Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care back and neck pain patients: cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy pain management approach using cognitive-behavioural principles (Solution-Finding Approach) when compared with a commonly used traditional method of physical therapy (McKenzie Approach). METHODS: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomized trial. The study related incremental differences in costs and benefits associated with the Solution Finding and McKenzie approaches over 12 months. Costs were measured in UK pounds sterling. Benefit was measured as health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D, which was used to estimate patient-specific quality adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The McKenzie treatment required, on average, one extra physiotherapist visit (4.15 vs 3.10). Over a 12-month period, Solution Finding was associated with a lower per patient cost of pound-24.4 (95% CI pound-49.6 to 0.789 pounds). The mean difference in QALYs between the two groups was -0.020 (95% CI -0.057 to 0.017); favouring those receiving McKenzie. Relating incremental mean costs and QALYs gave an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 1220 pounds (-24.4/-0.020) suggesting the McKenzie treatment is cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the additional cost associated with the McKenzie treatment when compared with the Solution Finding Approach may be worth paying, given the additional benefit the approach seems more likely to provide. Further research is needed to assess the extent to which the difference in physiotherapy visits between the two strategies is generalizable to other treatment settings.

Individuals with low back pain: how do they view physical activity?

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines for those with acute low back pain have advocated early resumption of normal activity and increased physical activity. Little is known about the relationship between low back pain and physical activity, and on the impact of that relationship on the promotion of increased levels of physical activity within a general practice population. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore associations between factors that influence changes in physical activity and the way individuals perceive and behave with their low back pain, and the impact of those perceptions and behaviour on physical activity. METHODS: Twenty-seven informants were chosen using a purposive sample from a larger group of individuals who, because of their low back trouble, had been referred by their GPs to a community-based, single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) at the University of York, which is evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme. Fifty-four interviews were conducted with this subgroup of the RCT; four informants were interviewed once, 19 twice and four of them three times. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using manual and computer-aided approaches. RESULTS: Physical activity was perceived as (i) activities of daily living, (ii) activities causing breathlessness that they went out of the way to do and (iii) more competitive-type activity. The avoidance of physical activity and fear of pain returning were the two main factors directly associated with informants' backs and changes in physical activity. These two factors hindered increases in physical activity, even though the majority of informants believed strongly that being physically active helped ease their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: When advocating that individuals with acute low back pain return to or increase physical activity, it is important that clinicians identify avoidance of physical activity and/or fear of pain at the earliest stage in order to tailor advice and reassurance appropriately. If avoidance of activity and fear of pain is identified and clinicians want to encourage patients to take up and sustain increased physical activity, they should explore issues of fear of pain, and avoidance of and confidence to do physical activities, in addition to other factors influencing physical activity.

A fitness programme for patients with chronic low back pain: 2-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effect of a supervised fitness programme on patients with chronic low back pain. The design of the study was a single blind randomised controlled trial with follow-up, by postal questionnaire, 2 years after intervention. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index was used as the outcome measure to assess daily activity affected by back pain. Eighty-one patients with chronic low back pain, who were referred to the physiotherapy department of a National Health Service orthopaedic hospital, were randomised to either a supervised fitness programme or a control group. Patients in the intervention group and control group were taught specific exercises to be continued at home and referred to a backschool for back care education. In addition, the intervention group attended eight sessions of a supervised fitness programme. Sixty-two patients (76%) with a mean age of 37 years, returned the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index questionnaire. Of these, 29 were in the intervention group and 31 in the control group. Patients in the intervention group demonstrated a mean reduction of 7.7% in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index score (95% confidence interval of mean paired difference 3.9, 11.6 P < 0.001), compared with only 2.4% in the control group (95% confidence interval of mean paired difference -2.0, 6.9 P > 0.05). Between group comparisons demonstrated a statistically significant difference in disability scores between the treatment and control group (mean difference 5.8, 95% confidence interval 0.3, 11.4 P < 0.04). This study supports the current trend towards a more active treatment approach to low back pain. We have demonstrated clinical effectiveness of a fitness programme 2 years after treatment but this needs to be replicated in a larger study which should include a cost effectiveness analysis, further analysis of objective functional status and a placebo intervention group.

