Article

Effect of integrated care for sick listed patients with chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 11/2010; 341:c6414. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c6414
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost-benefit of an integrated care programme compared with usual care for sick listed patients with chronic low back pain.
Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up.
Primary care (10 physiotherapy practices, one occupational health service, one occupational therapy practice) and secondary care (five hospitals) in the Netherlands, 2005-9.
134 adults aged 18-65 sick listed because of chronic low back pain: 66 were randomised to integrated care and 68 to usual care.
Integrated care consisted of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics, with involvement of a supervisor, and a graded activity programme based on cognitive behavioural principles. Usual care was provided by general practitioners and occupational physicians according to Dutch guidelines.
The primary outcome was duration until sustainable return to work. The secondary outcome was quality adjusted life years (QALYs), measured using EuroQol.
Total costs in the integrated care group (£13 165, SD £13 600) were significantly lower than in the usual care group (£18 475, SD £13 616). Cost effectiveness planes and acceptability curves showed that integrated care was cost effective compared with usual care for return to work and QALYs gained. The cost-benefit analyses showed that every £1 invested in integrated care would return an estimated £26. The net societal benefit of integrated care compared with usual care was £5744.
Implementation of an integrated care programme for patients sick listed with chronic low back pain has a large potential to significantly reduce societal costs, increase effectiveness of care, improve quality of life, and improve function on a broad scale. Integrated care therefore has large gains for patients and society as well as for employers.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Maurits van Tulder, Jul 05, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
102 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Musculoskeletal disorders are the most common cause of disability in many industrial countries. Recurrent and chronic pain accounts for a substantial portion of workers' absenteeism. Neck pain seems to be more prominent in the general population than previously known. To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions (WIs) in adult workers with neck pain. We searched: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3), and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, OTseeker, PEDro to July 2009, with no language limitations;screened reference lists; and contacted experts in the field. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), in which at least 50% of the participants had neck pain at baseline and received interventions conducted at the workplace. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Authors were contacted for missing information. Since the interventions varied to a large extend, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) terminology was used to classify the intervention components. This heterogeneity restricted pooling of data to only one meta-analysis of two studies. We identified 1995 references and included10 RCTs (2745 workers). Two studies were assessed with low risk of bias. Most trials (N = 8) examined office workers. Few workers were sick-listed. Thus, WIs were seldom designed to improve return-to-work. Overall, there was low quality evidence that showed no significant differences between WIs and no intervention for pain prevalence or severity. If present, significant results in favour of WIs were not sustained across follow-up times. There was moderate quality evidence (1 study, 415 workers) that a four-component WI was significantly more effective in reducing sick leave in the intermediate-term (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95), but not in the short- (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.34) or long-term (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26). These findings might be because only a small proportion of the workers were sick-listed. Overall, this review found low quality evidence that neither supported nor refuted the benefits of any specific WI for pain relief and moderate quality evidence that a multiple-component intervention reduced sickness absence in the intermediate-term, which was not sustained over time. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There is an urgent need for high quality RCTs with well designed WIs.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008160.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research has demonstrated that health care practitioners' adherence to guidelines for managing low back pain (LBP) remain suboptimal in recommending work absence, but specific beliefs about their role in maintaining patients at work have not been adequately researched. We examined private musculoskeletal practitioners' (chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists) beliefs and reported clinical behaviours in reference to patients' work. A cross-sectional postal questionnaire of 900 musculoskeletal practitioners included the Attitudes to Back pain in musculoskeletal practitioners questionnaires, reported frequency of four work-related behaviours, and a new measure of practitioners' work-related beliefs. Data from 337 respondents (37%) were analysed. Eighty percent of respondents reported recommending work absence to patients with LBP sometimes, and 14% recommended a work absence often or always. Seventy percent of practitioners never visit the patient's workplace. Most practitioners report that they prescribe exercises that can be carried out at work. Physiotherapists visited the workplace more frequently and gave less sick leave certification than either of the other groups. They also regarded work as more beneficial and less of a threat to exacerbate patients' LBP. There were small but significant correlations between work-related beliefs and reported behaviours. Our study confirms that, in contrast to current guidelines, many practitioners believe that LBP necessitates work absence. Overall, practitioners perceived their role in returning patients to work as limited, and believed that direct contact with employers was beyond their remit. In the UK, physiotherapists appear to be better placed to liaise with work in terms of both their beliefs and activities.
    Pain 12/2011; 152(12):2813-8. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2011.09.010 · 5.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the Netherlands, absenteeism and reduced productivity due to work disability lead to high yearly costs reaching almost 5% of the gross national product. To reduce the economic burden of sick leave and reduced productivity, different employability interventions for work-disabled employees or employees at risk of work disability have been developed. Within this study, called 'CASE-study' (Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sustainable Employability), five different employability interventions directed at work disabled employees with divergent health complaints will be analysed on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This paper describes a consistent and transparent methodological design to do so. Per employability intervention 142 participants are needed whereof approximately 66 participants receiving the intervention will be compared with 66 participants receiving usual care. Based on the intervention-specific characteristics, a randomized control trial or a quasi-experiment with match-criteria will be conducted. Notwithstanding the study design, eligible participants will be employees aged 18 to 63, working at least 12 h per week, and at risk of work disability, or already work-disabled due to medical restrictions. The primary outcome will be the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcomes are health status and quality of life. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and then 6, 12 and 18 months later. Economic costs will consist of healthcare costs and cost of lost production due to work disability, and will be evaluated from a societal perspective. The CASE-study is the first to conduct economic evaluations of multiple different employability interventions based on a similar methodological framework. The cost-effectiveness results for every employability intervention will be published in 2014, but the methods, strengths and weaknesses of the study protocol are discussed in this paper. To contribute to treatment options in occupational health practice and enable the development of guidelines on how to conduct economic evaluation better suited to this field; this paper provides an important first step. Four trials involved in the CASE-study are registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry: Care for Work (NTR2886), Health and Motion (NTR3111), Guidance to Excel in Return to Work (NTR3151), Care for Companies/Second Care (NTR3136).
    BMC Public Health 01/2012; 12:43. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-43 · 2.32 Impact Factor