Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common and costly condition internationally. There is high need to identify effective and economically efficient means for managing this problem. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of a novel motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach in addition to g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haines, Terry, Bowles, Kelly-Ann
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28095832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1371-6
_version_ 1782496021150957568
author Haines, Terry
Bowles, Kelly-Ann
author_facet Haines, Terry
Bowles, Kelly-Ann
author_sort Haines, Terry
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common and costly condition internationally. There is high need to identify effective and economically efficient means for managing this problem. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of a novel motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach in addition to guidelines-based care compared to guidelines-based care alone, from a societal perspective over a 12 month time horizon. METHOD: This was an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis conducted concurrently with a pilot, cluster randomized controlled trial. Health care resource use was collected using daily diaries and patient-self report at 3, 6 and 12 month follow-up assessments. Productivity was measured using industry classifications and participant self-reporting of ability to do their normal work with their present pain. Clinical effect was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Change measured at the 12 month follow-up assessment. Data were compared between groups using linear regression clustered by recruitment site. Bootstrap resampling was used to generate a visual representation of the 95% confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness estimate. Two, one-way sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the robustness of findings to key assumptions. RESULT: There were n = 38 participants in the intervention group who completed the 12 month assessment and n = 45 in the control. The intervention group had greater use of trial-related medical and therapy resources [$477 per participant (95% CI: $447, $508)], but lower use of non-trial medical and therapy resources [$-53 per participant (95% CI: $-105, $-0)], and a greater improvement in productivity [$-5123 per participant (95% CI: $-10,174, $-72)]. Overall, the intervention dominated with a saving of $478,100 and an additional 41 participants self-rating as being very or much improved compared to the control. There was >99% confidence in this finding of dominance in both the primary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach in addition to guidelines- based care appears to be both more clinically effective and economically efficient than guidelines- based care alone. This approach appears to be a viable means to manage low back pain and further research in this area should be a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The randomised trial this research was based upon was prospectively registered on March 25th 2009 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12609000157279.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5240200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52402002017-01-19 Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial Haines, Terry Bowles, Kelly-Ann BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common and costly condition internationally. There is high need to identify effective and economically efficient means for managing this problem. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of a novel motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach in addition to guidelines-based care compared to guidelines-based care alone, from a societal perspective over a 12 month time horizon. METHOD: This was an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis conducted concurrently with a pilot, cluster randomized controlled trial. Health care resource use was collected using daily diaries and patient-self report at 3, 6 and 12 month follow-up assessments. Productivity was measured using industry classifications and participant self-reporting of ability to do their normal work with their present pain. Clinical effect was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Change measured at the 12 month follow-up assessment. Data were compared between groups using linear regression clustered by recruitment site. Bootstrap resampling was used to generate a visual representation of the 95% confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness estimate. Two, one-way sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the robustness of findings to key assumptions. RESULT: There were n = 38 participants in the intervention group who completed the 12 month assessment and n = 45 in the control. The intervention group had greater use of trial-related medical and therapy resources [$477 per participant (95% CI: $447, $508)], but lower use of non-trial medical and therapy resources [$-53 per participant (95% CI: $-105, $-0)], and a greater improvement in productivity [$-5123 per participant (95% CI: $-10,174, $-72)]. Overall, the intervention dominated with a saving of $478,100 and an additional 41 participants self-rating as being very or much improved compared to the control. There was >99% confidence in this finding of dominance in both the primary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach in addition to guidelines- based care appears to be both more clinically effective and economically efficient than guidelines- based care alone. This approach appears to be a viable means to manage low back pain and further research in this area should be a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The randomised trial this research was based upon was prospectively registered on March 25th 2009 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12609000157279. BioMed Central 2017-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5240200/ /pubmed/28095832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1371-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Haines, Terry
Bowles, Kelly-Ann
Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
title Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
title_full Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
title_short Cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
title_sort cost-effectiveness of using a motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach for the management of sub-acute or chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28095832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1371-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hainesterry costeffectivenessofusingamotionsensorbiofeedbacktreatmentapproachforthemanagementofsubacuteorchroniclowbackpaineconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedtrial
AT bowleskellyann costeffectivenessofusingamotionsensorbiofeedbacktreatmentapproachforthemanagementofsubacuteorchroniclowbackpaineconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedtrial