The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial

English version

Autoři: Ben Darlow ^aff001; James Stanley ^aff002; Sarah Dean ^aff003; J. Haxby Abbott ^aff004; Sue Garrett ^aff001; Ross Wilson ^aff004; Fiona Mathieson ^aff005; Anthony Dowell ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand ^aff001; Biostatistical Group, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand ^aff002; University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom ^aff003; Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand ^aff004; Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand ^aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 16(9): e1002897. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002897
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002897

Souhrn

Background

Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world’s most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control).

Methods and findings

This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI −0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices.

Conclusions

Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP.

Trial registration

ACTRN12616000888460

Klíčová slova:

Medicine and health sciences – Health care – Psychological and psychosocial issues – Health care providers – Medical doctors – Physicians – General practitioners – Allied health care professionals – Nurses – Health economics – Patients – Diagnostic medicine – Signs and symptoms – Pain – Lower back pain – Pathology and laboratory medicine – People and places – Population groupings – Professions – Medical personnel – Social sciences – Economics

Zdroje

1. GBD Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1545–602. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6 27733282

2. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X 29573870

3. Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–83. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6 29573872

4. Williams CM, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, McAuley JH, McLachlan AJ, Britt H, et al. Low Back Pain and Best Practice Care A Survey of General Practice Physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(3):271–7. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.507 20142573

5. Buchbinder R, van Tulder M, Öberg B, Costa LM, Woolf A, Schoene M, et al. Low back pain: a call for action. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2384–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30488-4 29573871

6. Lin CW, Haas M, Maher CG, Machado LA, van Tulder MW. Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(7):1012–23. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1675-4 21203890

7. Mesner SA, Foster NE, French SD. Implementation interventions to improve the management of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:258. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1110-z 27286812

8. Riis A, Jensen CE, Bro F, Maindal HT, Petersen KD, Bendtsen MD, et al. A multifaceted implementation strategy versus passive implementation of low back pain guidelines in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0509-0 27769263

9. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 19664226

10. Darlow B. The development of a new approach to acute low back pain management in general practice [Doctoral thesis]. Wellington: University of Otago; 2014.

11. Darlow B, Stanley J, Dean S, Abbott JH, Garrett S, Mathieson F, et al. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):484. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2225-8 29041947

12. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8(2):141–4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 6222486

13. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

14. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998;23(18):2003–13. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018 9779535

15. Lamb SE, Lall R, Hansen Z, Castelnuovo E, Withers EJ, Nichols V, et al. A multicentred randomised controlled trial of a primary care-based cognitive behavioural programme for low back pain. The Back Skills Training (BeST) trial. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(41):g1–281. doi: 10.3310/hta14410 20807469

16. Pinto D, Robertson MC, Hansen P, Abbott JH. Good agreement between questionnaire and administrative databases for health care use and costs in patients with osteoarthritis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-45 21489280

17. Rainville J, Carlson N, Polatin P, Gatchel RJ, Indahl A, Volinn E. Exploration of physicians' recommendations for activities in chronic low back pain. Spine. 2000;25(17):2210–20. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200009010-00012 10973405

18. Smucker DR, Konrad TR, Curtis P, Carey TS. Practitioner self-confidence and patient outcomes in acute low back pain. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(3):223. 9596455

19. Darlow B, Perry M, Mathieson F, Stanley J, Melloh M, Marsh R, et al. The development and exploratory analysis of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ). BMJ Open. 2014;4(5). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005251 24860003

20. Evans DW, Foster NE, Underwood M, Vogel S, Breen AC, Pincus T. Testing the effectiveness of an innovative information package on practitioner reported behaviour and beliefs: The UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low back pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) trial [ISRCTN77245761]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6(41). doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-41 16033646

21. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 18929686

22. Beurskens A, De Vet H, Köke A. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65(1):71–6. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2 8826492

23. Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, Bryan S, Dunn KM, Foster NE, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9802):1560–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9 21963002

24. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002;21(19):2917–30. doi: 10.1002/sim.1296 12325108

25. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52(3):223–8. doi: 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01397-3.x 11560553

26. Groenwold RH, Donders ART, Roes KC, Harrell FE, Moons KG. Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(3):210–7. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr302 22262640

27. White IR, Thompson SG. Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med. 2005;24(7):993–1007. doi: 10.1002/sim.1981 15570623

28. Van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL. Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med. 1999;18(6):681–94. 10204197

29. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91(434):473–89.

30. Darlow B (2019) Data from: The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. Dryad Digital Repository. Available from: https://datadryad.org/review doi: 10.5061/dryad.4t375b2 [cited 16 August 2019].

31. Brown VT, Underwood M, Mohamed N, Westwood O, Morrissey D. Professional interventions for general practitioners on the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(5):Art. No.: CD007495. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007495.pub2 27150167

32. Traeger AC, Lee H, Hübscher M, et al. Effect of intensive patient education vs placebo patient education on outcomes in patients with acute low back pain: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurology. 2019;76(2):161–9. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3376 30398542

33. Jellema P, Van Der Windt DAWM, Van Der Horst HE, Blankenstein AH, Bouter LM, Stalman WAB. Why is a treatment aimed at psychosocial factors not effective in patients with (sub)acute low back pain? Pain. 2005;118(3):350–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.09.002 16289797

34. Cherkin D, Balderson B, Wellman R, Hsu C, Sherman KJ, Evers SC, et al. Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(8):1324–36. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4468-9 29790073

35. Traeger AC, Hübscher M, Henschke N, Moseley GL, Lee H, McAuley JH. Effect of Primary Care–Based Education on Reassurance in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(5):733–43. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0217 25799308

36. Page MJ, French SD, McKenzie JE, O'Connor DA, Green SE. Recruitment difficulties in a primary care cluster randomised trial: investigating factors contributing to general practitioners' recruitment of patients. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(35). doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-35 21453543