A placebo controlled double blind trial to evaluate the effectiveness of pulsed short wave therapy for osteoarthritic hip and knee pain.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of pulsed short wave (PSW) in the relief of pain in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Ninety-two patients, mean age 63 years, (34 men and 58 women) were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) Active PSW, using the dosage found in a pilot study to be non-significantly most effective, (2) Placebo PSW, (3) No treatment control group. Nine sessions of treatment were provided over a 3-week period, each application lasting for 15 min. The machine was modified by the manufacturers so that the therapist was able to administer the treatment and carry out assessments without being aware of the treatment allocation. Outcome measures included sensory and affective pain diary reports averaged over days and weeks, self-reported benefit and the General Health Questionnaire. Analysis of variance with repeated measures over time was used to find out if the active treatment had a specific effect, incremental to the placebo effect. There were no significant differences between the active and placebo groups over time. According to the pain diary reports, both active and placebo groups tended to improve slightly during treatment, but worsened after its withdrawal. Patients who were given the placebo application tended to report more benefit than those who had the active treatment, although this did not quite reach statistical significance (P < 0.06). Patients who were not on a waiting list for surgery did significantly better over time than those who were (P < 0.03). There were no significant differences between the groups over time for the other outcome variables. Any treatment effect on this patient population appears to have been largely placebo-mediated. No evidence was found therefore for the specific effectiveness of PSW for treatment of osteoarthritic hip or knee pain.

Randomised controlled trial for evaluation of fitness programme for patients with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a progressive fitness programme for patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Single blind randomised controlled trial. Assessments were carried out before and after treatment by an observer blinded to the study and included a battery of validated measures. All patients were followed up by postal questionnaire six months after treatment. SETTING: Physiotherapy department of orthopaedic hospital. SUBJECTS: 81 patients with chronic low back pain referred from orthopaedic consultants for physiotherapy. The patients were randomly allocated to a fitness programme or control group. INTERVENTION: Both groups were taught specific exercises to carry out at home and referred to a back-school for education in back care. Patients allocated to the fitness class attended eight exercise classes over four weeks in addition to the home programme and backschool. RESULTS: Significant differences between the groups were shown in the changes before and after treatment in scores on the Oswestry low back pain disability index (P < 0.005), pain reports (sensory P < 0.05 and affective P < 0.005), self efficacy reports (P < 0.05), and walking distance (P < 0.005). No significant differences between the groups were found by the general health questionnaire or questionnaire on pain locus of control. A benefit of about 6 percentage points on the disability index was maintained by patients in the fitness group at six months. CONCLUSION: There is a role for supervised fitness programmes in the management of moderately disabled patients with chronic low back pain. Further clinical trials, however, need to be established in other centres to confirm these findings.

A longitudinal study of low back pain in student nurses.

Results from a longitudinal study of low back pain in 199 student nurses followed up for 20 months show that 37% reported back pain which lasted for at least 3 consecutive days. The first incidence peaked markedly between 9 and 12 months into training, and coincided with work on wards described by the nurses as "heavy". A combination of personal characteristics are also associated with back pain reports, within this group of nurses. These include attitudes to health as measured by the Health Locus of Control, low levels of trait anxiety, increased neuroticism, and emotional disturbance as measured by the General Health Questionnaire, the strength endurance of the thigh muscles (quadriceps), and height. Recommendations are made for: (1) the consideration of a modified training programme for lifting and handling; and (2) the need for a standardized system of recording back problems as suggested by the DHSS-commissioned Robens Institute (University of Surrey) Report.

A controlled, prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school in the relief of chronic low back pain.

Ninety-two chronic low back pain patients were randomly allocated to two groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school compared with an exercise-only regimen according to specified outcome variables. The data from 78 patients with 7 years mean duration of symptoms was analyzed. Three assessments were made: before treatment and 6 and 16 weeks after treatment. Changes in patients' levels of pain, functional disability, and other related variables were compared in the two groups. Almost all variables showed an improvement at 6 weeks. At 16 weeks, functional disability and pain levels showed a significant difference. Back school patients continued to make an improvement. This method of managing low back pain makes maximal use of limited resources and appears to be effective, especially in the longer term.