Cargando…

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bronfort, Gert, Delitto, Anthony, Schneider, Michael, Heagerty, Patrick J., Chou, Roger, Connett, John, Evans, Roni, George, Steven, Glick, Ronald M., Greco, Carol, Hanson, Linda, Keefe, Francis, Leininger, Brent, Licciardone, John, McFarland, Christine, Meier, Eric, Schulz, Craig, Turk, Dennis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10209583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37231386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06549-w
_version_ 1785046907778760704
author Bronfort, Gert
Delitto, Anthony
Schneider, Michael
Heagerty, Patrick J.
Chou, Roger
Connett, John
Evans, Roni
George, Steven
Glick, Ronald M.
Greco, Carol
Hanson, Linda
Keefe, Francis
Leininger, Brent
Licciardone, John
McFarland, Christine
Meier, Eric
Schulz, Craig
Turk, Dennis
author_facet Bronfort, Gert
Delitto, Anthony
Schneider, Michael
Heagerty, Patrick J.
Chou, Roger
Connett, John
Evans, Roni
George, Steven
Glick, Ronald M.
Greco, Carol
Hanson, Linda
Keefe, Francis
Leininger, Brent
Licciardone, John
McFarland, Christine
Meier, Eric
Schulz, Craig
Turk, Dennis
author_sort Bronfort, Gert
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10–12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients’ intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10209583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102095832023-05-26 Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol Bronfort, Gert Delitto, Anthony Schneider, Michael Heagerty, Patrick J. Chou, Roger Connett, John Evans, Roni George, Steven Glick, Ronald M. Greco, Carol Hanson, Linda Keefe, Francis Leininger, Brent Licciardone, John McFarland, Christine Meier, Eric Schulz, Craig Turk, Dennis BMC Musculoskelet Disord Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10–12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients’ intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123. BioMed Central 2023-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10209583/ /pubmed/37231386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06549-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Bronfort, Gert
Delitto, Anthony
Schneider, Michael
Heagerty, Patrick J.
Chou, Roger
Connett, John
Evans, Roni
George, Steven
Glick, Ronald M.
Greco, Carol
Hanson, Linda
Keefe, Francis
Leininger, Brent
Licciardone, John
McFarland, Christine
Meier, Eric
Schulz, Craig
Turk, Dennis
Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
title Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
title_full Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
title_fullStr Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
title_short Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
title_sort effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10209583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37231386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06549-w
work_keys_str_mv AT bronfortgert effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT delittoanthony effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT schneidermichael effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT heagertypatrickj effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT chouroger effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT connettjohn effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT evansroni effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT georgesteven effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT glickronaldm effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT grecocarol effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT hansonlinda effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT keefefrancis effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT leiningerbrent effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT licciardonejohn effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT mcfarlandchristine effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT meiereric effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT schulzcraig effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol
AT turkdennis effectivenessofspinalmanipulationandbiopsychosocialselfmanagementcomparedtomedicalcareforlowbackpainarandomizedtrialstudyprotocol