Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Primary Care Sciences, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Lancet. 2011 Oct 29;378(9802):1560-71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9. Epub 2011 Sep 28.
Back pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).
1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.
851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06-2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25-1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19-0·45) and 0·19 (0·04-0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.
The results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.
Arthritis Research UK.
背痛仍然是国际初级保健面临的挑战。一种尚未经过测试的模式是根据患者的预后(低、中、高风险)对管理进行分层。我们比较了分层初级保健(干预)与非分层当前最佳实践(对照)的临床效果和成本效益。
英格兰 10 家全科诊所的 1573 名背痛(伴或不伴神经根病)就诊的成年人对参加评估诊所的邀请做出了回应。符合条件的参与者通过使用计算机生成的分层块以 2:1 的比例随机分配到干预组或对照组。主要结局是治疗对 12 个月时 Roland Morris 残疾问卷(RMDQ)评分的影响。在经济评估中,我们专注于估计与背痛相关的增量质量调整生命年(QALY)和医疗保健成本。分析采用意向治疗。这项研究已注册,编号 ISRCTN37113406。
851 名患者被分配到干预组(n=568)和对照组(n=283)。总体而言,干预组的 RMDQ 评分在 4 个月(4.7 [5.9] vs 3.0 [5.9],组间差异 1.81 [95%CI 1.06-2.57])和 12 个月(4.3 [6.4] vs 3.3 [6.2],1.06 [0.25-1.86])时的调整平均变化明显高于对照组,相当于效应大小分别为 0.32(0.19-0.45)和 0.19(0.04-0.33)。12 个月时,与对照组相比,分层护理与一般健康效益的平均增加(0.039 个额外 QALY)和成本节约(240.01 英镑与 274.40 英镑)相关。
结果表明,通过使用预后筛查和匹配途径的分层方法,将对初级保健中背痛的未来管理产生重要影响。
关节炎研究英国分会。