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
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Musculoskeletal Pain | Study protocol

The (cost-)effectiveness and cost-utility of a novel integrative care initiative for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: the pragmatic trial protocol of Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg

Authors: Cynthia Lamper, Ivan P. J. Huijnen, Mariëlle E. J. B. Goossens, Bjorn Winkens, Dirk Ruwaard, Jeanine A. M. C. F. Verbunt, Mariëlle E. Kroese

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Rehabilitation care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is not optimally organized. The Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg 2.0 (NPRL2.0) provides integrated care with a biopsychosocial approach and strives to improve the Quadruple Aim outcomes: pain-related disability of patients with CMP; experiences of care of patients with CMP; meaning in the work of healthcare professionals; and healthcare costs. Firstly, in this study, the effectiveness (with regard to the functioning and participation of patients) of primary care for patients with CMP will be assessed, comparing care organized following the NPRL2.0 procedure with usual care. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility with regard to health-related quality of life and healthcare costs will be assessed. And thirdly, the effect of duration of participation in a local network in primary care will be studied.

Methods

In this pragmatic study, it is expected that two local networks with 105 patients will participate in the prospective cohort study and six local networks with 184 patients in the stepped-wedge based design. Healthcare professionals in the local networks will recruit patients. Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years; having CMP; willing to improve functioning despite pain; and adequate Dutch literacy. Exclusion criteria: pregnancy; and having a treatable medical or psychiatric disease. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline (T1), 3 months (T2), 6 months (T3), and 9 months (T4). Questionnaires at T1 and T4 will include the Pain Disability Index and Short Form Health Survey. Questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4 will include the EQ-5D-5L, and iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Cost Questionnaires. Outcomes will be compared using linear mixed-model analysis and costs will be compared using bootstrapping methods.

