Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular exercise and back care counselling in female healthcare workers with recurrent non-specific low back pain: a blinded four-arm randomized controlled trial
Suni JH, Kolu P, Tokola K, Raitanen J, Rinne M, Taulaniemi A, Parkkari J, Kankaanpaa M
BMC Public Health 2018 Dec 17;18(1376):Epub
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Registered healthcare workers worldwide have a high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, particularly of the back. Multidisciplinary interventions among these workers have improved fear avoidance beliefs, but not low back pain (LBP) and related sickness absences, cost-effectiveness studies are scarce. Our purpose was to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intervention-arms (combined neuromuscular exercise and back care counselling or either alone) compared with non-treatment. METHODS: We randomly assigned female healthcare workers with recurrent non-specific LBP to one of four study-arms: combined neuromuscular exercise and back care counselling; exercise; counseling; and no intervention control. We assessed the effectiveness of the interventions on intensity of LBP, pain interfering with work and fear avoidance beliefs against the control, and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for sickness absence and QALY. RESULTS: We conducted three sub-studies in consecutive years of 2011, 2012, and 2013 to reach an adequate sample size. All together 219 women were randomized within each sub-study, of whom 74 and 68% had adequate questionnaire data at 6 and 12 months, respectively. No adverse events occurred. Compliance rates varied between intervention-arms. After 12 months, the combined-arm showed reduced intensity of LBP (p = 0.006; effect size 0.70, confidence interval 0.23 to 1.17) and pain interfering with work (p = 0.011) compared with the control-arm. Work-related fear of pain was reduced in both the combined- (p = 0.003) and exercise-arm (p = 0.002). Physical activity-related fear was reduced only in the Exercise-arm (p = 0.008). During the study period (0 to 12 months) mean total costs were lowest in the combined-arm (Euro 476 versus Euro 1,062 to Euro 1,992, p < 0.001) as were the mean number of sickness absence days (0.15 versus 2.29 to 4.17, p = 0.025). None of the intervention-arms was cost-effective for sickness absence. There was 85% probability of exercise-arm being cost-effective if willing to pay Euro 3,550 for QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise once a week for 6 months combined with five sessions of back care counselling after working hours in real-life settings effectively reduced the intensity of LBP, work interference due to LBP, and fear of pain, but was not cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01465698 (prospective).

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help