Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 7/2011

Open Access 01-07-2011 | Health Technology Assessment & Transfer

Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review

Authors: Chung-Wei Christine Lin, Marion Haas, Chris G. Maher, Luciana A. C. Machado, Maurits W. van Tulder

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 7/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more cost-effective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S (2008) A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 8(1):8–20PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, Sullivan SD (2008) Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 299(6):656–664PubMedCrossRef
4.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
5.
Haas M (2003) Economic evaluation: a useful research method. Aust J Physiother 49(2):85–86PubMed
6.
Williams CM, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, McAuley JH, McLachlan AJ, Britt H, Fahridin S, Harrison C, Latimer J (2010) Low back pain and best practice care. A survey of general practice physicians. Arch Int Med 170(3):271–277CrossRef
7.
Jackson JL, Browning R (2005) Impact of national low back pain guidelines on clinical practice. South Med J 98(2):139–143PubMedCrossRef
8.
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 28(12):1290–1299PubMed
9.
Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board Cochrane Back Review Group (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34(18):1929–1941PubMedCrossRef
10.
Craig D, Rice S (2007) Crd report 6: NHS economic evaluation database handbook, 3rd edn. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York
11.
van Tulder M, Suttorp M, Morton S, Bouter L, Shekelle P (2009) Empirical evidence of an association between internal validity and effect size in randomized controlled trials of low-back pain. Spine 34(16):1685–1692PubMedCrossRef
12.
Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A (2005) Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21(2):240–245PubMed
13.
Manca A, Epstein DM, Torgerson DJ, Klaber Moffett JA, Coulton S, Farrin AJ, Hahn S, Jackson DA, Richmond SJ (2006) Randomized trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22(1):67–75PubMedCrossRef
14.
Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D (2007) Nice’s cost effectiveness threshold. BMJ 335(7616):358–359PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Kovacs FM, Llobera J, Abraira V, Lazaro P, Pozo F, Kleinbaum D, Group KAP (2002) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of neuroreflexotherapy for subacute and chronic low back pain in routine general practice: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Spine 27(11):1149–1159PubMedCrossRef
17.
UK BEAM Trial Team (2004) United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK beam) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 329(7479):1381–1385CrossRef
18.
Kominski GF, Heslin KC, Morgenstern H, Hurwitz EL, Harber PI (2005) Economic evaluation of four treatments for low-back pain: results from a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 43(5):428–435PubMedCrossRef
19.
Seferlis T, Lindholm L, Nemeth G (2000) Cost-minimisation analysis of three conservative treatment programmes in 180 patients sick-listed for acute low-back pain. Scand J Prim Health Care 18(1):53–57PubMedCrossRef
20.
Loisel P, Lemaire J, Poitras S, Durand MJ, Champagne F, Stock S, Diallo B, Tremblay C (2002) Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of a disability prevention model for back pain management: a six year follow up study. Occup Environ Med 59(12):807–815PubMedCrossRef
21.
Skouen JS, Grasdal AL, Haldorsen EMH, Ursin H (2002) Relative cost-effectiveness of extensive and light multidisciplinary treatment programs versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic low back pain on long-term sick leave: randomized controlled study. Spine 27(9):901–909PubMedCrossRef
22.
Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Mutanen P, Roine R, Hurri H, Pohjolainen T (2004) Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness. Spine 29(10):1069–1076PubMedCrossRef
23.
Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H, Mutanen P, Rissanen P, Pahkajarvi H, Levon H, Karpoff H, Roine R (2003) Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 28(6):533–540PubMed
24.
Hollinghurst S, Sharp D, Ballard K, Barnett J, Beattie A, Evans M, Lewith G, Middleton K, Oxford F, Webley F, Little P (2008) Randomised controlled trial of alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ateam) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation. BMJ 337:a2656PubMedCrossRef
25.
Jellema P, van der Roer N, van der Windt DAWM, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE, Stalman WAB, Bouter LM (2007) Low back pain in general practice: cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychosocial intervention versus usual care. Eur Spine J 16(11):1812–1821PubMedCrossRef
26.
Johnson RE, Jones GT, Wiles NJ, Chaddock C, Potter RG, Roberts C, Symmons DPM, Watson PJ, Torgerson DJ, Macfarlane GJ (2007) Active exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent disabling low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 32(15):1578–1585PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ratcliffe J, Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Brazier J (2006) A randomised controlled trial of acupuncture care for persistent low back pain: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 333(7569):626PubMedCrossRef
28.
Dowie J (2004) Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the south west quadrant. Health Econ 13(5):453–459PubMedCrossRef
29.
Foster NE, Dziedzic KS, van der Windt DA, Fritz JM, Hay EM (2009) Research priorities for non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal problems: nationally and internationally agreed recommendations. BMC Musculoskelet Disorder 10:3CrossRef
