SummaryBackgroundBack 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).Methods1573 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.Findings851 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.InterpretationThe 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.FundingArthritis Research UK.

Objective. To develop and validate a tool that screens for back pain prognostic indicators relevant to initial decision making in primary care. Methods. The setting was UK primary care adults with nonspecific back pain. Constructs that were independent prognostic indicators for persistence were identified from secondary analysis of 2 existing cohorts and published literature. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified single screening questions for relevant constructs. Psychometric properties of the tool, including concurrent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and repeatability, were assessed within a new development sample (n ‫؍‬ 131) and tool score cutoffs were established to enable allocation to 3 subgroups (low, medium, and high risk). Predictive and external validity were evaluated within an independent external sample (n ‫؍‬ 500). Results. The tool included 9 items: referred leg pain, comorbid pain, disability (2 items), bothersomeness, catastrophizing, fear, anxiety, and depression. The latter 5 items were identified as a psychosocial subscale. The tool demonstrated good reliability and validity and was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Patients scoring 0 -3 were classified as low risk, and those scoring 4 or 5 on a psychosocial subscale were classified as high risk. The remainder were classified as medium risk. Conclusion. We validated a brief screening tool, which is a promising instrument for identifying subgroups of patients to guide the provision of early secondary prevention in primary care. Further work will establish whether allocation to treatment subgroups using the tool, linked with targeting treatment appropriately, improves patient outcomes.

PURPOSE We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician's clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. METHODSThe IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTSThe 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8-3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed.CONCLUSIONS Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended. INTRODUCTIONI t has been stated that "most cases of back pain resolve regardless of the course of therapy, and some do not get better no matter what is done. Therein lies the problem for practitioners, patients, and policy makers."1 Health care systems universally face the challenge of providing effective primary care for low back pain within constrained resources, in the face of increased demands for treatment and investigations.2,3 Back pain is now the 6th highest contributor to the global burden of disease. 4 In the United Kingdom, 6% to 9% of adults consult a family physician for back pain each year, 5 accounting for 14% of consultations. 6 More than 60% still report pain and disability a year later, 7,8 and 2% to 7% will develop severe persistent symptoms 9 leading to high levels of reconsultation, work loss, and sickness certification. 10 evidence-based treatments, but the optimal approaches to tar...

The objective of the study was to examine the 1-year cumulative incidence of episodic neck pain and to explore its associations with individual risk factors, including a history of previous neck injury. A baseline cross-sectional survey of an adult general population sample made up of all 7669 adults aged 18-75 years, registered with two family practices in South Manchester, United Kingdom, identified the study population of adults with no current neck pain. This study population was surveyed again 12 months later to identify all those who had experienced neck pain during the follow-up period. At follow-up, cumulative 1-year episode incidence of neck pain was estimated at 17.9% (95% confidence interval 16.0-19.7%). Incidence was independent of age, but was more common in women. A history of previous neck injury at baseline was a significant risk factor for subsequent neck pain in the follow-up year (risk ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.5), independent of gender and psychological status. Other independent baseline risk factors for subsequent neck pain included number of children, poor self-assessed health, poor psychological status and a past history of low back pain. We have carried out a prospective study in a general population sample and demonstrated that established risk factors for chronic pain predict future episodes of neck pain, and shown that in addition a history of neck injury is an independent and distinct risk factor. This finding may have major public health and medicolegal implications.