Feasibility of a multidisciplinary group videoconferencing approach for chronic low back pain: a randomized, open-label, controlled, pilot clinical trial (EN-FORMA).
Chronic low back pain
Group videoconferencing
Lumbar surgery
Multidisciplinary approach
Psychosocial
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2023
09 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
24
12
2022
accepted:
28
07
2023
medline:
11
8
2023
pubmed:
10
8
2023
entrez:
9
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low back pain is a common condition that becomes even more prevalent with aging. A non-pharmacological multidisciplinary approach for chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) has been recommended, but integrating different healthcare professionals is challenging. A multidisciplinary group videoconferencing approach (MGVA) can be helpful. Our aim was to provide evidence on MGVA's feasibility in managing CNSLBP and its impact on clinical practice. We conducted an open-label, randomized, controlled, parallel-group pilot clinical trial with CNSLBP patients irresponsive to conservative treatment. Patients between 18 and 67 years of age were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Standard-of-Care + MGVA (experimental group) or Standard-of-Care alone (control group). MGVA consisted of integrated sessions for physical rehabilitation/physiotherapy, psychology, and social work treatments. The control group received standard clinical practice treatment. The feasibility was assessed by the number of study procedures completed to at least 80% as planned. The impact on clinical practice was evaluated by the number of patients who changed their status from "candidate" to "non-candidate" to low back surgery as the treatment of choice for CNSLBP. The SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and TMMS-24 questionnaires were used. We performed a whole population-based descriptive analysis. We included 20 patients, but only 18 were randomized (2 withdrew consent before randomization). The mean (SD) age was 53.1 (5.9) years, and mostly women (13/18); 7 were actively employed. In the experimental group, 6/9 (67%, 95%CI:35-88%) patients attended at least 80% of the scheduled procedures, while in the control group, 8/9 (89%, 95%CI:57-98%) did. Additionally, 1 out of 4 (25%) patients in the experimental group changed their status from "candidate" for low back surgery to "non-candidate". None of the 2 patients in the control group did so. We found differences between groups in the SF-36 mental health component (p-value:0.061), Oswestry Disability Index (p-value:0.032), and TMMS-24 Repair component (p-value:0.014) at the end of the trial favoring MGVA. The multidisciplinary group videoconferencing approach to managing chronic non-specific low back pain was feasible, suggesting overall beneficial effects on patients' health and could play a role in changing a patient's status from "candidate" to "non-candidate" for surgery. NCT05093543 (ClinicalTrials.gov), first registered in 26/10/2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Low back pain is a common condition that becomes even more prevalent with aging. A non-pharmacological multidisciplinary approach for chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) has been recommended, but integrating different healthcare professionals is challenging. A multidisciplinary group videoconferencing approach (MGVA) can be helpful. Our aim was to provide evidence on MGVA's feasibility in managing CNSLBP and its impact on clinical practice.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted an open-label, randomized, controlled, parallel-group pilot clinical trial with CNSLBP patients irresponsive to conservative treatment. Patients between 18 and 67 years of age were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Standard-of-Care + MGVA (experimental group) or Standard-of-Care alone (control group). MGVA consisted of integrated sessions for physical rehabilitation/physiotherapy, psychology, and social work treatments. The control group received standard clinical practice treatment. The feasibility was assessed by the number of study procedures completed to at least 80% as planned. The impact on clinical practice was evaluated by the number of patients who changed their status from "candidate" to "non-candidate" to low back surgery as the treatment of choice for CNSLBP. The SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and TMMS-24 questionnaires were used. We performed a whole population-based descriptive analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 20 patients, but only 18 were randomized (2 withdrew consent before randomization). The mean (SD) age was 53.1 (5.9) years, and mostly women (13/18); 7 were actively employed. In the experimental group, 6/9 (67%, 95%CI:35-88%) patients attended at least 80% of the scheduled procedures, while in the control group, 8/9 (89%, 95%CI:57-98%) did. Additionally, 1 out of 4 (25%) patients in the experimental group changed their status from "candidate" for low back surgery to "non-candidate". None of the 2 patients in the control group did so. We found differences between groups in the SF-36 mental health component (p-value:0.061), Oswestry Disability Index (p-value:0.032), and TMMS-24 Repair component (p-value:0.014) at the end of the trial favoring MGVA.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The multidisciplinary group videoconferencing approach to managing chronic non-specific low back pain was feasible, suggesting overall beneficial effects on patients' health and could play a role in changing a patient's status from "candidate" to "non-candidate" for surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
NCT05093543 (ClinicalTrials.gov), first registered in 26/10/2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37558990
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06763-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06763-6
pmc: PMC10410913
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05093543']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
642Investigateurs
Paula Calvis-Garcia
(P)
João Carmezim
(J)
Anna Company-Llimona
(A)
Esmeralda Fernandez-Mariscal
(E)
Coral Fernandez-Solana
(C)
Montserrat Figuerola-Batista
(M)
Neus Gerique-Fornas
(N)
Encarna Grifell-Martín
(E)
Nuria Gutierrez-Jimenez
(N)
Nuria Mariano-Martin
(N)
Xavier Mas-Garriga
(X)
Aurema Otero-Gonzalez
(A)
Sandra Soler-Soto
(S)
Cristian Tebé
(C)
Teresa Vázquez-Ventura
(T)
Carlota Vázquez-Vera
(C)
Ramón Vicent-Porquet
(R)
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hurwitz EL, Randhawa K, Yu H, Cote P, Haldeman S. The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(Suppl 6):796–801.
