Adrian C Traeger1,2, Hopin Lee1,3, Markus Hübscher1, Ian W Skinner1,4, G Lorimer Moseley1,5, Michael K Nicholas6, Nicholas Henschke2, Kathryn M Refshauge7, Fiona M Blyth8, Chris J Main9, Julia M Hush10, Serigne Lo11,12, James H McAuley1,13. 1. Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Graduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 6. University of Sydney at Royal North Shore Hospital, Pain Management Research Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 9. Arthritis Care UK National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, North Staffordshire, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Health Professions, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 11. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 12. Institute for Research and Medical Consultations, University of Dammam, Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 13. Exercise Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: Many patients with acute low back pain do not recover with basic first-line care (advice, reassurance, and simple analgesia, if necessary). It is unclear whether intensive patient education improves clinical outcomes for those patients already receiving first-line care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive patient education for patients with acute low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients from general practices, physiotherapy clinics, and a research center in Sydney, Australia, between September 10, 2013, and December 2, 2015. Trial follow-up was completed in December 17, 2016. Primary care practitioners invited 618 patients presenting with acute low back pain to participate. Researchers excluded 416 potential participants. All of the 202 eligible participants had low back pain of fewer than 6 weeks' duration and a high risk of developing chronic low back pain according to Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain (PICKUP) Tool, a validated prognostic model. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either patient education or placebo patient education. Interventions: All participants received recommended first-line care for acute low back pain from their usual practitioner. Participants received additional 2 × 1-hour sessions of patient education (information on pain and biopsychosocial contributors plus self-management techniques, such as remaining active and pacing) or placebo patient education (active listening, without information or advice). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included disability (24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 1 week, and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 202 participants randomized for the trial, the mean (SD) age of participants was 45 (14.5) years and 103 (51.0%) were female. Retention rates were greater than 90% at all time points. Intensive patient education was not more effective than placebo patient education at reducing pain intensity (3-month mean [SD] pain intensity: 2.1 [2.4] vs 2.4 [2.2]; mean difference at 3 months, -0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.3]). There was a small effect of intensive patient education on the secondary outcome of disability at 1 week (mean difference, -1.6 points on a 24-point scale [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1]) and 3 months (mean difference, -1.7 points, [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]) but not at 6 or 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: Adding 2 hours of patient education to recommended first-line care for patients with acute low back pain did not improve pain outcomes. Clinical guideline recommendations to provide complex and intensive support to high-risk patients with acute low back pain may have been premature. Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trial Registration Number: 12612001180808.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Many patients with acute low back pain do not recover with basic first-line care (advice, reassurance, and simple analgesia, if necessary). It is unclear whether intensive patient education improves clinical outcomes for those patients already receiving first-line care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive patient education for patients with acute low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients from general practices, physiotherapy clinics, and a research center in Sydney, Australia, between September 10, 2013, and December 2, 2015. Trial follow-up was completed in December 17, 2016. Primary care practitioners invited 618 patients presenting with acute low back pain to participate. Researchers excluded 416 potential participants. All of the 202 eligible participants had low back pain of fewer than 6 weeks' duration and a high risk of developing chronic low back pain according to Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain (PICKUP) Tool, a validated prognostic model. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either patient education or placebo patient education. Interventions: All participants received recommended first-line care for acute low back pain from their usual practitioner. Participants received additional 2 × 1-hour sessions of patient education (information on pain and biopsychosocial contributors plus self-management techniques, such as remaining active and pacing) or placebo patient education (active listening, without information or advice). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included disability (24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 1 week, and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 202 participants randomized for the trial, the mean (SD) age of participants was 45 (14.5) years and 103 (51.0%) were female. Retention rates were greater than 90% at all time points. Intensive patient education was not more effective than placebo patient education at reducing pain intensity (3-month mean [SD] pain intensity: 2.1 [2.4] vs 2.4 [2.2]; mean difference at 3 months, -0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.3]). There was a small effect of intensive patient education on the secondary outcome of disability at 1 week (mean difference, -1.6 points on a 24-point scale [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1]) and 3 months (mean difference, -1.7 points, [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]) but not at 6 or 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: Adding 2 hours of patient education to recommended first-line care for patients with acute low back pain did not improve pain outcomes. Clinical guideline recommendations to provide complex and intensive support to high-risk patients with acute low back pain may have been premature. Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trial Registration Number: 12612001180808.
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Timothy J Wilt; Robert M McLean; Mary Ann Forciea; Thomas D Denberg; Michael J Barry; Cynthia Boyd; R Dobbin Chow; Nick Fitterman; Russell P Harris; Linda L Humphrey; Sandeep Vijan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Jane Latimer; Andrew J McLachlan; Mark J Hancock; Richard O Day; Chung-Wei Christine Lin Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthew L Stevens; Chung-Wei C Lin; Flavia A de Carvalho; Kevin Phan; Bart Koes; Chris G Maher Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jan Hartvigsen; Mark J Hancock; Alice Kongsted; Quinette Louw; Manuela L Ferreira; Stéphane Genevay; Damian Hoy; Jaro Karppinen; Glenn Pransky; Joachim Sieper; Rob J Smeets; Martin Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jonathan C Hill; David G T Whitehurst; Martyn Lewis; Stirling Bryan; Kate M Dunn; Nadine E Foster; Kika Konstantinou; Chris J Main; Elizabeth Mason; Simon Somerville; Gail Sowden; Kanchan Vohora; Elaine M Hay Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; Ian W Skinner; Markus Hübscher; Hopin Lee; G Lorimer Moseley; Michael K Nicholas; Nicholas Henschke; Kathryn M Refshauge; Fiona M Blyth; Chris J Main; Julia M Hush; Garry Pearce; Serigne Lo; James H McAuley Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; G Lorimer Moseley; Markus Hübscher; Hopin Lee; Ian W Skinner; Michael K Nicholas; Nicholas Henschke; Kathryn M Refshauge; Fiona M Blyth; Chris J Main; Julia M Hush; Garry Pearce; James H McAuley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Whitney Scott; Charlie Park; Georgios Christopoulos; Steven Vogel; Jerry Draper-Rodi Journal: Schmerz Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 1.629
Authors: Allison Marshall; Christopher T Joyce; Bryan Tseng; Hanna Gerlovin; Gloria Y Yeh; Karen J Sherman; Robert B Saper; Eric J Roseen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.637