Can We Change Health Care Costs in Patients With Complex Back Pain?: Results From a 5-year Before and After Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A before and after study cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine changes in health care costs after multidisciplinary spine care in patients with complex chronic back pain (CBP), to analyze the predictive value of patient and disease characteristics on health care costs, and to study the potential impact of biases concerning the use of real world data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to high direct and indirect societal costs of back pain there is a need for interventions that can assist in reducing the economic burden on patients and society. METHODS: All patients referred to a university-based spine center insured at a major health care insurer in the Netherlands were invited. Personal and disease-related data were collected at baseline. Health care costs were retrieved from the health care insurer from 2 years before to 2 years after intervention. Repeated measures analysis of variances were calculated to study changes in health care costs after intervention. Multivariable regression analyses and cluster robust fixed effect models were applied to predict characteristics on health care costs. To study regression to the mean, a fixed effect model was calculated comparing 2 years before and 2 years post-intervention. RESULTS: In total 428,158 declarations during 4.6 years were filed by 997 participants (128,666 considered CBP-related). CBP-related costs significantly increased during the intervention period and reduced 2 years after the intervention. Total health care costs kept rising. The intervention was associated with a 21% to 34% (P < 0.01) reduction in costs depending on the model used. Reduction in costs was related to being male and lower body mass index. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that reduction in CBP-related health care utilization in patients with complex CBP can be achieved after a multidisciplinary spine intervention. The results are robust to controlling for background characteristics and are unlikely to be fully driven by regression to the mean. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Can Patients With Low Back Pain Be Satisfied With Less Than Expected?

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study within care as usual. OBJECTIVE: (1) To explore the psychometric properties of a baseline disability questionnaire designed to collect patients' expectation. (2) To analyze relations between satisfaction with care and treatment success in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). (3) To determine the chances of being satisfied with the received care in absence of treatment success. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a lack of evidence on determinants of treatment satisfaction in patients with CLBP, specifically the role of patient's expectation of disability reduction after treatment. METHODS: Treatment expectation was measured with questions inspired by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) at baseline. Treatment success was considered if disability at the end of therapy was lower than, or equal to pretreatment expectation. An exploratory factor analysis was performed on the new questionnaire. Binary logistic regression models were used to analyze how much variance of satisfaction with care was explained by treatment success, pain disability at baseline, sex, age, duration of complaints, and pain intensity. The odds ratio of being satisfied when treatment was successful was calculated. RESULTS: Six hundred nine patients were included. The factor structure of the PDI-expectancy had optimal fit with a one factor structure. There were low correlations between the expected and baseline disability, pain intensity, and duration of pain. Correlation between treatment success and satisfaction with care was low (χ = 0.13; P < 0.01). Treatment success had a low contribution to satisfaction with care. Of all participating patients, 51.4% were satisfied with care even when treatment was not successful. The odds ratio for being satisfied was 2.42 when treatment was successful compared to when treatment was not successful. CONCLUSION: The PDI-expectancy is internally consistent. Pretreatment expectation contributes uniquely but slightly to satisfaction with care; patients whose treatment was considered successful have 1.38 to 4.24 times higher chance of being satisfied at the end of treatment. Even when treatment was not successful, 51.4% of the patients with CLBP are satisfied with care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Reference Values of the Pain Disability Index in Patients With Painful Musculoskeletal and Spinal Disorders: A Cross-national Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To examine reference data for the Pain Disability Index (PDI) in Dutch and Canadian patient samples with a variety of musculoskeletal pain disorders and to test which potential factors are independently associated with the PDI score. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The PDI is a widely used generic instrument for measuring disability related to pain. It is unknown whether patients with spinal and other musculoskeletal diagnoses have different levels of disability when scored on the PDI. METHODS: Patients were referred to secondary and tertiary care centers in the Netherlands and Alberta, Canada, between 2009 and 2013. All patients filled out a baseline questionnaire including demographics and the PDI. After first consultation with a medical doctor, diagnoses were set by the medical specialist. Univariate general linear models were used to examine correlations between PDI scores and age, sex, country of residence, diagnosis, and work status. RESULTS: In total 6997 patients were included in this study: 1302 Canadian and 5695 Dutch patients. Mean PDI score of the total group was 37.8 ± 14.2. Reference values are presented and clustered into the following diagnostic groups: spinal nerve and intervertebral disc disorders; nonspecific back pain; rheumatic soft-tissue pain (widespread pain or fibromyalgia); spinal stenosis; and whiplash-associated disorder. The PDI score was significantly and relevantly associated with pain intensity (η explained variance from 20% to 25%), but not relevantly associated with age, sex, country of residence, and diagnostic group (η<3%). In the working subgroup, adding "current sick leave" as covariate increased the explained variance to 34%. CONCLUSION: Reference values of the PDI are presented. Patient ratings of disability on the PDI are relevantly associated with pain intensity and work status, but not with nationality or diagnostic group. Only minimal differences were identified between the various musculoskeletal diagnoses included. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) are largely unknown. PURPOSE: To study the criterion validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of EQ-5D in patients with CLBP. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study design carried out in a multispecialist Spine Center in The Netherlands. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred fifty-one patients with CLBP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life (QOL) was measured with EQ-5D, consisting of two scales: one scale measuring QOL with five categorical questions and the other measuring health state on a visual analog scale (0-100). Criterion measures were disability, measured with the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain intensity, measured with a numeric rating scale (NRS). METHODS: Pearson correlation coefficients between the EQ-5D and RMDQ, PDI, and NRS were calculated to test the criterion validity. Correlations were interpreted based on predefined criteria. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D was calculated with area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. Minimal clinically important change was calculated with the optimal cutoff point under the ROC curve, and sensitivity and specificity were also calculated. RESULTS: Correlations between EQ-5D and criterion measures ranged between 0.39 and 0.59 and were considered moderate to good. Areas under the ROC curve ranged from 0.59 to 0.72 depending on the external criterion and EQ-5D subscale. The MCIC was 0.03 points for the categorical scales of the EQ-5D and 10.5 points for the EQ-5D visual analog scale. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D is a valid and responsive QOL scale in patients with CLBP.