A randomized controlled trial to prevent patient lift and transfer injuries of health care workers. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain. A controlled trial of an educational pamphlet to prevent disability after occupational low back injury. Implementation of RCGP guidelines for acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Intensive physical and psychosocial training program for patients with chronic low back pain. A controlled clinical trial. Effect of nursing assistance tools on preventing musculoskeletal pain among staff in schools for disabled children. Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. A randomised controlled trial of preventive spinal manipulation with and without a home exercise program for patients with chronic neck pain.
Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
                To compare the effectiveness of training and equipment to reduce musculoskeletal injuries, increase comfort, and reduce physical demands on staff performing patient lifts and transfers at a large acute care hospital.
                Back injury to nursing staff during patient handling tasks is a major issue in health care. The value of mechanical assistive devices in reducing injuries to these workers is unclear.
                This three-armed RCT consisted of a "control arm," a "safe lifting" arm, and a "no strenuous lifting" arm. A medical, surgical, and rehabilitation ward were each randomly assigned to each arm. Both intervention arms received intensive training in back care, patient assessment, and handling techniques. Hence, the "safe lifting" arm used improved patient handling techniques using manual equipment, whereas the "no strenuous lifting" arm aimed to eliminate manual patient handling through use of additional mechanical and other assistive equipment.
                Frequency of manual patient handling tasks was significantly decreased on the "no strenuous lifting" arm. Self-perceived work fatigue, back and shoulder pain, safety, and frequency and intensity of physical discomfort associated with patient handling tasks were improved on both intervention arms, but staff on the mechanical equipment arm showed greater improvements. Musculoskeletal injury rates were not significantly altered.
                The "no strenuous lifting" program, which combined training with assured availability of mechanical and other assistive patient handling equipment, most effectively improved comfort with patient handling, decreased staff fatigue, and decreased physical demands. The fact that injury rates were not statistically significantly reduced may reflect the less sensitive nature of this indicator compared with the subjective indicators. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. The effect of clinical guidelines on resource utilization for complex conditions with substantial barriers to clinician behavior change has not been well studied. We report the impact of a multifaceted guideline implementation intervention on primary care clinician utilization of radiologic and specialty services for the care of acute low back pain.
                Physician groups were randomized to receive guideline education and individual feedback, supporting patient education materials, both, or neither. The impact on guideline adherence and resource utilization was evaluated during the 12-month period before and after implementation.
                Fourteen physician groups with 120 primary care physician and associate practitioners from 2 group model HMO practices.
                Guideline implementation utilized an education/audit/feedback model with local peer opinion leaders. The patient education component included written and videotaped materials on the care of low back pain.
                The clinician intervention was associated with an absolute increase in guideline-consistent behavior of 5.4% in the intervention group versus a decline of 2.7% in the control group (P =.04). The patient education intervention produced no significant change in guideline-consistent behavior, but was poorly adopted. Patient characteristics including duration of pain, prior history of low back pain, and number of visits during the illness episode were strong predictors of service utilization and guideline-consistent behavior.
                Implementation of an education and feedback-supported acute low back pain care guideline for primary care clinicians was associated with an increase in guideline-consistent behavior. Patient education materials did not enhance guideline effectiveness. Implementation barriers could limit the utility of this approach in usual care settings. Randomized controlled trial.
                To test the ability of an educational pamphlet to improve recovery in terms of pain, work status, and health care utilization after occupational low back injury.
                Low back pain and disability persist as occupational health problems of epidemic proportions. Because interventions based on biomechanical models have had limited impact, recent educational approaches to preventing back problems have stressed psychosocial recovery issues.
                A pamphlet was developed by compiling activity resumption, self-care, and attitudinal advice from recent publications. The pamphlet was sent at random to half of all consenting workers reporting back pain within 11 days of occupational injury between 7/96 and 6/97. Three and 6 months later, back pain, work status, health care use, and pamphlet impact outcomes were assessed through structured telephone interviews.
                Of the 726 eligible workers, 486 consented to participate. Consenters and nonconsenters and intervention and control groups were similar in initial demographic variables. The pamphlet had no statistically significant impact at the 0.05 significance level on pain severity or reduction, health care visits, or work absence. Of the 229 pamphlet recipients, 129 thought it had provided useful information, but only 25 thought it had helped them return to work more quickly.
