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

Detailed Search Results

Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness [with consumer summary]
Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Mutanen P, Roine R, Hurri H, Pohjolainen T
Spine 2004 May 15;29(10):1069-1076
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; 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*

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To Investigate the long-term effectiveness, costs, and effect modifiers of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a worksite visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A mini-intervention was earlier proved to be an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Whether the beneficial effect is sustained is not known. Furthermore, modifiers of a treatment effect are largely unknown. METHODS: A total of 164 patients with subacute LBP randomized into a mini-intervention (A, n = 56), a mini-intervention plus a worksite visit (B, n = 51), or the usual care (C, n = 57). Mini-intervention consisted of a detailed assessment of the patients' history, beliefs, and physical findings by a physician and a physiotherapist, followed by recommendations and advice. The usual care patients received the conventional care. Pain, disability, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and health care consumption and costs were measured during a 24-month follow-up. Thirteen candidate modifiers were tested for each outcome. RESULTS: There were no differences between the three treatment arms regarding the intensity of pain, the perceived disability, or the health-related quality of life. However, mini-intervention decreased occurrence of daily (A versus C, p = 0.01) and bothersome (A versus C, p < 0.05) pain and increased treatment satisfaction. Costs resulting from LBP were lower in the intervention groups (A Euro 4,670, B Euro 5,990) than in C (C Euro 9,510) (A versus C, p = 0.04; and B versus C, not significant). The average number of days on sick leave was 30 in A, 45 in B, and 62 in C (A versus C, p = 0.03; B versus C, not significant). The perceived risk for not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. Mental and mental-physical workers in A and B were less often on sick leave than those in C. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-intervention is an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Despite lack of a significant effect on intensity of low back pain and perceived disability, mini-intervention, including proper recommendations and advice, according to the "active approach", is able to reduce LBP-related costs. The perceived risk of not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. In alleviating pain, the intervention was most effective among the patients with a high perceived risk of not recovering.
For more information on this journal, please visit http://www.lww.com.

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