pubmed: 29480409
doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5432-9
Agnus Tom A, Rajkumar E, John R, Joshua GA. Determinants of quality of life in individuals with chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2022;10(1):124–44.
pubmed: 35003902
pmcid: 8741254
doi: 10.1080/21642850.2021.2022487
Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, et al. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006;15 Suppl 2:S192–300.
pubmed: 16550448
doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1
Searle A, Spink M, Ho A, Chuter V. Exercise interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(12):1155–67.
pubmed: 25681408
doi: 10.1177/0269215515570379
Balague F, Mannion AF, Pellise F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):482–91.
pubmed: 21982256
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60610-7
Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, Vos T, et al. Measuring the global burden of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):155–65.
pubmed: 20227638
doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.002
Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020;161(9):1976–82.
pubmed: 32694387
pmcid: 7680716
doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939
Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009;10(9):895–926.
pubmed: 19712899
pmcid: 2750819
doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.06.012
Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Faria NM. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:1.
pubmed: 26487293
pmcid: 4603263
doi: 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005874
Ikemoto T, Miki K, Matsubara T, Wakao N. Psychological treatment strategy for chronic low back pain. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019;3(3):199–206.
pubmed: 31440677
doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2018-0050
Cuyul Vásquez I, Araya-Quintanilla F. Influencia de los factores psicosociales en la experiencia de dolor musculoesquelético: una revisión de la literatura. Revista de la Sociedad Española del Dolor. 2019;26:44–51.
Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–83.
pubmed: 29573872
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6
Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Resnick DK, Shaffer WO, Loeser JD. Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American pain society clinical practice guideline. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(10):1094–109.
pubmed: 19363455
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a105fc
Waddell G. 1987 Volvo award in clinical sciences. A new clinical model for the treatment of low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(7):632–44.
pubmed: 2961080
doi: 10.1097/00007632-198709000-00002
Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA, Denberg TD, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of P, et al. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(7):514–30.
pubmed: 28192789
doi: 10.7326/M16-2367
Oliveira CB, Maher CG, Pinto RZ, Traeger AC, Lin CC, Chenot JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(11):2791–803.
pubmed: 29971708
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2
Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJ, Ostelo RW, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h444.
pubmed: 25694111
pmcid: 4353283
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h444
National Guideline C. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Copyright © NICE, 2016; 2016.
Zhang Q, Jiang S, Young L, Li F. The effectiveness of group-based physiotherapy-led behavioral psychological interventions on adults with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(3):215–25.
pubmed: 30277912
doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001053
Antonovsky A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion1. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(1):11–8.
doi: 10.1093/heapro/11.1.11
Burlingame GM, McClendon DT, Yang C. Cohesion in group therapy: a meta-analysis. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2018;55(4):384–98.
pubmed: 30335452
doi: 10.1037/pst0000173
Vilagut G, Ferrer M, Rajmil L, Rebollo P, Permanyer-Miralda G, Quintana JM, et al. El Cuestionario de Salud SF-36 español: una década de experiencia y nuevos desarrollos. Gac Sanit. 2005;19:135–50.
pubmed: 15860162
doi: 10.1157/13074369
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–52 (discussion 52).
pubmed: 11074683
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
Alcántara-Bumbiedro S, Flórez-García MT, Echávarri-Pérez C, García-Pérez F. Escala de incapacidad por dolor lumbar de Oswestry. Rehabilitación. 2006;40(3):150–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0048-7120(06)74881-2
Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:115.
pubmed: 22018588
pmcid: 3214824
doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-115
Mantilla Toloza SC, Gómez-Conesa A. El Cuestionario Internacional de Actividad Física. Un instrumento adecuado en el seguimiento de la actividad física poblacional. Revista Iberoamericana de Fisioterapia y Kinesiología. 2007;10(1):48–52.
doi: 10.1016/S1138-6045(07)73665-1
Annunziata MA, Muzzatti B, Bidoli E, Flaiban C, Bomben F, Piccinin M, et al. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) accuracy in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(8):3921–6.
pubmed: 31858249
doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-05244-8
Terol-Cantero MC, Cabrera-Perona V, Martín-Aragón M. Revisión de estudios de la Escala de Ansiedad y Depresión Hospitalaria (HAD) en muestras españolas. Anales de Psicología. 2015;31:494–503.
doi: 10.6018/analesps.31.2.172701
Herrero MJ, Blanch J, Peri JM, De Pablo J, Pintor L, Bulbena A. A validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in a Spanish population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2003;25(4):277–83.
pubmed: 12850660
doi: 10.1016/S0163-8343(03)00043-4
Esteve MR, Ramírez C, López AE. Índices generales versus específicos en la evaluación del afrontamiento al dolo crónico. Psicothema. 2004;16:421–8.
