Gail Sowden1, Jonathan Charles Hill2, Lars Morso3, Quninette Louw4, Nadine Elizabeth Foster2. 1. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK; Interdisciplinary Musculoskeletal Pain Assessment and Community Treatment Service, Haywood Hospital, High Lane, Burslem, Stoke-On-Trent ST6 7AG, UK. Electronic address: g.sowden@keele.ac.uk. 2. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK. 3. Centre for Quality, Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsloewparken 19, 3 Odense C DK 5000, Denmark. 4. Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, however research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments over the last two decades conclude either no or small differences in the average effects of different treatments. One suggestion to explain this is that patients are not all the same and important subgroups exist that might require different treatment approaches. Stratified care for LBP involves identifying subgroups of patients and then delivering appropriate matched treatments. Research has shown that stratified care for LBP in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs and increase the efficiency of health-care delivery in the UK. The challenge now is to replicate and evaluate this approach in other countries health care systems and to support services to implement it in routine clinical care. RESULTS: The STarT Back approach to stratified care has been tested in the National Health Service, within the UK, it reduces unnecessary overtreatment in patients who have a good prognosis (those at low risk) yet increases the likelihood of appropriate healthcare and associated improved outcomes for those who are at risk of persistent disabling pain. The approach is cost-effective in the UK healthcare setting and has been recommended in recent guidelines and implemented as part of new LBP clinical pathways of care. This approach has subsequently generated international interest, a replication study is currently underway in Denmark, however, some lessons have already been learnt. There are potential obstacles to implementing stratified care in low-and-middle-income settings and in other high-income settings outside of the UK, however, implementation science literature can inform the development of innovations and efforts to support implementation of stratified care. CONCLUSIONS: The STarT Back approach to stratified care for LBP is a promising method to advance practice that has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK. Over time, further evidence for both the effectiveness and the adaptations needed to test and implement the STarT Back stratified care approach in other countries is needed.
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, however research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments over the last two decades conclude either no or small differences in the average effects of different treatments. One suggestion to explain this is that patients are not all the same and important subgroups exist that might require different treatment approaches. Stratified care for LBP involves identifying subgroups of patients and then delivering appropriate matched treatments. Research has shown that stratified care for LBP in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs and increase the efficiency of health-care delivery in the UK. The challenge now is to replicate and evaluate this approach in other countries health care systems and to support services to implement it in routine clinical care. RESULTS: The STarT Back approach to stratified care has been tested in the National Health Service, within the UK, it reduces unnecessary overtreatment in patients who have a good prognosis (those at low risk) yet increases the likelihood of appropriate healthcare and associated improved outcomes for those who are at risk of persistent disabling pain. The approach is cost-effective in the UK healthcare setting and has been recommended in recent guidelines and implemented as part of new LBP clinical pathways of care. This approach has subsequently generated international interest, a replication study is currently underway in Denmark, however, some lessons have already been learnt. There are potential obstacles to implementing stratified care in low-and-middle-income settings and in other high-income settings outside of the UK, however, implementation science literature can inform the development of innovations and efforts to support implementation of stratified care. CONCLUSIONS: The STarT Back approach to stratified care for LBP is a promising method to advance practice that has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK. Over time, further evidence for both the effectiveness and the adaptations needed to test and implement the STarT Back stratified care approach in other countries is needed.
Authors: Wendy T M Enthoven; Judith Geuze; Jantine Scheele; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Herman J Bueving; Arthur M Bohnen; Wilco C Peul; Maurits W van Tulder; Marjolein Y Berger; Bart W Koes; Pim A J Luijsterburg Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2015-07-16
Authors: David G T Whitehurst; Stirling Bryan; Martyn Lewis; Elaine M Hay; Ricky Mullis; Nadine E Foster Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Susanna Piironen; Markus Paananen; Marianne Haapea; Markku Hupli; Paavo Zitting; Katja Ryynänen; Esa-Pekka Takala; Katariina Korniloff; Jonathan C Hill; Arja Häkkinen; Jaro Karppinen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Bongani M Mayosi; Joy E Lawn; Ashley van Niekerk; Debbie Bradshaw; Salim S Abdool Karim; Hoosen M Coovadia Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bruna Pilz; Rodrigo A Vasconcelos; Paulo P Teixeira; Wilson Mello; Freddy B Marcondes; Jonathan C Hill; Débora B Grossi Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Roger Chou; Richard Deyo; Janna Friedly; Andrea Skelly; Robin Hashimoto; Melissa Weimer; Rochelle Fu; Tracy Dana; Paul Kraegel; Jessica Griffin; Sara Grusing; Erika D Brodt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Aroon D Hingorani; Daniëlle A van der Windt; Richard D Riley; Keith Abrams; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg; Sara Schroter; Willi Sauerbrei; Douglas G Altman; Harry Hemingway Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-02-05
Authors: Carmen Caeiro; Helena Canhão; Sofia Paiva; Luís A Gomes; Rita Fernandes; Ana Maria Rodrigues; Rute Sousa; Fernando Pimentel-Santos; Jaime Branco; Ana Cristina Fryxell; Lília Vicente; Eduardo B Cruz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joel M Stevans; Anthony Delitto; Samannaaz S Khoja; Charity G Patterson; Clair N Smith; Michael J Schneider; Janet K Freburger; Carol M Greco; Jennifer A Freel; Gwendolyn A Sowa; Ajay D Wasan; Gerard P Brennan; Stephen J Hunter; Kate I Minick; Stephen T Wegener; Patti L Ephraim; Michael Friedman; Jason M Beneciuk; Steven Z George; Robert B Saper Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: Aimie L Peek; Andrew M Leaver; Sheryl Foster; Georg Oeltzschner; Nicolaas A Puts; Graham Galloway; Michele Sterling; Karl Ng; Kathryn Refshauge; Maria-Eliza R Aguila; Trudy Rebbeck Journal: J Pain Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: J C Hill; S Garvin; Y Chen; V Cooper; S Wathall; B Saunders; M Lewis; J Protheroe; A Chudyk; K M Dunn; E Hay; D van der Windt; C Mallen; N E Foster Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 2.497