Cargando…

Translating Evidence for Low Back Pain Management into a Consumer-Focussed Resource for Use in Community Pharmacies: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: This cluster-randomised controlled trial determined the effectiveness of an evidence-based, pamphlet intervention in improving low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs among pharmacy consumers. METHODS: Thirty five community pharmacies were randomised to three groups: pamphlet+education inter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Slater, Helen, Briggs, Andrew M., Watkins, Kim, Chua, Jason, Smith, Anne J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071918
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This cluster-randomised controlled trial determined the effectiveness of an evidence-based, pamphlet intervention in improving low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs among pharmacy consumers. METHODS: Thirty five community pharmacies were randomised to three groups: pamphlet+education intervention [n = 11]; pamphlet only intervention [n = 11]; control: usual care [n = 13]. Eligibility requirements for clusters included: community-based pharmacies and proprietor participation consent. Pharmacy consumers (N = 317) aged 18–65 years currently experiencing LBP participated. Intervention group allocation depended on the pharmacy attended. Individual-level outcomes were measured at pre-intervention (T0), at two (T1) and eight (T2) weeks post-intervention and included beliefs about LBP [Back Pain Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ); Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)]. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, activity impairment and pamphlet perceived usefulness. Blinding to group allocation included primary investigators, outcome assessors and the statistician. Pharmacy staff and consumers were un-blinded. RESULTS: Of 35 pharmacies recruited (317 consumers), no clusters were lost to follow-up. Follow-up was available for n = 24 at 2 weeks only; n = 38 at 8 weeks only; n = 148 at both time points, with n = 148+24+38 = 210 analysed (107 excluded: no follow up). Adjusting for baseline scores demonstrated no significant differences in beliefs (2 or at 8 weeks) between pamphlet (with or without education) versus control, or between ‘pamphlet with’ versus ‘without’ education. Work-related fear (FABQ) was significantly lower in consumers receiving pamphlet (with or without education) versus control (difference −2.3, 95%CI: −4.4 to −0.2). There was no significant difference between “pamphlet with” versus “pamphlet without” groups. Consumers receiving the “pamphlet with” reported greater perceived usefulness than consumers receiving the “pamphlet without” (difference 0.9 (95%CI: 0.0 to 1.8)). CONCLUSION: Community pharmacies provided a feasible primary care portal for implementing evidence-based information. The associated improvement in work-related LBP-beliefs for consumers receiving the pamphlet suggests this simple intervention may be a useful component of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTR.org.au ACTRN12611000053921