Zarazaga RE, Martínez AEL, Maestre CR. Evaluación de estrategias de afrontamiento al dolor crónico. 1999.
Brown GK, Nicassio PM. Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of active and passive coping strategies in chronic pain patients. Pain. 1987;31(1):53–64.
pubmed: 3696743
doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)90006-6
Salovey P, Mayer JD, Goldman SL, Turvey C, Palfai TP. Emotion, disclosure & health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995. p. xiv, 337.
Fernandez-Berrocal P, Extremera N, Ramos N. Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified version of the trait meta-mood scale. Psychol Rep. 2004;94(3):751–5.
pubmed: 15217021
doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.3.751-755
Castellvi P, Forero CG, Codony M, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Medina A, et al. The Spanish version of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) is valid for use in the general population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):857–68.
pubmed: 24005886
doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0513-7
Boen H, Dalgard OS, Bjertness E. The importance of social support in the associations between psychological distress and somatic health problems and socio-economic factors among older adults living at home: a cross sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2012;12:27.
pubmed: 22682023
pmcid: 3464708
doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-12-27
Kocalevent RD, Berg L, Beutel ME, Hinz A, Zenger M, Harter M, et al. Social support in the general population: standardization of the Oslo social support scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018;6(1):31.
pubmed: 30016997
pmcid: 6050647
doi: 10.1186/s40359-018-0249-9
Ho EK, Chen L, Simic M, Ashton-James CE, Comachio J, Wang DXM, et al. Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022;376:e067718.
pubmed: 35354560
pmcid: 8965745
doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067718
Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Rocca B, Cazzaniga D, Liquori V, Foti C. Group-based task-oriented exercises aimed at managing kinesiophobia improved disability in chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2016;20(4):541–51.
pubmed: 26198386
doi: 10.1002/ejp.756
Khoo EL, Small R, Cheng W, Hatchard T, Glynn B, Rice DB, et al. Comparative evaluation of group-based mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment and management of chronic pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(1):26–35.
pubmed: 30705039
pmcid: 10270397
doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2018-300062
Palyo SA, Schopmeyer KA, McQuaid JR. Tele-pain management: use of videoconferencing technology in the delivery of an integrated cognitive-behavioral and physical therapy group intervention. Psychol Serv. 2012;9(2):200–2.
pubmed: 22662734
doi: 10.1037/a0025987
Banbury A, Nancarrow S, Dart J, Gray L, Parkinson L. Telehealth interventions delivering home-based support group videoconferencing: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(2):e25.
pubmed: 29396387
pmcid: 5816261
doi: 10.2196/jmir.8090
Chen M, Wu T, Lv M, Chen C, Fang Z, Zeng Z, et al. Efficacy of mobile health in patients with low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(6):e26095.
pubmed: 34114965
pmcid: 8235295
doi: 10.2196/26095
Seron P, Oliveros MJ, Gutierrez-Arias R, Fuentes-Aspe R, Torres-Castro RC, Merino-Osorio C, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapy: a rapid overview. Phys Ther. 2021;101(6):pzab053.
pubmed: 33561280
pmcid: 7928601
doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab053
Taguchi K, Numata N, Takanashi R, Takemura R, Yoshida T, Kutsuzawa K, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of videoconference-based integrated cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e30690.
pubmed: 34813489
pmcid: 8663446
doi: 10.2196/30690
Ozden F, Sari Z, Karaman ON, Aydogmus H. The effect of video exercise-based telerehabilitation on clinical outcomes, expectation, satisfaction, and motivation in patients with chronic low back pain. Ir J Med Sci. 2022;191(3):1229–39.
pubmed: 34357527
doi: 10.1007/s11845-021-02727-8
Werneke MW, Deutscher D, Hayes D, Grigsby D, Mioduski JE, Resnik LJ. Is Telerehabilitation a viable option for people with low back pain? Associations between telerehabilitation and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Phys Ther. 2022;102(5):pzac020.
pubmed: 35202466
doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzac020
Chowdhury AR, Graham PL, Schofield D, Cunich M, Nicholas M. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary interventions for chronic low back pain: a narrative review. Clin J Pain. 2021;38(3):197–207.
pubmed: 34812772
pmcid: 8823904
doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001009
Bicego A, Monseur J, Rousseaux F, Faymonville ME, Malaise N, Salamun I, et al. Drop-out from chronic pain treatment programmes: Is randomization justified in biopsychosocial approaches? J Rehabil Med. 2021;53(4):jrm00185.
pubmed: 33829274
doi: 10.2340/16501977-2824