People Strongly Value Physical Therapies for Low Back Pain Over Doing Nothing, Even When Effects Are Very Small: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

IF 5.8 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Christian Longtin, Amber Salisbury, Chris G Maher, Sweekriti Sharma, Brooke Nickel, Thomas Lung, Giovanni Ferreira, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Ann-Mason Furmage, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Adrian C Traeger
{"title":"People Strongly Value Physical Therapies for Low Back Pain Over Doing Nothing, Even When Effects Are Very Small: A Discrete Choice Experiment.","authors":"Christian Longtin, Amber Salisbury, Chris G Maher, Sweekriti Sharma, Brooke Nickel, Thomas Lung, Giovanni Ferreira, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Ann-Mason Furmage, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Adrian C Traeger","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2025.13409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To explore factors that influence patient preferences for recommended physical therapies for low back pain. <b>DESIGN:</b> Discrete choice experiment. <b>METHODS:</b> Respondents were randomized to a block of 12 choice tasks and asked to choose between two physical therapies or no treatment. Characteristics of the physical therapies varied between choice tasks and included type (exercise, advice and education, or clinician-directed treatment), effectiveness, time for symptoms to improve, costs, risk of side effects, and treatment duration. Choices were analyzed using a mixed logit model. Latent class analysis examined preference heterogeneity. To measure decision trade-offs, we estimated the smallest worthwhile effect and the \"willingness to pay\" value. <b>RESULTS:</b> A total of 697 Australians reporting a history of low back in the last year completed all choice tasks. Respondents showed a strong preference for taking any nonpharmacologic care option over no treatment (<i>OR</i> = 17.24; 95% CI [12.89, 22.58]). This preference was present at any level of effectiveness (smallest worthwhile effect = 0%). Respondents preferred physical therapies with higher effectiveness, quicker symptom improvement, lower out-of-pocket expenses, reduced side effects, and shorter duration. Respondents were willing to pay up to A$355 per month for physical therapies over no treatment. Older and less-educated respondents had weaker preferences for physical therapies. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> Respondents had a strong preference for any recommended physical therapies over no treatment for low back pain, even when effects were very small. Clinicians should discuss likely effectiveness, time for improvement, side effects, and treatment duration when supporting patients to choose between recommended physical therapies. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(9):602-610. Epub 30 July 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13409</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"55 9","pages":"602-610"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2025.13409","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore factors that influence patient preferences for recommended physical therapies for low back pain. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. METHODS: Respondents were randomized to a block of 12 choice tasks and asked to choose between two physical therapies or no treatment. Characteristics of the physical therapies varied between choice tasks and included type (exercise, advice and education, or clinician-directed treatment), effectiveness, time for symptoms to improve, costs, risk of side effects, and treatment duration. Choices were analyzed using a mixed logit model. Latent class analysis examined preference heterogeneity. To measure decision trade-offs, we estimated the smallest worthwhile effect and the "willingness to pay" value. RESULTS: A total of 697 Australians reporting a history of low back in the last year completed all choice tasks. Respondents showed a strong preference for taking any nonpharmacologic care option over no treatment (OR = 17.24; 95% CI [12.89, 22.58]). This preference was present at any level of effectiveness (smallest worthwhile effect = 0%). Respondents preferred physical therapies with higher effectiveness, quicker symptom improvement, lower out-of-pocket expenses, reduced side effects, and shorter duration. Respondents were willing to pay up to A$355 per month for physical therapies over no treatment. Older and less-educated respondents had weaker preferences for physical therapies. CONCLUSION: Respondents had a strong preference for any recommended physical therapies over no treatment for low back pain, even when effects were very small. Clinicians should discuss likely effectiveness, time for improvement, side effects, and treatment duration when supporting patients to choose between recommended physical therapies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(9):602-610. Epub 30 July 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13409.

人们强烈重视对腰痛的物理治疗,而不是什么都不做,即使效果很小:一个离散选择实验。
目的:探讨影响腰痛患者对推荐物理疗法偏好的因素。设计:离散选择实验。方法:受访者被随机分配到12个选择任务中,并被要求在两种物理治疗或不治疗之间进行选择。物理治疗的特征因选择任务而异,包括类型(运动、建议和教育或临床指导治疗)、有效性、症状改善时间、成本、副作用风险和治疗持续时间。选择使用混合logit模型进行分析。潜在类分析检验了偏好异质性。为了衡量决策权衡,我们估计了最小价值效应和“支付意愿”值。结果:697名报告去年腰背病史的澳大利亚人完成了所有选择任务。受访者强烈倾向于接受任何非药物治疗方案,而不是不接受治疗(OR = 17.24; 95% CI[12.89, 22.58])。这种偏好在任何有效水平上都存在(最小有价值的效果= 0%)。受访者更倾向于物理治疗,因为它具有更高的疗效、更快的症状改善、更低的自付费用、更少的副作用和更短的持续时间。受访者愿意每月支付高达355澳元的物理治疗费用,而不是不接受治疗。年龄较大和受教育程度较低的受访者对物理疗法的偏好较弱。结论:受访者强烈倾向于任何推荐的物理疗法,而不是不治疗腰痛,即使效果非常小。临床医生在支持患者选择推荐的物理疗法时,应讨论可能的效果、改善时间、副作用和治疗持续时间。[J]中华体育杂志,2015;55(9):602-610。2025年7月30日。doi: 10.2519 / jospt.2025.13409。
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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics. With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信