Discussion

NPRL2.0 is a multidimensional, complex intervention, executed in daily practice, and therefore needing a pragmatic study design. The current study will assess NPRL2.0 with respect to the Quadruple Aim outcomes: patient health and costs. This will provide more information on the (cost-) effectiveness of the organization of care in a network structure regarding patients with CMP. The other two Quadruple Aim outcomes will be examined alongside this study.
Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register: NL7643. https://​www.​trialregister.​nl/​trial/​7643.
Literature
1.
Bekkering GE, Bala MM, Reid K, Kellen E, Harker J, Riemsma R, et al. Epidemiology of chronic pain and its treatment in The Netherlands. Neth J Med. 2011;69(3):141–53.PubMed
2.
Woolf AD, Erwin J, March L. The need to address the burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012;26(2):183–224.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Woolf AD, Akesson K. Understanding the burden of musculoskeletal conditions. The burden is huge and not reflected in national health priorities. BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1079–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
5.
Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, Fuchs PN, Turk DC. The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(4):581–624.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hayden JA, Dunn KM, van der Windt DA, Shaw WS. What is the prognosis of back pain? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):167–79.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kamaleri Y, Natvig B, Ihlebaek CM, Bruusgaard D. Does the number of musculoskeletal pain sites predict work disability? A 14-year prospective study. Eur J Pain. 2009;13(4):426–30.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mallen CD, Peat G, Thomas E, Dunn KM, Croft PR. Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):655–61.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Paananen MV, Taimela SP, Auvinen JP, Tammelin TH, Kantomaa MT, Ebeling HE, et al. Risk factors for persistence of multiple musculoskeletal pains in adolescence: a 2-year follow-up study. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(10):1026–32.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Saastamoinen P, Laaksonen M, Kaaria SM, Lallukka T, Leino-Arjas P, Rahkonen O, et al. Pain and disability retirement: a prospective cohort study. Pain. 2012;153(3):526–31.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Majlesi J. Patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain of 3-6-month duration already have low levels of health-related quality of life and physical activity. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2019;23(11):81.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Krol M, de Boer D, Plass A, Rademakers J. CQ-index module Pijn: meetinstrumentontwikkeling. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2013.
14.
Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287–333.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Niv D, Devor M, European Federation of IC. Position paper of the European Federation of IASP Chapters (EFIC) on the subject of pain management. Eur J Pain. 2007;11(5):487–9.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Köke AJ, Smeets RJ, Schreurs KM, van Baalen B, de Haan P, Remerie SC, et al. Dutch Dataset Pain Rehabilitation in daily practice: content, patient characteristics and reference data. Eur J Pain. 2017;21(3):434–44.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–83.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Committee on Education of the EFIC (European Federation of IASP Chapters). The Pain Management Core Curriculum for European Medical Schools. 2013.
19.
Peerenboom PBG, Spek J. Medisch Specialistische Revalidatie; Aanspraak en praktijk. Elst: Tangram Zorgadviseurs; 2013.
20.
Weiner SS, Nordin M. Prevention and management of chronic back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):267–79.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Geneen LJ, Martin DJ, Adams N, Clarke C, Dunbar M, Jones D, et al. Effects of education to facilitate knowledge about chronic pain for adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2015;4:132.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Hayes SC. Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies: republished article. Behav Ther. 2016;47(6):869–85.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJ, Ostelo RW, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h444.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Lindstrom I, Ohlund C, Eek C, Wallin L, Peterson LE, Fordyce WE, et al. The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain: a randomized prospective clinical study with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach. Phys Ther. 1992;72(4):279–90 (discussion 91–3).PubMedCrossRef
25.
Louw A, Diener I, Butler DS, Puentedura EJ. The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(12):2041–56.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Nicholl BI, Sandal LF, Stochkendahl MJ, McCallum M, Suresh N, Vasseljen O, et al. Digital support interventions for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5):e179.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
World Health Organization. Rehabilitation in health systems. Geneva. 2017.
28.
Krug E, Cieza A. Strengthening health systems to provide rehabilitation services. Can J Occup Ther. 2017;95:167.
29.
30.
Sikka R, Morath J, Leape L. The quadruple aim: care, health, cost and meaning in work. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:608.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Lamper C, Kroese MEAL, Köke AJ, Ruwaard D, Verbunt JAMCF, Huijnen IPJ. Developing the network pain rehabilitation limburg: a feasibility study protocol; Submitted.
32.
Lamper C, Huijnen IPJ, Kroese MEAL, Köke AJ, Brouwer G, Ruwaard D, et al. Developing the Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg: results of a feasibility study Pain in Europe XI: Bringing the future to the present, Valencia, Spain; 2019.
33.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:182–91.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Campbell P, Hill JC, Protheroe J, Afolabi EK, Lewis M, Beardmore R, et al. Keele Aches and Pains Study protocol: validity, acceptability, and feasibility of the Keele STarT MSK tool for subgrouping musculoskeletal patients in primary care. J Pain Res. 2016;9:807–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Mansell G, Hall A, Toomey E. Behaviour change and self-management interventions in persistent low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016;30(6):994–1002.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Vlaeyen JW, Kole-Snijders AM, Boeren RG, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62(3):363–72.PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Woertman W, de Hoop E, Moerbeek M, Zuidema SU, Gerritsen DL, Teerenstra S. Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):752–8.PubMedCrossRef
40.
