Abstract

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.Methods and DesignThis paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.DiscussionThis mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333

Highlights

  • Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States

  • In the United Kingdom, the incidence of chronic low back disability rose exponentially for two decades through 1994,[6] and for some patients the associated psychological distress and illness behaviors become as disabling as the low back pain (LBP) itself[7]

  • From the results of these trials, there appears to be no one treatment for non-specific LBP that is best for all patients, but instead, several viable treatment options [9,10,11,12]

Read more

Summary

Methods and Design

Each profile includes clinical and demographic characteristics: self-report of back pain symptoms, disability, general health status, fear avoidance and self-efficacy measures, and patient perspectives (previous experience with LBP treatments, preferences for care, and expectations of study treatments), as well as physical exam and objective test findings. The number and frequency of treatment visits is determined by the clinician observing the patient’s response to care over time, guided by changes in the self-selected symptom and activity rating on the PSAF. The number and frequency of treatment visits for each modality is determined by the provider, guided by changes in the patient’s self-selected symptom and activity rating on the PSAF. Chiropractic As in the monodisciplinary treatment arm, experienced, licensed chiropractors providing care in the multidisciplinary arm may use any non-proprietary treatment under their scope of practice not shown to be ineffective or harmful. Integrative Team Review Review Patient Pr ofile Develop Individual Tr eatment Plan

Discussion
Background
Objective
Skovron ML
26. McGill S
31. McGill S
36. Patrick DL
42. The EuroQol Group
45. Riess PW: Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey
49. Mcgill S
52. Britten N
56. Tosteson AN
Findings
64. Tesch R: Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools New York
Full Text
Paper version not known

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