30.
Pearson SD, Rawlins MD (2005) Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 294(20):2618–2622PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ (2001) The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 10(2):179–184PubMedCrossRef
33.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW (2006) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomised trials: an extension of the consort statement. JAMA 295:1152–1160PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Belin TR, Yu F, Adams AH (2002) A randomized trial of medical care with and without physical therapy and chiropractic care with and without physical modalities for patients with low back pain: 6-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study. Spine 27(20):2193–2204PubMedCrossRef
35.
Baldwin ML, Côté P, Frank JW, Johnson WG (2001) Cost-effectiveness studies of medical and chiropractic care for occupational low back pain. A critical review of the literature. Spine J 1(2):138–147PubMedCrossRef
36.
Dagenais S, Roffey DM, Wai EK, Haldeman S, Caro J (2009) Can cost utility evaluations inform decision making about interventions for low back pain? Spine J 9(11):944–957PubMedCrossRef
37.
Goossens MEJB, Evers SMAA (1997) Economic evaluation of back pain interventions. J Occup Rehabil 7(1):15–32
38.
Maetzel A, Li L (2002) The economic burden of low back pain: a review of studies published between 1996 and 2001. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 16(1):23–30PubMedCrossRef
39.
Thomsen AB, Sørensen J, Sjøgren P, Eriksen J (2001) Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary pain management in chronic pain patients: a qualitative systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 22(2):688–698PubMedCrossRef
40.
van der Roer N, Goossens ME, Evers SM, van Tulder MW (2005) What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19(4):671–684PubMedCrossRef
41.
Little P, Lewith G, Webley F, Evans M, Beattie A, Middleton K, Barnett J, Ballard K, Oxford F, Smith P, Yardley L, Hollinghurst S, Sharp D (2008) Randomised controlled trial of alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ateam) for chronic and recurrent back pain. BMJ 337:a884PubMedCrossRef
42.
Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, Simard R, Turcotte J, Lemaire J (1997) A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine 22(24):2911–2918PubMedCrossRef
43.
Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Ratcliffe J, Thorpe L, Brazier J, Campbell M, Fitter M, Roman M, Walters S, Nicholl JP (2005) Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technol Assess 9(32):iii–iv, ix–x, 1–109
44.
UK BEAM Trial Team (2004) United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK beam) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 329(7479):1377CrossRef
45.
46.
47.
48.
Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, McLachlan AJ, Cooper CW, Day RO, Spindler MF, McAuley JH (2007) Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 307(9599):1638–1643CrossRef
49.
Jellema P, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE, Twisk JW, Stalman WA, Bouter LM (2005) Should treatment of (sub)acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Cluster randomised clinical trial in general practice. BMJ 331:84PubMedCrossRef
50.
Seferlis T, Németh G, Carlsson AM, Gillström P (1998) Conservative treatment in patients sick-listed for acute low-back pain: a prospective randomised study with 12 months’ follow-up. Eur Spine J 7:461–470PubMedCrossRef
51.
Haldorsen EM, Grasdal AL, Skouen JS, Risa AE, Kronholm K, Ursin H (2002) Is there a right treatment for a particular patient group? Comparison of ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary treatment, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment for long-term sick-listed employees with musculoskeletal pain. Pain 95:49–63PubMedCrossRef
52.
Brealey S, Burton K, Coulton S, Farrin A, Garratt A, Harvey E, Letley L, Martin J, Klaber MJ, Russell I, Torgerson D, Underwood M, Vickers M, Whyte K, Williams M, UK Back Pain Exercise, Manipulation (UK BEAM) Trial Team (2003) UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial—national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578]. BMC Health Services Res 3:16CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review
Authors
Chung-Wei Christine Lin
Marion Haas
Chris G. Maher
Luciana A. C. Machado
Maurits W. van Tulder
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 7/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1675-4

Other articles of this Issue 7/2011

European Spine Journal 7/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

Perioperative morbidity and complications in minimal access surgery techniques in obese patients with degenerative lumbar disease

Reviewer's comment

Reviewer’s comment concerning ‘‘Abnormal activation of the motor cortical network in idiopathic scoliosis demonstrated by functional MRI’’ (doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1776-8) by J. Domenech et al.

Reviewer's Comment

Reviewer’s comment concerning ‘‘Simultaneous translation on two rods is an effective method of correction of hypokyphosis in AIS: radiographic results of 27 hypokyphotic thoracic scoliosis with two years minimum follow-up’’ by J.-L. Clément et al. (doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1779-5)

Original Article

Selective posterior thoracic fusion by means of direct vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: effects on the sagittal alignment

Original Article

One-stage and posterior approach for correction of moderate to severe scoliosis in adolescents associated with Chiari I malformation: is a prior suboccipital decompression always necessary?

Original Article

Postoperative trunk shift in Lenke 1 and 2 curves: how common is it? and analysis of risk factors