lifestyle intervention for chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations which estimate cost-effectiveness of potential treatments can guide decisions about real-world healthcare services. We performed an economic evaluation of a healthy lifestyle intervention targeting weight loss, physical activity and diet for patients with chronic low back pain, who are overweight or obese. METHODS: Eligible patients with chronic low back pain (n = 160) were randomized to an intervention or usual care control group. The intervention included brief advice, a clinical consultation and referral to a 6-month telephone-based healthy lifestyle coaching service. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, disability, weight and body mass index. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilization costs and work absenteeism costs. An economic analysis was performed from the societal perspective. RESULTS: Mean total costs were lower in the intervention group than the control group (-$614; 95%CI: -3133 to 255). The intervention group had significantly lower healthcare costs (-$292; 95%CI: -872 to -33), medication costs (-$30; 95%CI: -65 to -4) and absenteeism costs (-$1,000; 95%CI: -3573 to -210). For all outcomes, the intervention was on average less expensive and more effective than usual care, and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared to usual care was relatively high (i.e., 0.81) at a willingness-to-pay of $0/unit of effect. However, the probability of cost-effectiveness was not as favourable among sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The healthy lifestyle intervention seems to be cost-effective from the societal perspective. However, variability in the sensitivity analyses indicates caution is needed when interpreting these findings. SIGNIFICANCE: This is an economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention for chronic low back pain. The findings suggest that a healthy lifestyle intervention may be cost-effective relative to usual care.

Dietary intake and physical activity levels of children attending Australian childcare services.

AIM: The primary aim of this study was to describe the dietary intake and physical activity levels of children while attending childcare. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 18 centre-based childcare services in the Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia. Childcare service characteristics were assessed via telephone interview. Child dietary intake and physical activity levels were assessed during a one-day observation conducted at participating childcare services using previously validated tools. RESULTS: Children consumed a mean of 0.2 serves of vegetables, 0.7 serves of fruit, 1.4 serves of grain (cereal) foods, 0.1 serves of lean meat and poultry, fish, eggs, nuts and seeds and legumes/beans, 0.6 serves of milk, yoghurt, cheese and alternatives, and 0.7 serves of discretionary foods during attendance at childcare. Of all child physical activity counts, 48.6% were classified as 'sedentary', and 22.3% classified as 'very active'. Bivariate analyses indicated that children attending services located in rural areas consumed significantly more serves of vegetables (0.3 serves (SD 0.7) vs 0.1 serves (SD 0.2), P = 0.05). Multivariate analyses indicated that services with large child enrolments had a significantly greater proportion of child counts classified as 'very active' (23.6% of child counts (95% CI 1.6, 29.5) vs 14.9% of child counts (95% CI 9.1, 20.6), P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable scope to improve the diet and activity behaviours of children during attendance at childcare. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to best support childcare services in implementing policies and practices to improve such behaviours in children.