Healthy Lifestyle Care vs Guideline-Based Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Emma Mudd, Simon R E Davidson, Steven J Kamper, Priscilla Viana da Silva, Connor Gleadhill, Rebecca Kate Hodder, Robin Haskins, Bruce Donald, Christopher M Williams
{"title":"Healthy Lifestyle Care vs Guideline-Based Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Emma Mudd, Simon R E Davidson, Steven J Kamper, Priscilla Viana da Silva, Connor Gleadhill, Rebecca Kate Hodder, Robin Haskins, Bruce Donald, Christopher M Williams","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>An unhealthy lifestyle is believed to increase the development and persistence of low back pain, but there is uncertainty about whether integrating support for lifestyle risks in low back pain management improves patients' outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of the Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) compared with guideline-based care for low back pain disability.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This superiority, assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted in Australia from September 8, 2017, to December 30, 2020, among 346 participants who had activity-limiting chronic low back pain and at least 1 lifestyle risk (overweight, poor diet, physical inactivity, and/or smoking), referred from hospital, general practice, and community settings. Statistical analysis was performed from January to December 2021.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Participants were block randomized to the HeLP intervention (n = 174; 2 postrandomization exclusions) or guideline-based physiotherapy care (n = 172), stratified by body mass index, using a concealed function in REDCap. HeLP integrated healthy lifestyle support with guideline-based care using physiotherapy and dietetic consultations, educational resources, and telephone-based health coaching over 6 months.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was low back pain disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score; 0-24 scale, where higher scores indicate greater disability) at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were weight, pain intensity, quality of life, and smoking. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. We estimated the complier average causal effect (CACE) as sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample of 346 individuals (mean [SD] age, 50.2 [14.4] years; 190 female participants [55%]) had a baseline mean (SD) RMDQ score of 14.7 (5.4) in the intervention group and 14.0 (5.5) in the control group. At 26 weeks, the between-group difference in disability was -1.3 points (95% CI, -2.5 to -0.2 points; P = .03) favoring HeLP. CACE analysis revealed clinically meaningful benefits in disability among compliers, favoring HeLP (-5.4 points; 95% CI, -9.7 to -1.2 points; P = .01). HeLP participants lost more weight (-1.6 kg; 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.0 kg; P = .049) and had greater improvement in quality of life (physical functioning score; 1.8, 95% CI, 0.1-3.4; P = .04) than control participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Combining healthy lifestyle management with guideline-based care for chronic low back pain led to small improvements in disability, weight, and quality of life compared with guideline-based care alone, without additional harm. Targeting lifestyle risks in the management of chronic low back pain may be considered safe and may offer small additional health benefits beyond current guideline-based care.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617001288314.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 1","pages":"e2453807"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724347/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53807","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: An unhealthy lifestyle is believed to increase the development and persistence of low back pain, but there is uncertainty about whether integrating support for lifestyle risks in low back pain management improves patients' outcomes.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) compared with guideline-based care for low back pain disability.

Design, setting, and participants: This superiority, assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted in Australia from September 8, 2017, to December 30, 2020, among 346 participants who had activity-limiting chronic low back pain and at least 1 lifestyle risk (overweight, poor diet, physical inactivity, and/or smoking), referred from hospital, general practice, and community settings. Statistical analysis was performed from January to December 2021.

Interventions: Participants were block randomized to the HeLP intervention (n = 174; 2 postrandomization exclusions) or guideline-based physiotherapy care (n = 172), stratified by body mass index, using a concealed function in REDCap. HeLP integrated healthy lifestyle support with guideline-based care using physiotherapy and dietetic consultations, educational resources, and telephone-based health coaching over 6 months.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was low back pain disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score; 0-24 scale, where higher scores indicate greater disability) at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were weight, pain intensity, quality of life, and smoking. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. We estimated the complier average causal effect (CACE) as sensitivity analyses.

Results: The sample of 346 individuals (mean [SD] age, 50.2 [14.4] years; 190 female participants [55%]) had a baseline mean (SD) RMDQ score of 14.7 (5.4) in the intervention group and 14.0 (5.5) in the control group. At 26 weeks, the between-group difference in disability was -1.3 points (95% CI, -2.5 to -0.2 points; P = .03) favoring HeLP. CACE analysis revealed clinically meaningful benefits in disability among compliers, favoring HeLP (-5.4 points; 95% CI, -9.7 to -1.2 points; P = .01). HeLP participants lost more weight (-1.6 kg; 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.0 kg; P = .049) and had greater improvement in quality of life (physical functioning score; 1.8, 95% CI, 0.1-3.4; P = .04) than control participants.

Conclusions and relevance: Combining healthy lifestyle management with guideline-based care for chronic low back pain led to small improvements in disability, weight, and quality of life compared with guideline-based care alone, without additional harm. Targeting lifestyle risks in the management of chronic low back pain may be considered safe and may offer small additional health benefits beyond current guideline-based care.

Trial registration: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617001288314.

健康生活方式护理vs基于指南的下腰痛护理:一项随机临床试验
重要性:不健康的生活方式被认为会增加腰痛的发展和持续,但在腰痛管理中整合对生活方式风险的支持是否能改善患者的预后还不确定。目的:评估健康生活方式计划(HeLP)与基于指南的下腰痛残疾护理的有效性。设计、环境和参与者:这项优势、评估者盲法随机临床试验于2017年9月8日至2020年12月30日在澳大利亚进行,纳入了346名来自医院、全科医生和社区的参与者,他们患有活动受限的慢性腰痛和至少1种生活方式风险(超重、不良饮食、缺乏体育锻炼和/或吸烟)。统计分析时间为2021年1月至12月。干预措施:参与者被随机分组到HeLP干预组(n = 174;2例随机排除)或基于指南的物理治疗护理(n = 172),根据体重指数分层,使用REDCap中的隐藏函数。HeLP将健康生活方式支持与基于指南的护理结合起来,使用物理治疗和饮食咨询、教育资源和基于电话的健康指导超过6个月。主要结局和测量:主要结局为腰痛失能(Roland Morris失能问卷[RMDQ]评分;0-24分,分数越高表明残疾程度越严重)。次要结局是体重、疼痛强度、生活质量和吸烟情况。分析是按意向治疗进行的。我们估计编译平均因果效应(CACE)作为敏感性分析。结果:样本346例(平均[SD]年龄50.2[14.4]岁;190名女性参与者(55%),干预组基线平均(SD) RMDQ评分为14.7(5.4),对照组为14.0(5.5)。在26周时,残疾的组间差异为-1.3点(95% CI, -2.5至-0.2点;P = .03)倾向于帮助。CACE分析显示,编译者在残疾方面有临床意义的益处,有利于帮助(-5.4分;95% CI, -9.7 ~ -1.2点;p = 0.01)。帮助参与者减轻了更多的体重(-1.6公斤;95% CI, -3.2 ~ -0.0 kg;P = 0.049),生活质量有较大改善(身体功能评分;1.8, 95% ci, 0.1-3.4;P = .04)。结论和相关性:与单独的基于指南的护理相比,将健康生活方式管理与基于指南的护理相结合治疗慢性腰痛,在残疾、体重和生活质量方面有微小的改善,没有额外的伤害。针对慢性腰痛的生活方式风险管理可能被认为是安全的,并且可能在目前基于指南的护理之外提供少量额外的健康益处。试验注册:http://anzctr.org.au标识符:ACTRN12617001288314。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信