Search

Objective This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of brief training in the guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management of low-back pain (LBP) in occupational health services using a cluster-randomized design. A small sample of physiotherapists and physicians from the intervention units (N=12) were given three- to seven-day training focusing on the biopsychosocial management of LBP, while professionals in the control units (N=15) received no such training. Methods Eligible patients with LBP, with or without radicular pain, aged 18-65, were invited to participate. A web-based questionnaire was sent to all recruited patients at baseline, three months and one year. The primary outcome measure was disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI) over one year. Between-group differences were analyzed using linear and generalized linear mixed models adjusted for baseline-response delay as well as variables showing between-group imbalance at baseline. Results The final study sample comprised 234 and 81 patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively at baseline, and 137 and 47 patients, respectively, at one year. At baseline, the mean duration of pain was longer in the intervention group (P=0.017), and pain-related fear concerning physical activity was lower (P=0.012). We observed no significant difference between the groups primary outcome measure (adjusted one-year mean difference in the ODI: 2.3; 95% confidence interval -1.0-5.7; P=0.175) or most secondary outcomes. Conclusions Brief training in guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management of LBP for occupational health professionals did not appear to be effective in reducing patients symptom over one-year follow-up compared to treatment as usual. Funding Agencies|Finnish Work Environment Fund; Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; Rokua Health and Rehabilitation Foundation; University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Background Guidelines recommend a biopsychosocial framework for low back pain (LBP) management and the avoidance of inappropriate imaging. In clinical practice, care strategies are often inconsistent with evidence and guidelines, even though LBP is the most common disabling health condition worldwide. Unhelpful beliefs, attitudes and inappropriate imaging are common. LBP is understood to be a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon with many known multidimensional risk factors (symptom- and lifestyle-related, psychological and social) for persistent or prolonged disability, which should be identified and addressed by treatment. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was developed for early identification of individual risk factors of LBP to enable targeted care. Stratified care according SBT has been shown to improve the effectiveness of care in a primary care setting. A biopsychosocially-oriented patient education booklet, which includes imaging guidelines and information, is one possible way to increase patients’ understanding of LBP and to reduce inappropriate imaging. Premeditated pathways, education of professionals, written material, and electronic patient registry support in health care organizations could help implement evidence-based care. Methods We will use a Benchmarking Controlled Trial (BCT) design in our study. We will prospectively collect data from three health care regions before and after the implementation of a classification-based approach to LBP in primary care. The primary outcome will be change in PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) (short form 20a) over 12-month follow-up. Discussion The implementation of a classification-based biopsychosocial approach can potentially improve the care of LBP patients, reduce inappropriate imaging without increasing health-care costs, and decrease indirect costs by reducing work disability. Using the BCT we will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the improvement strategy for the entire care pathway. Trial registration ISRCTN,ISRCTN13273552, retrospectively registered 13/05/2019.

Background Inappropriate imaging and low-value care for low back pain (LBP) are common. A new patient-education booklet was created to overcome identified barriers to the delivery of recommended care, including the use of inappropriate imaging. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of this booklet as part of primary care for LBP patients in comparison to usual care. Methods A cluster-randomized trial was performed. The intervention involved providing practitioners with the new patient-education booklet and a 30-min training session on its use. The booklet was provided during the clinical consult to all consenting LBP patients in the intervention group. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients presenting with LBP who underwent imaging examinations during the first three months of follow-up and PROMIS PF-20 (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 20-item physical functioning short form) change between baseline and three-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes, including sick leave and imaging examinations at 12 months, were investigated. Logistic regression using GEE-estimation was used for dichotomous outcomes, Poisson regression using GEE-estimation for count outcomes, and linear mixed models for continuous outcomes. Results Using the patient education booklet appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of LBP patients who underwent an imaging examination at three months, but the result was not statistically significant (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.27 to 1.22). At 12 months, the effect was slightly larger and statistically significant (OR 0.50, 95%Cl 0.30 to 0.83, p = 0.008). No difference was observed in the PROMIS PF-20 T-score change between baseline and 3 months or 12 months (p = 0.365 and p = 0.923, respectively). The number of sick leave days in the intervention group was less than that in the control group at 3 months (RR 0.47, 95%Cl 0.26 to 0.83, p = 0.010) and at 12 months (RR 0.36, 95%Cl 0.18 to 0.72, p = 0.004). Conclusions The booklet appeared to be effective in reducing the proportion of LBP patients who underwent imaging examinations over 12 months. The intervention had no discernible effect on the PROMIS PF20 T-score change. The number of sick leave days was substantially lower in the intervention group. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN14389368, Registered 4 April 2019—Retrospectively registered.

ObjectivesProceeding from a basic concept underpinning economic evaluation, opportunity cost, this study aims to explain how different approaches to economics diverge quite dramatically in their ideas of what constitutes appropriate valuation, both in principle and practice. Because the concept of opportunity cost does not inherently specify how valuation should be undertaken or specify how appropriate any economic value framework (EVF) might be, the three main economics-based approaches to providing evidence about value for health technology assessment are described.MethodsThis paper describes how the three main EVFs—namely, the extra-welfarist, welfarist, and classical—are most typically understood, applied, and promoted. It then provides clarification and assessment of related concepts and terminology.ResultsAlthough EVFs differ, certain underlying characteristics of valuation were identified as fundamental to all approaches to economic evaluation in practice. The study also suggests that some of the rhetoric and terms employed in relation to the extra-welfarist approach are not wholly justified and, further, that only the welfarist approach ensures adherence to welfare-economic principles. Finally, deliberative analysis, especially when connected with a classical economic approach, can serve as a useful supplement to other analytical approaches.ConclusionsAll three approaches to economic evaluation have something to offer assessment processes, but they all display limitations too. Therefore, the author concludes that the language of economic evaluation should be used with sufficient humility to prevent overselling of EVFs, especially with regard to the qualities of evidence they provide for priority setting processes.

