Face-to-face information combined with a booklet versus a booklet alone for treatment of mild low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Face-to-face information combined with a booklet versus a booklet alone for treatment of mild low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial by Rantonen J, Vehtari A, Karppinen J, Luoto S, Viikari-Juntura E, Hupli M, Malmivaara A, Taimela S Respondents with mild LB symptoms were randomized into the Back Book (control) Back Book+Advice (intervention) groups. Both occupational health (OH) interventions were effective, but supplementary oral information was not more effective compared to the booklet alone. Policy implications: Patient advice is important in the OH setting, but we need more evidence of the effectiveness of various types of information. Original article Scand J Work Environ Health. 2014;40(2):156-166. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3398 Face-to-face information combined with a booklet versus a booklet alone for treatment of mild low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial by Jarmo Rantonen, MD, 1 Aki Vehtari, DrTech, 2 Jaro Karppinen, MD, PhD,1, 4 Satu Luoto, MD, PhD, MD, PhD, 1 Markku Hupli, MD, PhD, 3 Antti Malmivaara, MD, PhD, 5 Simo Taimela, MD, PhD 6,7 Rantonen J, Vehtari A, Karppinen J, Luoto S, Viikari-Juntura E, Hupli M, Malmivaara A, Taimela S. Face-to-face information combined with a booklet versus a booklet alone for treating mild low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2014;40(2):156-166, doi:10.5271/sjweh.3398 AffiliationObjective The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of face-to-face information for the treatment of mild low-back pain (LBP) in an occupational health (OH) setting. MethodsWe conducted a 48-month randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two 1:1 allocated parallel groups of forestry company employees. Eligibility criteria included permanent employment, age <57 years, and mild LBP [visual analogue scale (VAS) 10-34 mm] in a survey. The intervention group received the Back Book, an information booklet on how to manage LBP, with an additional face-to-face review of the booklet by an OH nurse. The control group received the booklet only. Primary outcomes were physical impairment (Roland-Morris 18-item (RM-18) Disability Questionnaire), LBP (VAS 100 mm), health-related quality of life [15-dimensional quality of life (15-D)] during two years and sickness absence (SA) up to four years. Participants were assigned using block randomization with a computer-generated scheme. ResultsThe RCT comprised 181 participants (72% male, mean age 44 years). There were no differences between the treatment arms in any of the primary outcomes at any time point. At 24 months, the mean group differences (intervention versus control) were: RM-18: 0 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1-1], VAS: 3 mm (95% CI -3-8), and 15-D 0.00 (95% CI -0.02-0.02). The difference in cumulative sickness absence days at 48 months were -3 (95% CI -28-21) for total and 1 (95% CI -3-5) for LBP specific sick leaves. Exploratory analysis revealed no differences at subgroup-levels either.Conclusions Face-to-face patient information by an OH nurse in addition to a booklet was not more eff...

Improving cancer patients’ knowledge about totally implantable access port: a randomized controlled trial

“…However, we expected that providing additional personalized explanation and the opportunity to ask questions may increase patient's knowledge and decrease anxiety compared with written information alone. Therefore, this was a surprising result even if in accordance with similar results from another study [39]. However, it is possible that the intervention including personal information led to other positive patient outcomes, such as satisfaction, but unfortunately, we only asked patients how satisfied they were with the booklet.…”

Education as a strategy for managing occupational-related musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review

“…Of the 19 studies included, 10 studies were randomised controlled trials 25–34. Eight studies used a prospective design where educational management strategies were tested using one35–39 or two groups 40–42.…”

“…The content of the educational set-up and content varied between the included studies where three themes for methods of delivery emerged: written material in a hard copy (eg, pamphlet or book),25 27 29 32–34 36 41 43 electronic delivery29 30 38 39 or a teacher–student setting (eg, lecture or face-to-face teaching/mentoring) 25 26 28 31 35 37 40 42. Some of these included studies employed a mixed approach where education was supplemented by a more active approach (see Potential influence of delivery method section and table 2).…”

“…In this regard, adding ergonomic advice or exercise was suggested to have additional benefits,25 33 although inconsistent findings were evident 27. For example, combining an educational booklet with face-to-face advice resulted in little or no additive effect on low back pain as assessed by pain levels, cost or absence from work 32 41. A face-to-face intervention, however, may ensure better retention of the educational information as compared with electronic delivery, such as through email 43…”

A classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care – protocol for a benchmarking controlled trial

“…Comprehensive evidence-based information on LBP is more beneficial than imaging. Patient education based on the biopsychosocial model has shown to be an effective strategy for modifying beliefs about LBP, minimizing its consequences and improving treatment compliance [24,25]. Appropriate patient education can reduce pain and disability in the short term [26].…”