The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial

A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial
A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial
Objective: guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early intervention to address psychosocial risk factors associated with long-term disability. We assessed the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a brief pain management program (BPM) targeting psychosocial factors compared with physical therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration.

Methods: a total of 402 patients were randomly assigned to BPM or PT. We adopted a health care perspective, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 12-month change scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Resource use data related to back pain were collected at 12-month followup. Cost effectiveness was expressed as incremental ratios, with uncertainty assessed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.

Results: there were no statistically significant differences in mean health care costs or outcomes between treatments. PT had marginally greater effectiveness at 12 months, albeit with greater health care costs (BPM £142, PT £195). The incremental cost-per-QALY ratio was £2,362. If the UK National Health Service were willing to pay £10,000 per additional QALY, there is only a 17% chance that BPM provides the best value for money.

Conclusion: PT is a cost-effective primary care management strategy for low back pain. However, the absence of a clinically superior treatment program raises the possibility that BPM could provide an additional primary care approach, administered in fewer sessions, allowing patient and doctor preferences to be considere
0004-3591
466-473
Whitehurst, D.G.T.
ca11ab0a-5435-4292-a184-f2eda739aa34
Lewis, M.
4d2a3d44-6b6f-40f1-966b-4799cad56293
Yao, G.L.
d777f84c-cf3d-4fad-bbc1-ea01dec01695
Bryan, S.
4d0e46f3-c722-40d6-81ba-10fc3ed7e17b
Raftery, J.P.
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Mullis, R.
df57a489-e3db-46ff-9be6-ba51090723e8
Hay, E.M.
f54b2c9f-1707-4000-a412-927ba5f86dfa
Whitehurst, D.G.T.
ca11ab0a-5435-4292-a184-f2eda739aa34
Lewis, M.
4d2a3d44-6b6f-40f1-966b-4799cad56293
Yao, G.L.
d777f84c-cf3d-4fad-bbc1-ea01dec01695
Bryan, S.
4d0e46f3-c722-40d6-81ba-10fc3ed7e17b
Raftery, J.P.
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Mullis, R.
df57a489-e3db-46ff-9be6-ba51090723e8
Hay, E.M.
f54b2c9f-1707-4000-a412-927ba5f86dfa

Whitehurst, D.G.T., Lewis, M., Yao, G.L., Bryan, S., Raftery, J.P., Mullis, R. and Hay, E.M. (2007) A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 57 (3), 466-473. (doi:10.1002/art.22606). (PMID:17394176)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early intervention to address psychosocial risk factors associated with long-term disability. We assessed the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a brief pain management program (BPM) targeting psychosocial factors compared with physical therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration.

Methods: a total of 402 patients were randomly assigned to BPM or PT. We adopted a health care perspective, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 12-month change scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Resource use data related to back pain were collected at 12-month followup. Cost effectiveness was expressed as incremental ratios, with uncertainty assessed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.

Results: there were no statistically significant differences in mean health care costs or outcomes between treatments. PT had marginally greater effectiveness at 12 months, albeit with greater health care costs (BPM £142, PT £195). The incremental cost-per-QALY ratio was £2,362. If the UK National Health Service were willing to pay £10,000 per additional QALY, there is only a 17% chance that BPM provides the best value for money.

Conclusion: PT is a cost-effective primary care management strategy for low back pain. However, the absence of a clinically superior treatment program raises the possibility that BPM could provide an additional primary care approach, administered in fewer sessions, allowing patient and doctor preferences to be considere

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 15 April 2007
Organisations: Primary Care & Population Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 372021
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/372021
ISSN: 0004-3591
PURE UUID: ed13d30e-4242-4f6d-8a85-2a20293fc415

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 11 Dec 2014 09:28
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 18:30

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: D.G.T. Whitehurst
Author: M. Lewis
Author: G.L. Yao
Author: S. Bryan
Author: J.P. Raftery
Author: R. Mullis
Author: E.M. Hay

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×