Literature DB >> 15131431

Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness.

Kaija Karjalainen1, Antti Malmivaara, Pertti Mutanen, Risto Roine, Heikki Hurri, Timo Pohjolainen.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVES: To Investigate the long-term effectiveness, costs, and effect modifiers of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a worksite visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A mini-intervention was earlier proved to be an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Whether the beneficial effect is sustained is not known. Furthermore, modifiers of a treatment effect are largely unknown.
METHODS: A total of 164 patients with subacute LBP randomized into a mini-intervention (A, n = 56), a mini-intervention plus a worksite visit (B, n = 51), or the usual care (C, n = 57). Mini-intervention consisted of a detailed assessment of the patients' history, beliefs, and physical findings by a physician and a physiotherapist, followed by recommendations and advice. The usual care patients received the conventional care. Pain, disability, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and health care consumption and costs were measured during a 24-month follow-up. Thirteen candidate modifiers were tested for each outcome.
RESULTS: There were no differences between the three treatment arms regarding the intensity of pain, the perceived disability, or the health-related quality of life. However, mini-intervention decreased occurrence of daily (A vs., C, P = 0.01) and bothersome (A vs. C, P < 0.05) pain and increased treatment satisfaction. Costs resulting from LBP were lower in the intervention groups (A 4670 Euros, B 5990 Euros) than in C (C 9510 Euros) (A vs. C, P = 0.04; and B vs. C, not significant). The average number of days on sick leave was 30 in A, 45 in B, and 62 in C (A vs. C, P = 0.03; B vs. C, not significant). The perceived risk for not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. Mental and mental-physical workers in A and B were less often on sick leave than those in C.
CONCLUSIONS: Mini-intervention is an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Despite lack of a significant effect on intensity of low back pain and perceived disability, mini-intervention, including proper recommendations and advice, according to the "active approach," is able to reduce LBP-related costs. The perceived risk of not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. In alleviating pain, the intervention was most effective among the patients with a high perceived risk of not recovering.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15131431     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200405150-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  23 in total

Review 1.  Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy to reduce sickness absence for workers with back pain.

Authors:  Frederieke G Schaafsma; Karyn Whelan; Allard J van der Beek; Ludeke C van der Es-Lambeek; Anneli Ojajärvi; Jos H Verbeek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-08-30

Review 2.  Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature.

Authors:  Renée-Louise Franche; Kimberley Cullen; Judy Clarke; Emma Irvin; Sandra Sinclair; John Frank
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

Review 3.  A systematic review of disability management interventions with economic evaluations.

Authors:  Emile Tompa; Claire de Oliveira; Roman Dolinschi; Emma Irvin
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2008-02-08

4.  A prospective study of the effectiveness of early intervention with high-risk back-injured workers--a pilot study.

Authors:  I Z Schultz; J Crook; J Berkowitz; R Milner; G R Meloche; M L Lewis
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2008-04-11

Review 5.  Physical exercise interventions to improve disability and return to work in low back pain: current insights and opportunities for improvement.

Authors:  J Bart Staal; James Rainville; Julie Fritz; Willem van Mechelen; Glenn Pransky
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

6.  A Case Study Examining the Effectiveness of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in a Patient who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Spinal Manipulation.

Authors:  Judy Chen; Amy Phillips; Melissa Ramsey; Ron Schenk
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2009

Review 7.  Prediction of sickness absence in patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Wietske Kuijer; Johan W Groothoff; Sandra Brouwer; Jan H B Geertzen; Pieter U Dijkstra
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-09

8.  Substantial sick-leave costs savings due to a graded activity intervention for workers with non-specific sub-acute low back pain.

Authors:  Hynek Hlobil; Kimi Uegaki; J Bart Staal; Martine C de Bruyne; Tjabe Smid; Willem van Mechelen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  A model of integrative care for low-back pain.

Authors:  David M Eisenberg; Julie E Buring; Andrea L Hrbek; Roger B Davis; Maureen T Connelly; Daniel C Cherkin; Donald B Levy; Mark Cunningham; Bonnie O'Connor; Diana E Post
Journal:  J Altern Complement Med       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 2.579

Review 10.  Individual patient education for low back pain.

Authors:  A Engers; P Jellema; M Wensing; D A W M van der Windt; R Grol; M W van Tulder
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-01-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.