Multidisciplinary or brief intervention in the low back clinic to sustain return to work ?
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(11):206 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Aug 25;13:156. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-156.351 patients on sick leave for 3 to 16 weeks due to low back pain were randomized to receive a brief hospital-based intervention or a multidisciplinary intervention. The results of the study indicate that the patients that underwent a brief hospital-based intervention required significantly fewer sick leave weeks than the patients that underwent the multidisciplinary intervention during the first year follow-up. The difference became insignificant by the second year follow-up. Work related autonomy and security modified the effects of the interventions on return to work rates. No significant differences in return to work rates, return to work status, and sick leave relapse were found.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
2/4
Aleatorización
3/4
Medición de resultados
2/4
Inclusión / exclusión
4/4
Descripción de la terapia
4/4
Estadísticas
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
A previous study examining the effects of a brief intervention and multidisciplinary intervention on sick leave due to low back pain revealed that return to work rate, disability, and pain were not significantly different at the 1 year follow-up. The results did disclose that the patients who had autonomous and secure work were able to return to work more quickly after a brief intervention, whereas the patients who did not have autonomous and secure work were able to return to work more quickly after a multidisciplinary intervention. In order to determine the sustainability of return to work, this study assessed duration until return to work, number of weeks on sick leave, and return to work status among low back pain patients who received a brief intervention or multidisciplinary intervention.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Does a brief intervention or multidisciplinary intervention result in improved sustainability of return to work among patients with low back pain through reduced duration until return to work, decreased number of weeks on sick leave, and improved return to work status, 2 years after treatment?
- During the first year, 76.0% of patients from the brief intervention group and 72.2% of patients from the multidisciplinary group returned to work for longer than 4 weeks (p=0.20). The percentage of patients that returned to work for longer than 4 weeks during the second year was slightly higher, with 80.0% of patients from the brief intervention group and 77.3% of patients from the multidisciplinary group achieving return to work abilities (p=0.22).
- The patients in the brief intervention group required 14 sick leave weeks whereas the patients in the multidisciplinary group required 20 sick leave weeks during the first year, which was found to be clinically significant (p=0.018). The difference was no longer significant by the second year as the patients in the brief intervention group required 0 sick leave weeks and the patients in the multidisciplinary group required 1 sick leave week (p=0.29).
- Return to work status between the patients in the brief group and the patients in the multidisciplinary group was found to be not significantly different at the 52 week follow up (65.7% and 61.4%, respectively; p=0.43) and the 104 week follow-up (61.1% and 58.0%, respectively; p=0.54).
- From the brief intervention group, 5.7% of patients required a modified job or training and 3.4% of patients were excluded from the labour market, and from the multidisciplinary intervention group, 9.1% of patients required a modified job or training and 0.6% of patients were excluded from the labour market, during the first year. The percentage of patients that required a modified job, job training, or were excluded from the labour market increased by the 2 year follow-up (modified job or job training: 12% and 12.5%, respectively; labour market exclusion: 6.3% and 5.7%, respectively).
- Work related autonomy and security significantly affected the effects of the brief and multidisciplinary interventions at both the 1 year (p=0.006) and 2 year (p=0.017) follow-ups. The brief intervention appeared to be more effective among the patients that had more work security and autonomy and the multidisciplinary intervention appeared to be more effective among the patients that had less work security and autonomy.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
The data suggests that the brief intervention is more effective among patients that are autonomous and have job security and the multidisciplinary intervention is more effective among the patients that are not autonomous and do not have job security. The brief intervention results in significantly less short term sick leave weeks than the multidisciplinary intervention, but the difference was no longer significant by the 2 year follow-up. There were no significant differences in the other sustainability outcomes between the brief intervention and multidisciplinary intervention.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
The study suggests that the brief intervention and multidisciplinary intervention may not result in differences in low back pain sustainability but the workplace autonomy and security may influence the effects interventions on the return to work rates. Further research using larger sample sizes is required to confirm the external validity of the findings.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
