Cost analysis comparing guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management to usual care for low-back pain: a cluster-randomized trial in occupational health primary care.
IF 4.7 2区 医学Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
{"title":"Cost analysis comparing guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management to usual care for low-back pain: a cluster-randomized trial in occupational health primary care.","authors":"","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effect of a brief training intervention for occupational health services (OHS) professionals on multiprofessional resource utilization and the costs of biopsychosocial management of patients with low-back pain (LBP) compared to usual care among all participants and those in work disability-based risk groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>OHS utilization and back-related sick leave data were collected from electronic patient records over one-year follow-up comparing 232 patients in the intervention arm and 80 control-arm patients, stratified for risk of work disability based on the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. We estimated costs using linear mixed models by multiplying unit costs (in euros) by each type of OHS resource use (visits to physicians, physiotherapists, nurses, use of imaging) and the number of sick leaves. Estimated mean cost differences with confidence intervals (CI) were reported using bootstrapping to deal with skewed cost data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median number of visits to physicians and physiotherapists in the intervention versus control arms was 1 [interquartile range (IQR) 0-3] and 2 (IQR 1-4) versus 2 (IQR 1-3) and 1 (IQR 0-2), respectively. The intervention arm accrued lower physician costs (€-43, 95% CI €-82- -3, P=0.034) and higher physiotherapist costs (€55, 95% CI €26-84, P<0.001) compared to the control arm. There was no statistically significant difference in average total costs between the arms (€-1908, 95% CI €-6734-2919). In the low- and medium-risk groups of work disability, physiotherapist costs were higher in the intervention than control arm, but no statistically significant differences were observed between the arms in the total resource utilization or sickness absence costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Brief biopsychosocial training may support shifting OHS resources towards multiprofessional physiotherapist-driven care, instead of solely physician-driven care, for management of patients with LBP in differing risk groups of work disability with no substantial differences in total costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4212","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of a brief training intervention for occupational health services (OHS) professionals on multiprofessional resource utilization and the costs of biopsychosocial management of patients with low-back pain (LBP) compared to usual care among all participants and those in work disability-based risk groups.
Methods: OHS utilization and back-related sick leave data were collected from electronic patient records over one-year follow-up comparing 232 patients in the intervention arm and 80 control-arm patients, stratified for risk of work disability based on the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. We estimated costs using linear mixed models by multiplying unit costs (in euros) by each type of OHS resource use (visits to physicians, physiotherapists, nurses, use of imaging) and the number of sick leaves. Estimated mean cost differences with confidence intervals (CI) were reported using bootstrapping to deal with skewed cost data.
Results: The median number of visits to physicians and physiotherapists in the intervention versus control arms was 1 [interquartile range (IQR) 0-3] and 2 (IQR 1-4) versus 2 (IQR 1-3) and 1 (IQR 0-2), respectively. The intervention arm accrued lower physician costs (€-43, 95% CI €-82- -3, P=0.034) and higher physiotherapist costs (€55, 95% CI €26-84, P<0.001) compared to the control arm. There was no statistically significant difference in average total costs between the arms (€-1908, 95% CI €-6734-2919). In the low- and medium-risk groups of work disability, physiotherapist costs were higher in the intervention than control arm, but no statistically significant differences were observed between the arms in the total resource utilization or sickness absence costs.
Conclusions: Brief biopsychosocial training may support shifting OHS resources towards multiprofessional physiotherapist-driven care, instead of solely physician-driven care, for management of patients with LBP in differing risk groups of work disability with no substantial differences in total costs.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).