Supporting self-management with an internet intervention for low back pain in primary care: a RCT (SupportBack 2)

Geraghty, Adam W.A., Becque, Taeko, Roberts, Lisa C., Hill, Jonathan, Foster, Nadine E., Yardley, Lucy, Stuart, Beth, Turner, David A., Griffiths, Gareth, Webley, Frances, Durcan, Lorraine, Morgan, Alannah, Hughes, Stephanie, Bathers, Sarah, Butler-Walley, Stephanie, Wathall, Simon, Mansell, Gemma, White, Malcolm, Davies, Firoza and Little, Paul (2025) Supporting self-management with an internet intervention for low back pain in primary care: a RCT (SupportBack 2). Health Technology Assessment, 29 (7). (doi:10.3310/GDPS2418).

Abstract

Background: Low back pain is highlys prevalent and a leading cause of disability. Internet-delivered interventions may provide rapid and scalable support for behavioural self-management. There is a need to determine the effectiveness of highly accessible, internet-delivered support for self-management of low back pain. Objective: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible internet intervention, with and without physiotherapist telephone support, on low back pain-related disability. Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, three parallel-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel economic evaluation. Setting: Participants were recruited from 179 United Kingdom primary care practices. Participants: Participants had current low back pain without indicators of serious spinal pathology. Interventions: Participants were block randomised by a computer algorithm (stratified by severity and centre) to one of three trial arms: (1) usual care, (2) usual care + internet intervention and (3) usual care + internet intervention + telephone support. ‘SupportBack’ was an accessible internet intervention. A physiotherapist telephone support protocol was integrated with the internet programme, creating a combined intervention with three brief calls from a physiotherapist. Outcomes: The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability over 12 months using the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire with measures at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. Analyses used repeated measures over 12 months, were by intention to treat and used 97.5% confidence intervals. The economic evaluation estimated costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective. A cost–utility study was conducted using quality-adjusted life-years estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. A cost-effectiveness study estimated cost per point improvement in the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. Costs were estimated using data from general practice patient records. Researchers involved in data collection and statistical analysis were blind to group allocation. Results: Eight hundred and twenty-five participants were randomised (274 to usual primary care, 275 to usual care + internet intervention and 276 to the physiotherapist-supported arm). Follow-up rates were 83% at 6 weeks, 72% at 3 months, 70% at 6 months and 79% at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 internet intervention, 242 telephone support). There was a small reduction in the Roland– Morris Disability Questionnaire over 12 months compared to usual care following the internet intervention without physiotherapist support (adjusted mean difference of −0.5, 97.5% confidence interval −1.2 to 0.2; p = 0.085) and the internet intervention with physiotherapist support (−0.6, 97.5% confidence interval −1.2 to 0.1; p = 0.048). These differences were not statistically significant at the level of 0.025. There were no related serious adverse events. Base-case results indicated that both interventions could be considered cost-effective compared to usual care at a value of a quality-adjusted life-year of £20,000; however, the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Conclusions: The internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support, did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability across 12 months, compared to usual primary care. The interventions were safe and likely to be cost-effective. Balancing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, accessibility and safety findings will be necessary when considering the use of these interventions in practice.

This record has no associated files available for download.

Contributors

Author: Adam W.A. Geraghty

Author: Taeko Becque

Author: Lisa C. Roberts

Author: Lucy Yardley

Author: Beth Stuart

Author: Gareth Griffiths

Author: Stephanie Hughes

Author: Paul Little

Download statistics