Literature DB >> 27652679

The economic burden of guideline-recommended first line care for acute low back pain.

Chung-Wei Christine Lin1, Qiang Li2, Christopher M Williams3, Christopher G Maher2, Richard O Day4, Mark J Hancock5, Jane Latimer2, Andrew J Mclachlan6, Stephen Jan2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To report health care costs and the factors associated with such costs in people with acute low back pain receiving guideline-recommended first line care.
METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a trial which found no difference in clinical outcomes. Participants with acute low back pain received reassurance and advice, and either paracetamol (taken regularly or as needed) or placebo for up to 4 weeks and followed up for 12 weeks. Data on health service utilisation were collected by self-report. A health sector perspective was adopted to report all direct costs incurred (in 2015 AUD, 1 AUD = 0.53 Euro). Costs were reported for the entire study cohort and for each group. Various baseline clinical, demographic, work-related and socioeconomic factors were investigated for their association with increased costs using generalised linear models.
RESULTS: The mean cost per participant was AUD167.74 (SD = 427.24) for the entire cohort (n = 1365). Most of these costs were incurred in primary care through visits to a general practitioner or physiotherapist. Compared to the placebo group, there was an increase in cost when paracetamol was taken. Multivariate analysis showed that disability, symptom duration and compensation were associated with costs. Receiving compensation was associated with a twofold increase compared to not receiving compensation.
CONCLUSIONS: Taking paracetamol as part of first line care for acute low back pain increased the economic burden. Higher disability, longer symptom duration and receiving compensation were independently associated with increased health care costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Costs and cost analysis; Health care costs; Low back pain; Paracetamol

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27652679     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4781-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  23 in total

1.  Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?

Authors:  W G Manning; J Mullahy
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care.

Authors:  Bart W Koes; Maurits van Tulder; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Luciana G Macedo; James McAuley; Chris Maher
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work?

Authors:  Melissa J Azur; Elizabeth A Stuart; Constantine Frangakis; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.035

4.  Low back pain and best practice care: A survey of general practice physicians.

Authors:  Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Mark J Hancock; James H McAuley; Andrew J McLachlan; Helena Britt; Salma Fahridin; Christopher Harrison; Jane Latimer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-08

Review 5.  Effect of Primary Care-Based Education on Reassurance in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Adrian C Traeger; Markus Hübscher; Nicholas Henschke; G Lorimer Moseley; Hopin Lee; James H McAuley
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Luciola da C Menezes Costa; Christopher G Maher; Mark J Hancock; James H McAuley; Robert D Herbert; Leonardo O P Costa
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Predicting rapid recovery from acute low back pain based on the intensity, duration and history of pain: a validation study.

Authors:  C M Williams; M J Hancock; C G Maher; J H McAuley; C W C Lin; J Latimer
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 3.931

9.  Changes in health care expenditure associated with gaining or losing health insurance.

Authors:  Lisa Ward; Peter Franks
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-06-05       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Factors defining care-seeking in low back pain--a meta-analysis of population based surveys.

Authors:  Manuela L Ferreira; Gustavo Machado; Jane Latimer; Christopher Maher; Paulo H Ferreira; Rob J Smeets
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 3.931

View more
  12 in total

1.  Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work.

Authors:  G P G Lemmers; W van Lankveld; G P Westert; P J van der Wees; J B Staal
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Treatment Outcome Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Authors:  Riccardo Lo Martire; Angela Lis; Eva Skillgate; Eva Rasmussen-Barr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Healthcare expenditure and its predictors in a cohort of Australians living with sciatica.

Authors:  Alexander Chye; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Mark J Hancock; Ian Harris; Jane Latimer; Christopher G Maher; Andrew J McLachlan; Stephanie Mathieson; Bart Koes; Richard O Day; Laurent Billot; Stephen Jan; Blake Angell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  The PI3K/Akt pathway: a critical player in intervertebral disc degeneration.

Authors:  Zhi-Hua Ouyang; Wen-Jun Wang; Yi-Guo Yan; Bing Wang; Guo-Hua Lv
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 5.  Whole-body vibration exercise for low back pain: A meta-analysis protocol of randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yi-Li Zheng; Zhi-Jie Zhang; Meng-Si Peng; Hao-Yu Hu; Ju Zhang; Xue-Qiang Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  KEGG-expressed genes and pathways in intervertebral disc degeneration: Protocol for a systematic review and data mining.

Authors:  Sen Mo; Chong Liu; Liyi Chen; Yuan Ma; Tuo Liang; Jiang Xue; HaoPeng Zeng; Xinli Zhan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Serum miRNAs are potential biomarkers for the detection of disc degeneration, among which miR-26a-5p suppresses Smad1 to regulate disc homeostasis.

Authors:  Yunshan Fan; Lan Zhao; Wanqing Xie; Dan Yi; Shisheng He; Di Chen; Jian Huang
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 5.310

8.  Effectiveness of Short-Segment Fixation versus Long-Segment Fixation for Degenerative Scoliosis with Cobb Angle 20°~40°: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Yuanqiang Li; Yunsheng Ou; Yong Zhu; Bin He; Shuai Xu; Haoyang Yu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-07-22

9.  Mapping evidence on the prevalence, incidence, risk factors and cost associated with chronic low back pain among adults in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic scoping review protocol.

Authors:  Morris Kahere; Themba Ginindza
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-03-17

10.  Analysis of key genes and pathways associated with the pathogenesis of intervertebral disc degeneration.

Authors:  Shiyu Hu; Yucheng Fu; Bin Yan; Zhe Shen; Tao Lan
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.