Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness
Adam W A Geraghty PhD , Taeko Becque PhD , Prof Lisa C Roberts PhD , Prof Jonathan C Hill PhD , Prof Nadine E Foster DPhil , Prof Lucy Yardley PhD , Prof Beth Stuart PhD , David A Turner MSc , Prof Elaine Hay MD , Prof Gareth Griffiths MD , Frances Webley , Lorraine Durcan BSc , Alannah Morgan BSc , Stephanie Hughes MSc , Sarah Bathers , Stephanie Butler-Walley BSc , Simon Wathall HND , Gemma Mansell PhD , Malcolm White BA , Firoza Davies , Prof Paul Little MD
{"title":"Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness","authors":"Adam W A Geraghty PhD , Taeko Becque PhD , Prof Lisa C Roberts PhD , Prof Jonathan C Hill PhD , Prof Nadine E Foster DPhil , Prof Lucy Yardley PhD , Prof Beth Stuart PhD , David A Turner MSc , Prof Elaine Hay MD , Prof Gareth Griffiths MD , Frances Webley , Lorraine Durcan BSc , Alannah Morgan BSc , Stephanie Hughes MSc , Sarah Bathers , Stephanie Butler-Walley BSc , Simon Wathall HND , Gemma Mansell PhD , Malcolm White BA , Firoza Davies , Prof Paul Little MD","doi":"10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00086-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference –0·5 [97·5% CI –1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (–0·6 [–1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48540,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665991324000869/pdfft?md5=4ee507a07c73523202791b587c855d1f&pid=1-s2.0-S2665991324000869-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665991324000869","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack).
Methods
Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486.
Findings
Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference –0·5 [97·5% CI –1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (–0·6 [–1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care.
Interpretation
The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice.
Funding
National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).
期刊介绍:
The Lancet Rheumatology, an independent journal, is dedicated to publishing content relevant to rheumatology specialists worldwide. It focuses on studies that advance clinical practice, challenge existing norms, and advocate for changes in health policy. The journal covers clinical research, particularly clinical trials, expert reviews, and thought-provoking commentary on the diagnosis, classification, management, and prevention of rheumatic diseases, including arthritis, musculoskeletal disorders, connective tissue diseases, and immune system disorders. Additionally, it publishes high-quality translational studies supported by robust clinical data, prioritizing those that identify potential new therapeutic targets, advance precision medicine efforts, or directly contribute to future clinical trials.
With its strong clinical orientation, The Lancet Rheumatology serves as an independent voice for the rheumatology community, advocating strongly for the enhancement of patients' lives affected by rheumatic diseases worldwide.