Objectives: Few empirical analyses of the impact of organised prostate cancer (PCa) screening on healthcare costs exist, despite cost-related information often being considered as a prerequisite to informed screening decisions. Therefore, we estimate the differences in register-based costs of publicly funded healthcare in the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) after 20 years. Methods: We obtained individual-level register data on prescription medications, as well as inpatient and outpatient care, to estimate healthcare costs for 80,149 men during the first 20 years of the FinRSPC. We compared healthcare costs for the men in each trial arm and performed statistical analysis. Results: For all men diagnosed with PCa during the 20-year observation period, mean PCa-related costs appeared to be around 10% lower in the screening arm (SA). Mean all-cause healthcare costs for these men were also lower in the SA, but differences were smaller than for PCa-related costs alone, and no longer statistically significant. For men dying from PCa, although the difference was not statistically significant, mean all-cause healthcare costs were around 10% higher. When analysis included all observations, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the CA; however, after excluding extreme values, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the SA. Conclusions: No major cost impacts due to screening were apparent, but the FinRSPC's 20-year follow-up period is too short to provide definitive evidence at this stage. Longer term follow-up will be required to be better informed about the costs of, or savings from, introducing mass PCa screening. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Evidence of the potential impact of systematic screening for prostate cancer (PCa) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at a population-based level is currently scarce. Objective This study aims to quantify the long-term HRQoL impact associated with screening for PCa. Design, setting, and participants Postal questionnaire surveys were conducted in 1998, 2000, 2004, and 2011 among men in the Finnish PCa screening trial diagnosed with PCa (total n =7011) and among a random subsample of the trial population ( n =2200). In 2011, for example, 1587 responses were received from men with PCa in the screening arm and 1706 from men in the control arm. In addition, from the trial subsample, 549 men in the screening arm and 539 in the control arm provided responses. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Health-state-value scores were compared between the intervention and control arms using three distinct HRQoL measures (15D, EQ-5D, and SF-6D), and statistical significance was assessed using t tests . In addition, differences over repeated assessments of HRQoL between groups were evaluated using generalised estimating equations. Results and limitations In the 2011 survey, a small but statistically significant difference emerged between the trial arms among men diagnosed with PCa (mean scores, screening vs control arm: 15D: 0.872 vs 0.866, p =0.14; EQ-5D: 0.852 vs 0.831, p =0.03; and SF-6D: 0.763 vs 0.756, p =0.06). Such differences in favour of the screening arm were not found among the sample of men from the trial (15D: 0.889 vs 0.892, p =0.62; EQ-5D: 0.831 vs 0.852, p =0.08; and SF-6D: 0.775 vs 0.777, p =0.88). The slight advantage with screening among men with PCa was reasonably consistent across time in the longitudinal analysis and was strongest among men with early-stage disease. Conclusions These results show some long-term HRQoL benefit from screening for men with PCa but suggest little impact overall in the trial population.

BackgroundHypertension is one of the major causes of disease burden affecting the Finnish population. Over the last decade, evidence-based care has emerged to complement other approaches to antihypertensive care, often without health economic assessment of its costs and effects. This study looks at the extent to which changes proposed by the 2002 Finnish evidence-based Current Care Guidelines concerning the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension (the ACCG scenario) can be considered cost-effective when compared to modelled prior clinical practice (the PCP scenario).MethodsA decision analytic model compares the ACCG and PCP scenarios using information synthesised from a set of national registers covering prescription drug reimbursements, morbidity, and mortality with data from two national surveys concerning health and functional capacity. Statistical methods are used to estimate model parameters from Finnish data. We model the potential impact of the different treatment strategies under the ACCG and PCP scenarios, such as lifestyle counselling and drug therapy, for subgroups stratified by age, gender, and blood pressure. The model provides estimates of the differences in major health-related outcomes in the form of life-years and costs as calculated from a 'public health care system' perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis results are presented for subgroups and for the target population as a whole.ResultsThe impact of the use of the ACCG scenario in subgroups (aged 40–80) without concomitant cardiovascular and related diseases is mainly positive. Generally, costs and life-years decrease in unison in the lowest blood pressure group, while in the highest blood pressure group costs and life-years increase together and in the other groups the ACCG scenario is less expensive and produces more life-years. When the costs and effects for subgroups are combined using standard decision analytic aggregation methods, the ACCG scenario is cost-saving and more effective.ConclusionThe ACCG scenario is likely to reduce costs and increase life-years compared to the PCP scenario in many subgroups. If the estimated trade-offs between the subgroups in terms of outcomes and costs are acceptable to decision-makers, then widespread implementation of the ACCG scenario is expected to reduce overall costs and be accompanied by positive outcomes overall.