Anja Franz1, Anaïs Lacasse2, Ronald Donelson3, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme4. 1. Canadian Armed Forces, 31 Canadian Forces Health Services Centre, 641 Cambrai Road, Borden, ON, Canada L0M 1B5. 2. Département des sciences de la santé, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 445 boulevard de l'Université, Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada J9X 5E4. 3. SelfCare First, LLC, 13 Gibson Road, Hanover, NH 03755. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1H 5N4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low-back pain (LBP) is a leading cause for disability in military personnel. Consequently, effective management strategies are required to maintaining operational capabilities. Physical therapy clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of directional preference (DP) to guide management. The effectiveness of this approach has not been tested in military personnel using a pragmatic study design. Pragmatic studies are ideal to inform clinicians and policymakers about the usefulness of proven interventions in real-life clinical conditions. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine, in clinical practice, the effectiveness of a management approach guided by DP vs. usual care (UC) physical therapy in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members with LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pragmatic study was conducted among 44 consecutive CAF members with LBP who received management guided by DP (n = 22) or UC (n = 22). Outcomes were pain intensity (primary outcome), pain location and frequency, perceived disability, medication use, perceived global effect (pain, function, overall status), work loss, and health care utilization. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed at 1-month and 3-months follow-up. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences favoring the DP group were observed for pain intensity (Δ 1 month: 1.9/10; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.97-2.89; Δ 3 months: 1.3/10; 95% CI: 0.35-2.31), pain location at 1 month (54.5% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.02) and 3 months (68.2% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.01), disability (Δ 1 month: 4.3/24; 95% CI: 2.12-6.38; Δ 3 months: 3.5/24; 95% CI; 1.59-5.33), perceived global effect at 1 month (pain: 86.4% vs. 57.1%; function: 81.8% vs. 47.6%; overall status: 86.4% vs. 57.1%) and 3 months (pain: 95.5% vs. 71.1%; overall status: 95.5% vs. 66.7%) with p values < 0.05, and improvement in work status at 3 months (54.5% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION:DP-guided management appears more effective than UC physical therapy to reduce pain and improve function in CAF members with LBP. Rapid improvements and the patient's ability to self-manage may prove especially advantageous in deployed settings. Our findings are particularly useful to inform military policymakers and clinicians on optimal management for CAF members. Reprint &
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:Low-back pain (LBP) is a leading cause for disability in military personnel. Consequently, effective management strategies are required to maintaining operational capabilities. Physical therapy clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of directional preference (DP) to guide management. The effectiveness of this approach has not been tested in military personnel using a pragmatic study design. Pragmatic studies are ideal to inform clinicians and policymakers about the usefulness of proven interventions in real-life clinical conditions. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine, in clinical practice, the effectiveness of a management approach guided by DP vs. usual care (UC) physical therapy in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members with LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pragmatic study was conducted among 44 consecutive CAF members with LBP who received management guided by DP (n = 22) or UC (n = 22). Outcomes were pain intensity (primary outcome), pain location and frequency, perceived disability, medication use, perceived global effect (pain, function, overall status), work loss, and health care utilization. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed at 1-month and 3-months follow-up. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences favoring the DP group were observed for pain intensity (Δ 1 month: 1.9/10; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.97-2.89; Δ 3 months: 1.3/10; 95% CI: 0.35-2.31), pain location at 1 month (54.5% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.02) and 3 months (68.2% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.01), disability (Δ 1 month: 4.3/24; 95% CI: 2.12-6.38; Δ 3 months: 3.5/24; 95% CI; 1.59-5.33), perceived global effect at 1 month (pain: 86.4% vs. 57.1%; function: 81.8% vs. 47.6%; overall status: 86.4% vs. 57.1%) and 3 months (pain: 95.5% vs. 71.1%; overall status: 95.5% vs. 66.7%) with p values < 0.05, and improvement in work status at 3 months (54.5% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION:DP-guided management appears more effective than UC physical therapy to reduce pain and improve function in CAF members with LBP. Rapid improvements and the patient's ability to self-manage may prove especially advantageous in deployed settings. Our findings are particularly useful to inform military policymakers and clinicians on optimal management for CAF members. Reprint &