Abstract

BackgroundMany randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial interventions for low back pain (LBP) have been found to have only small effects on disability outcomes. Investigations of the specific mechanisms that may lead to an improvement in outcome have therefore been called for.MethodsWe present an application of the causal inference approach to mediation analysis using the example of a cluster RCT in a primary care population with (sub)acute LBP randomized to either usual GP care (n = 171) or a minimal psychosocial intervention (n = 143). Mediation analysis explored the causal pathway between treatment allocation and disability at 3 months by considering pain catastrophizing, fear‐avoidance beliefs, distress and receiving and following advice as potential mediators, all measured at 6 weeks. We have attempted to explain this approach to mediation analysis in a step‐by‐step manner to help clinical researchers apply this method more easily.ResultsIn unadjusted mediation analyses, fear‐avoidance beliefs were identified as a mediator of treatment on disability, with an indirect effect of −0.30 (95% CI: −0.86, −0.03), although this relationship was found to be non‐significant after adjusting for age, gender and baseline scores. This finding supports the trial authors’ hypothesis that while fear‐avoidance beliefs are important, this intervention may not have targeted them strongly enough to lead to change.ConclusionThe use of mediation analysis to identify what factors may be part of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome, regardless of whether the intervention was successful, can provide useful information and insight into how to improve future interventions.SignificanceThis study presents a step‐by‐step approach to mediation analysis using the causal inference framework to investigate why a psychosocial intervention for LBP was unsuccessful. Fear‐avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the relationship between treatment and disability, although not when controlling for baseline scores.

Highlights

  • Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted aiming to reduce disability in patients with low back pain (LBP) using psychosocial interventions

  • The present study extends the findings of Jellema et al by conducting formal mediation analyses via the causal inference approach to investigate the assumed causal pathways underlying the intervention

  • This study involved further analysis of a well-conducted RCT comparing the effectiveness of a GPdelivered minimal intervention strategy with usual care

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted aiming to reduce disability in patients with low back pain (LBP) using psychosocial interventions (see Kent and Kjaer, 2012; Pincus and McCracken, 2013). Methods: We present an application of the causal inference approach to mediation analysis using the example of a cluster RCT in a primary care population with (sub)acute LBP randomized to either usual GP care (n = 171) or a minimal psychosocial intervention (n = 143). Results: In unadjusted mediation analyses, fear-avoidance beliefs were identified as a mediator of treatment on disability, with an indirect effect of À0.30 (95% CI: À0.86, À0.03), this relationship was found to be non-significant after adjusting for age, gender and baseline scores This finding supports the trial authors’ hypothesis that while fearavoidance beliefs are important, this intervention may not have targeted them strongly enough to lead to change. Fear-avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the relationship between treatment and disability, not when controlling for baseline scores

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.