Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.
PLoS Med. 2019 09; 16(9):e1002897.PM

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12616000888460.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.Biostatistical Group, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

31498799

Citation

Darlow, Ben, et al. "The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) Approach to Management of Low Back Pain in General Practice: a Pragmatic Cluster-randomised Controlled Trial." PLoS Medicine, vol. 16, no. 9, 2019, pp. e1002897.
Darlow B, Stanley J, Dean S, et al. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(9):e1002897.
Darlow, B., Stanley, J., Dean, S., Abbott, J. H., Garrett, S., Wilson, R., Mathieson, F., & Dowell, A. (2019). The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. PLoS Medicine, 16(9), e1002897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002897
Darlow B, et al. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) Approach to Management of Low Back Pain in General Practice: a Pragmatic Cluster-randomised Controlled Trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(9):e1002897. PubMed PMID: 31498799.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. AU - Darlow,Ben, AU - Stanley,James, AU - Dean,Sarah, AU - Abbott,J Haxby, AU - Garrett,Sue, AU - Wilson,Ross, AU - Mathieson,Fiona, AU - Dowell,Anthony, Y1 - 2019/09/09/ PY - 2019/03/25/received PY - 2019/08/05/accepted PY - 2019/9/10/entrez PY - 2019/9/10/pubmed PY - 2020/2/25/medline SP - e1002897 EP - e1002897 JF - PLoS medicine JO - PLoS Med. VL - 16 IS - 9 N2 - BACKGROUND: Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000888460. SN - 1549-1676 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/31498799/The_Fear_Reduction_Exercised_Early__FREE__approach_to_management_of_low_back_pain_in_general_practice:_A_pragmatic_cluster_randomised_controlled_trial_ L2 - http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002897 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -