ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Internet-based self-management programs and telerehabilitation initiatives have increased and have been extensively used for delivering health care in many areas. These programs overcome common barriers that patients face with traditional face-to-face health care, such as travel expenditures, lack of time, and high demand on the public health system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this mode of web-based health care delivery had become more popular. However, there is still a lack of studies testing this mode of delivery in low- and middle-income countries. To gain a better understanding of the context, feasibility, and factors involved in the implementation of a web-based program, pilot and implementation studies are necessary. These studies can better inform whether a strategy is feasible, acceptable, and adequate for its purposes and for optimizing resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and implementation context of a self-management internet-based program based on exercises and pain education (ReabilitaDOR) in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to compare this program with a program using only a web-based self-management booklet. METHODS: The study design was a parallel pilot study of a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. This study was performed using waiting lists of physiotherapy and rehabilitation centers and advertisements on social media networks. The participants were 65 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain aged between 18 and 60 years. The effects of an 8-week telerehabilitation program based on exercises and pain education (intervention group) were compared with those of a program based only on a web-based self-management booklet (control group). The main outcome measures were implementation outcomes of patients' perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and usability of the program and the societal costs and feasibility of the main trial at 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Adverse events were also analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 56 participants were analyzed at the 8-week follow-up. The intervention group showed responses with a mean of 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for acceptability, 4.5 (SD 0.5) points for appropriateness, and 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for feasibility measured on a 1 to 5 scale. All patients in the intervention group showed satisfactory responses to the system usability outcome. There is satisfactory evidence for the feasibility of the main trial. For costs related to the interventions, health care, patients, and loss of productivity at 8 weeks, we found a total expenditure of US $278.30 per patient in the intervention group and US $141.52 per patient in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the ReabilitaDOR program is feasible, appropriate, and acceptable from the users' implementation perspective. This system was considered usable by all the participants, and the main trial seemed feasible. Cost data were viable to be collected, and the program is likely to be safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04274439; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04274439.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the profile of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) who sought emergency departments (EDs) in Brazilian public hospitals. We also described the profile of these patients according to the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP is the most common musculoskeletal condition worldwide and is one of the main complaints in EDs. There is a lack of evidence describing the profile of these patients from low- to middle-income countries. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study involving patients with a new episode of nonspecific acute LBP that was conducted between August 2014 and August 2016. Variables related to clinical, psychological, sociodemographic and work status characteristics were investigated through structured, in-person oral questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients were women (58%), with a median of eight points on pain intensity (measured on an 11-point scale) and 17 points on disability (measured on a 24-item questionnaire). With regards to the SBST evaluation, 295 (49.2%) patients were classified as being at high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis with a median pain intensity of nine points on pain intensity, 20 points on disability, and seven points on depression (measured on an 11-point scale). Despite this, the majority of the patients (74%) continued working normally without interference from LBP. CONCLUSION: Identifying the profile of patients seeking care in EDs can help to define effective management for LBP in low- and middle-income countries. Patients with nonspecific acute LBP who seek EDs in Brazil present high levels of pain intensity and disability. Most patients were classified as having a high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
