Optimizing management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: A feasibility trial.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
21
07
2020
accepted:
30
12
2020
entrez:
20
1
2021
pubmed:
21
1
2021
medline:
16
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Self-reported levels of disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP) have not improved in the last decade. A broader perspective and a more comprehensive management framework may improve disability outcomes. We recently developed and validated the Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model, which aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the applicability of the PDDM model to a LBP population and the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic trial, as well as to explore clinicians' perceived acceptability of the PDDM model's use in clinical settings. This study was an one-arm prospective feasibility trial. Participants included physiotherapists working with a population suffering from LBP and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP that sought a new referral and deemed fit for rehabilitation from private and public clinical settings. Clinicians participated in a one-day workshop on the integration of the PDDM model into their clinical practice, and were asked to report various LBP-related outcomes via self-reported questionnaires (i.e., impact of pain on physical function, nervous system dysfunctions, cognitive-emotional factors, work disabilities) at baseline and at six-week follow-up. Physiotherapists' acceptability of the use of the PDDM model and appreciation of the training were assessed via semi-structured phone interviews. Analyses focused on a description of the model's applicability to a LBP population, feasibility outcomes and acceptability measures. Applicablity of the PDDM model was confirmed since it successfully established the profile of patients according to the elements of each categories, and each of the 5 domains of the model was represented among the study sample. Trial was deemed feasible contingent upon few modifications as our predefined success criteria for the feasibility outcomes were met but feasibility issues pertaining to data collection were highlighted. Twenty-four (24) clinicians and 61 patients were recruited within the study's timeframe. Patient's attrition rate (29%) and clinicians' compliance to the study protocol were adequate. Clinicians' perceived acceptability of the use of the model in clinical settings and their appreciation of the training and online resources were both positive. Recommendations to improve the model's integration in clinical practice, content of the workshop and feasibility of data collection methods were identified for future studies. A positive effect for all patients' reported outcome measures were also observed. All outcome measures except for the PainDetect questionnaire showed a statistically significant reduction post-intervention (p<0.05). These findings provide preliminary evidence of the potential of the PDDM model to optimize LBP management as well as conducting a future larger-scale pragmatic trial to determine its effectiveness. Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03949179.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33471827
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245689
pii: PONE-D-20-22177
pmc: PMC7817044
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03949179']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0245689Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602
pubmed: 27733282
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 06;10:1
pubmed: 20053272
PM R. 2012 Jun;4(6):394-401; quiz 400
pubmed: 22381638
JAMA. 2008 Feb 13;299(6):656-64
pubmed: 18270354
J Pain Res. 2017 Oct 03;10:2373-2385
pubmed: 29042813
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 May;85(5):430-5
pubmed: 16628150
Clin J Pain. 2017 Oct;33(10):877-891
pubmed: 28873078
Pain. 2020 Jun;161(6):1150-1168
pubmed: 31977935
Man Ther. 2015 Apr;20(2):328-34
pubmed: 25454686
N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb 1;344(5):363-70
pubmed: 11172169
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Feb;26(1):316-325
pubmed: 31270904
JAMA. 2010 Apr 7;303(13):1295-302
pubmed: 20371789
Addiction. 2004 Sep;99(9):1075-80
pubmed: 15317622
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jun;73(6):975-81
pubmed: 24665117
Pain Pract. 2012 Apr;12(4):276-85
pubmed: 21951710
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Aug;44(8):555-8
pubmed: 25082389
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Feb 20;13:24
pubmed: 22348236
Spine J. 2014 Oct 1;14(10):2299-319
pubmed: 24462537
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):1003-1020
pubmed: 29103546
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 1;31(10):1156-62
pubmed: 16648753
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67
pubmed: 20637084
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Aug 15;34(18):1929-41
pubmed: 19680101
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010 Dec;49(12):2346-56
pubmed: 20713495
Phys Ther. 2013 Mar;93(3):321-33
pubmed: 23125279
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014 Jun;28(3):367-75
pubmed: 25481421
Pain Pract. 2018 Apr;18(4):544-554
pubmed: 28851012
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
J Physiother. 2015 Apr;61(2):68-76
pubmed: 25812929
Man Ther. 2015 Feb;20(1):138-47
pubmed: 25153893
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020 Mar;50(3):118-120
pubmed: 32116105
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Oct;22(10):1911-20
pubmed: 17022849
J Pain. 2004 Mar;5(2):133-7
pubmed: 15042521
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Oct 21;2:64
pubmed: 27965879
Clin J Pain. 2014 Sep;30(9):755-65
pubmed: 24451630
Pain. 2016 Sep;157(9):1851-1871
pubmed: 27152687
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 15;36(22):1891-5
pubmed: 21192286
Pain. 2018 Mar;159(3):481-495
pubmed: 29194127