McClure NS, Sayah FA, Xie F, Luo N, Johnson JA. Instrument-defined estimates of the minimally important difference for EQ-5D-5L Index Scores. Value Health. 2017;20(4):644–50.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Beemster T, van Bennekom C, van Velzen J, Reneman M, Frings-Dresen M. The interpretation of change score of the pain disability index after vocational rehabilitation is baseline dependent. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Soer R, Koke AJ, Vroomen PC, Stegeman P, Smeets RJ, Coppes MH, et al. Extensive validation of the pain disability index in 3 groups of patients with musculoskeletal pain. Spine. 2013;38(9):E562–E568568.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1055–68.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Bohannon RW, DePasquale L. Physical Functioning Scale of the Short-Form (SF) 36: internal consistency and validity with older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2010;33(1):16–8.PubMed
45.
Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Park KB, Shin JS, Lee J, Lee YJ, Kim MR, Lee JH, et al. Minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit in pain, functional, and quality of life scales in failed back surgery syndrome patients. Spine. 2017;42(8):E474–E481481.PubMedCrossRef
47.
EuroQol G. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRef
48.
Kanters TA, Bouwmans CAM, van der Linden N, Tan SS, Hakkaart-van RL. Update of the Dutch manual for costing studies in health care. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0187477.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
50.
van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39(11):1537–44.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Aquino LR, Atra E, Tugwell P, Goldsmith CH. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990;17(8):1022–4.PubMed
52.
Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–58.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hansson M, Chotai J, Nordstom A, Bodlund O. Comparison of two self-rating scales to detect depression: HADS and PHQ-9. Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(566):e283–e288288.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69–77.CrossRefPubMed
55.
McWilliams LA, Kowal J, Wilson KG. Development and evaluation of short forms of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(9):1342–9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Sullivan MJ, Thorn B, Haythornthwaite JA, Keefe F, Martin M, Bradley LA, et al. Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain. Clin J Pain. 2001;17(1):52–64.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Van Damme S, Crombez G, Bijttebier P, Goubert L, Van Houdenhove B. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale: invariant factor structure across clinical and non-clinical populations. Pain. 2002;96(3):319–24.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Miles CL, Pincus T, Carnes D, Taylor SJ, Underwood M. Measuring pain self-efficacy. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(5):461–70.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Nicholas MK. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain. 2007;11(2):153–63.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Chiarotto A, Vanti C, Cedraschi C, Ferrari S, de Lima e Sa Resende F, Ostelo RW, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the pain self-efficacy questionnaire and short forms in patients with chronic low back pain. J Pain. 2016;17(6):707–18.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Bouwmans C, Krol M, Severens H, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W, Hakkaart-van RL. The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire: a standardized instrument for measuring and valuing health-related productivity losses. Value Health. 2015;18(6):753–8.PubMedCrossRef
62.
63.
Eland ND, Kvale A, Ostelo R, de Vet HCW, Strand LI. Discriminative validity of the pain attitudes and beliefs scale for physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2019;99(3):339–53.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Houben RM, Ostelo RW, Vlaeyen JW, Wolters PM, Peters M, Stomp-van den Berg SG. Health care providers' orientations towards common low back pain predict perceived harmfulness of physical activities and recommendations regarding return to normal activity. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(2):173–83.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Mutsaers JH, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Ostelo RW, Peters R, Koes BW, Verhagen AP. The psychometric properties of the PABS-PT in neck pain patients: a validation study. Man Ther. 2014;19(3):208–14.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Twisk JWR. Applied multilevel analysis: a practical guide for medical researchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.CrossRef
67.
Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Levy AR, Nichol G. Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Zwaap J, Knies S, van der Meijden C, Staal P, van der Heiden L. Kosteneffectiviteit in de praktijk. The Netherlands: Uitgebracht aan minister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport; 2015. 26–06–2015.
69.
Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):165–71.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637–44.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Munneke M, Nijkrake MJ, Keus SH, Kwakkel G, Berendse HW, Roos RA, et al. Efficacy of community-based physiotherapy networks for patients with Parkinson's disease: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(1):46–544.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Ritchie MJ, Kirchner JE, Townsend JC, Pitcock JA, Dollar KM, Liu CF. Time and organizational cost for facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:1001–100.CrossRef
73.
Lamper C, Kroese M, Köke A, Ruwaard D, Verbunt J, Huijnen I. Developing the Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg: a feasibility study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e025962.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The (cost-)effectiveness and cost-utility of a novel integrative care initiative for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: the pragmatic trial protocol of Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg
Authors
Cynthia Lamper
Ivan P. J. Huijnen
Mariëlle E. J. B. Goossens
Bjorn Winkens
Dirk Ruwaard
Jeanine A. M. C. F. Verbunt
Mariëlle E. Kroese
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01569-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research

Extent and risk factors of psychological violence towards physicians and Standardised Residency Training physicians: a Northern China experience

Research

Sex differences in the association between self-rated health and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels in Koreans: a cross-sectional study using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Research

Personality traits and the risk of becoming lonely in old age: A 5-year follow-up study

Research

Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D + C) among people living in artisanal and small-scale gold mining areas in Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional study

Research

Content validation of the Kamath and Stothard questionnaire for carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis: a cognitive interviewing study

Research

Sleep quality and its impacts on quality of life among military personnel in remote frontier areas and extreme cold environments