                In this trial, a pamphlet stressing psychosocial recovery issues did not prevent or reduce postinjury pain, health care use, or work absence. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) has produced guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care.
                To investigate the impact on patient management of an educational strategy to promote these guidelines among general practitioners (GPs).
                Group randomised controlled trial, using the health centre as the unit of randomisation.
                Primary care teams in north-west England.
                Twenty-four health centres were randomly allocated to an intervention or control arm. Practices in the intervention arm were offered outreach visits to promote national guidelines on acute low back pain, as well as access to fast-track physiotherapy and to a triage service for patients with persistent symptoms.
                Twenty-four centres were randomised. Two thousand, one hundred and eighty-seven eligible patients presented with acute low back pain during the study period: 1049 in the intervention group and 1138 in the control group. There were no significant differences between study groups in the proportion of patients who were referred for X-ray, issued with a sickness certificate, prescribed opioids or muscle relaxants, or who were referred to secondary care, but significantly more patients in the intervention group were referred to physiotherapy or the back pain unit (difference in proportion = 12.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.8% to 21.6%).
                The management of patients presenting with low back pain to primary care was mostly unchanged by an outreach educational strategy to promote greater adherence to RCGP guidelines among GPs. An increase in referral to physiotherapy or educational programmes followed the provision of a triage service. The authors conducted a controlled clinical trial with 1-year follow-up to define the effectiveness of an intensive physical and psychosocial training program on patients with low back pain.
                The intervention group included 152 patients (mean age 40.5 yr, Million index 45.1/100), and the reference group included 141 patients (mean age 40.4 yr, Million-index 44.5/100).
                The progressive intervention program consisted of intensive physical training and psychosocial activation. The outcomes were physical and psychosocial measures, the pain and disability index (Million), sick leaves, and occupational handicap.
                The intervention was more efficient with respect to physical measures and pain and disability index. There were only mild or no differences in changes between the study groups in psychologic variables, sick leaves, or retirement.
                The intervention program could improve physical disability, but to improve occupational handicap, activities of the whole society (social legislation, labor market policy) are needed. Objective is to clarify whether nursing assistance tools (a mat with attached handles, a pair of trousers with knee pads and a waist holding belt) prevent musculoskeletal pain, such as low back pain and upper arm pain, and depression, and improve the burden on the lower back and upper arm among staff in schools for disabled children. This study design was a non-randomized intervention trial. The subjects were 41 staff in two schools for disabled children in Japan. Nursing assistance tools were used with the intervention group to help with their nursing activities. We investigated the one-month prevalence of low back pain and the degree of burden on the lower back using a questionnaire at the baseline and at the end point 4 to 6 months later. The prevalence of low back pain did not change significantly in either group. In the intervention group, the prevalence of upper arm pain decreased from 47.6% at the baseline to 23.8% at the end point (p=0.063). The percentage of participants with a high level of burden on the lower back from excretory nursing activity decreased from 57.1% at the baseline to 33.3% at the end point (p=0.063) in the intervention group. These results suggest that nursing assistance tools may prevent upper arm pain and improve the burden on the lower back among staff in schools for disabled children; however, these tools did not significantly prevent low back pain and depression. A single blind randomized controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with acute simple low back pain.
                To compare two research-based models of care for acute low back pain and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention.
                National guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of acute low back pain. The guidelines suggest two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these approaches to the management of acute low back pain.
                Among 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an "assess/advise/treat" group or an "assess/advise/wait" group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (Visual Analogue Scale), functional disability (the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), mood (Modified Zung Self Rated Depression Score, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), general health (Euroqol), and quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
                At 6 weeks, the assess/advise/treat group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health, and quality of life than patients in the assess/advise/wait group (P < 0.05). Disability and pain were not significantly different between the groups at long-term follow up (P > 0.05). However, mood, general health, and quality of life remained significantly better in the assess/advise/treat group (P < 0.05).
                At short-term, intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and general health. The timing of intervention affects the development of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore, an assess/advise/treat model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an assess/advise/wait model of care. Evidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.
                Ninety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.
                Our results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.
                This study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.
                ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00566930.
There is moderate quality evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices does not prevent back pain or back pain-related disability when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available from RCTs for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain. More high quality studies could further reduce the remaining uncertainty.