Adrian C Traeger1, Markus Hübscher2, Nicholas Henschke3, G Lorimer Moseley4, Hopin Lee1, James H McAuley1. 1. Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia2School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 2. Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia. 3. Institute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia4Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Reassurance is a core aspect of daily medical practice, yet little is known on how it can be achieved. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient education in primary care increases reassurance in patients with acute or subacute low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and PsychINFO databases were searched to June 2014. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. STUDY SELECTION: To be eligible, studies needed to be controlled trials of patient education for LBP that were delivered in primary care and measured reassurance after the intervention. Eligibility criteria were applied, and studies were selected by 2 independent authors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were reassurance in the short and long term and health care utilization at 12 months. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by 2 independent authors and entered into a standardized form. A random-effects meta-analysis tested the effects of patient education compared with usual care on measures of reassurance. To investigate the effect of study characteristics, we performed a preplanned subgroup analysis. Studies were stratified according to duration, content, and provider of patient education. RESULTS: We included 14 trials (n=4872) of patient education interventions. Trials assessed reassurance with questionnaires of fear, worry, anxiety, catastrophization, and health care utilization. There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that patient education increases reassurance more than usual care/control education in the short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.21; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.06) and long term (SMD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.03). Interventions delivered by physicians were significantly more reassuring than those delivered by other primary care practitioners (eg, physiotherapist or nurse). There is moderate-quality evidence that patient education reduces LBP-related primary care visits more than usual care/control education (SMD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.00 at a 12-month follow-up). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 LBP-related visit to primary care was 17. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that patient education in primary care can provide long-term reassurance for patients with acute or subacute LBP.
IMPORTANCE: Reassurance is a core aspect of daily medical practice, yet little is known on how it can be achieved. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient education in primary care increases reassurance in patients with acute or subacute low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and PsychINFO databases were searched to June 2014. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. STUDY SELECTION: To be eligible, studies needed to be controlled trials of patient education for LBP that were delivered in primary care and measured reassurance after the intervention. Eligibility criteria were applied, and studies were selected by 2 independent authors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were reassurance in the short and long term and health care utilization at 12 months. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by 2 independent authors and entered into a standardized form. A random-effects meta-analysis tested the effects of patient education compared with usual care on measures of reassurance. To investigate the effect of study characteristics, we performed a preplanned subgroup analysis. Studies were stratified according to duration, content, and provider of patient education. RESULTS: We included 14 trials (n=4872) of patient education interventions. Trials assessed reassurance with questionnaires of fear, worry, anxiety, catastrophization, and health care utilization. There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that patient education increases reassurance more than usual care/control education in the short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.21; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.06) and long term (SMD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.03). Interventions delivered by physicians were significantly more reassuring than those delivered by other primary care practitioners (eg, physiotherapist or nurse). There is moderate-quality evidence that patient education reduces LBP-related primary care visits more than usual care/control education (SMD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.00 at a 12-month follow-up). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 LBP-related visit to primary care was 17. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that patient education in primary care can provide long-term reassurance for patients with acute or subacute LBP.
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; Hopin Lee; Markus Hübscher; Ian W Skinner; G Lorimer Moseley; Michael K Nicholas; Nicholas Henschke; Kathryn M Refshauge; Fiona M Blyth; Chris J Main; Julia M Hush; Serigne Lo; James H McAuley Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Per Kjaer; Alice Kongsted; Jan Hartvigsen; Alexander Isenberg-Jørgensen; Berit Schiøttz-Christensen; Bolette Søborg; Charlotte Krog; Christian Martin Møller; Christine Marie Bækø Halling; Henrik Hein Lauridsen; Inge Ris Hansen; Jesper Nørregaard; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Lars Valentin Hansen; Marie Jakobsen; Martin Bach Jensen; Martin Melbye; Peter Duel; Steffan W Christensen; Tina Myung Povlsen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Claire D Johnson; Scott Haldeman; Roger Chou; Margareta Nordin; Bart N Green; Pierre Côté; Eric L Hurwitz; Deborah Kopansky-Giles; Emre Acaroğlu; Christine Cedraschi; Arthur Ameis; Kristi Randhawa; Ellen Aartun; Afua Adjei-Kwayisi; Selim Ayhan; Amer Aziz; Teresa Bas; Fiona Blyth; David Borenstein; O'Dane Brady; Peter Brooks; Connie Camilleri; Juan M Castellote; Michael B Clay; Fereydoun Davatchi; Jean Dudler; Robert Dunn; Stefan Eberspaecher; Juan Emmerich; Jean Pierre Farcy; Norman Fisher-Jeffes; Christine Goertz; Michael Grevitt; Erin A Griffith; Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni; Jan Hartvigsen; Maria Hondras; Edward J Kane; Julie Laplante; Nadège Lemeunier; John Mayer; Silvano Mior; Tiro Mmopelwa; Michael Modic; Jean Moss; Rajani Mullerpatan; Elijah Muteti; Lillian Mwaniki; Madeleine Ngandeu-Singwe; Geoff Outerbridge; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran; Heather Shearer; Matthew Smuck; Erkin Sönmez; Patricia Tavares; Anne Taylor-Vaisey; Carlos Torres; Paola Torres; Alexander van der Horst; Leslie Verville; Emiliano Vialle; Gomatam Vijay Kumar; Adriaan Vlok; William Watters; Chung Chek Wong; Jessica J Wong; Hainan Yu; Selcen Yüksel Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Qiang Li; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Richard O Day; Mark J Hancock; Jane Latimer; Andrew J Mclachlan; Stephen Jan Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; Markus Hübscher; Nicholas Henschke; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; G Lorimer Moseley; Hopin Lee; James H McAuley Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 3.134