Search

Study design Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial. Objective To study the cost-effectiveness of 2 low back pain guideline implementation (GI) strategies. Summary of background data Several evidence-based guidelines on management of low back pain have been published. However, there is still no consensus on the effective implementation strategy. Especially studies on the economic impact of different implementation strategies are lacking. Methods This analysis was performed alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of 2 GI strategies (physician education alone [GI] or physician education in combination with motivational counseling [MC] by practice nurses)--both compared with the postal dissemination of the guideline (control group, C). Sociodemographic data, pain characteristics, and cost data were collected by interview at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. low back pain-related health care costs were valued for 2004 from the societal perspective. Results For the cost analysis, 1322 patients from 126 general practices were included. Both interventions showed lower direct and indirect costs as well as better patient outcomes during follow-up compared with controls. In addition, both intervention arms showed superiority of cost-effectiveness to C. The effects attenuated when adjusting for differences of health care utilization prior to patient recruitment and for clustering of data. Conclusion Trends in cost-effectiveness are visible but need to be confirmed in future studies. Researchers performing cost-evaluation studies should test for baseline imbalances of health care utilization data instead of judging on the randomization success by reviewing non-cost parameters like clinical data alone.

Study design Cluster randomized controlled trial. Objective To improve quality of care for patients with low back pain (LBP) a multifaceted general practitioner education alone and in combination with motivational counseling by practice nurses has been implemented in German general practices. We studied effects on functional capacity (main outcome), days in pain, physical activity, quality of life, or days of sick leave (secondary outcomes) compared with no intervention. Summary of background data International research has lead to the development of the German LBP guideline for general practitioners. However, there is still doubt about the most effective implementation strategy. Although effects on process of care have been observed frequently, changes in patient outcomes are rarely seen. Methods We recruited 1378 patients with LBP in 118 general practices, which were randomized to 1 of 3 study arms: a multifaceted guideline implementation (GI), GI plus training of practice nurses in motivational counseling (MC), and the postal dissemination of the guideline (controls, C). Data were collected (questionnaires and patient interviews) at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Multilevel mixed effects modeling was used to adjust for clustering of data and potential confounders. Results After 6 months, functional capacity was higher in the intervention groups with a cluster adjusted mean difference of 3.650 between the MC group and controls (95% CI = 0.320-6.979, P = 0.032) and 2.652 between the GI group and controls (95% CI = -0.704 to 6.007, P = 0.120). Intervention effects were more pronounced regarding days in pain per year with an average reduction of 16 (GI) to 17 days (MC) after 6 months (12 and 9 days after 12 months) compared with controls. Conclusion Active implementation of the German LBP guideline results in slightly better outcomes during 6 months follow-up than its postal dissemination. Results are more distinct when practice nurses are trained in motivational counseling.

Study design The study included 90 disabled patients with chronic low back pain recruited from a pain clinic who were admitted to an 8-week program of functional restoration and behavioral support. Initial evaluations included a medical examination, rating of the physical impairment, a personal interview, a visual analogue scale to record pain intensity, an assessment of limitations for daily activities, a pain disability index, a depression and psychovegetative scale, and a scale to evaluate general living standards. The physical assessment included different flexibility measurements, measurement of power and endurance through standardized exercises, and measurements of isokinetic trunk and lifting strength and general endurance. The measurements were repeated at the end of the 8-week program and thereafter an intervals of 6 and 12 months. Final analyses were carried out on 82 patients. Objectives To determine whether objective or subjective signs most influence the outcome of rehabilitation. Summary of background data In recent years, several studies have shown that active and intensive multimodal treatment of chronic low back pain is successful. Until now there has been lack of information about which patients will respond to the therapy and what is the most effective part of treatment. Methods Prognostic factors (return to work, pain intensity, self-assessment of treatment success by patients) were tested by studying variance and regression analyses for their ability to predict treatment outcome. Results Certain factors were identified that had a significant impact on determining the probability of a patient's return to work and the reduction of pain intensity. These factors included self-evaluation for predicting a return to work, the length of absence from work, application for pension, and a decrease is disability after treatment. Overall satisfaction with treatment was best determined by the number of medical consultations before treatment, the extent of disability, previous measures taken for coping with the disease, and reduction of disability during treatment. Medical background, medical diagnosis, and physical impairment had no predictive value. Physical variables (i.e., mobility, strength, endurance, and physical performance) also demonstrated only limited predictive value. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that the most important variable in determining a successful treatment of chronic low back pain is the reduction of subjective feelings of disability in patients.

Study design Cost of illness study alongside a randomized controlled trial. Objective To describe the costs of care for patients with low back pain (1) and to identify patient characteristics as predictors for high health care cost during a 1-year follow-up (2). Summary of background data Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of high health care costs in industrialized countries (Life time prevalence, 70%). A lot of research has been done to improve primary health care and patients' prognosis. However, the cost of health care does not necessarily follow changes in patient outcomes. Methods General practitioners (n = 126) recruited 1378 patients consulting for LBP. Sociodemographic data, pain characteristics, and LBP-related cost data were collected by interview at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Costs were evaluated from the societal perspective. Predictors of high cost during the subsequent year were studied using logistic regression analysis. Results Mean direct and indirect costs for LBP care are about twice as high for patients with chronic LBP compared to acutely ill patients. Indirect costs account for more than 52% to 54% of total costs. About 25% of direct costs refer to therapeutic procedures and hospital or rehabilitational care. Patients with high disability and limitations in daily living show a 2- to 5-fold change for subsequent high health care costs. Depression seems to be highly relevant for direct health care utilization. Conclusion Interventions designed to reduce high health care costs for LBP should focus on patients with severe LBP and depressive comorbidity. Our results add to the economic understanding of LBP care and may give guidance for future actions on health care improvement and cost reduction.