Astrid Louise Grasdal

Is there a right treatment for a particular patient group? Comparison of ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary treatment, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment for long-term sick-listed employees with musculoskeletal pain

&NA; In general, randomized controlled studies concerning return to work have failed to demonstrate significant treatment effects for long‐lasting musculoskeletal pain, and most treatments examined have not been economically beneficial. Individuals (n=654) sick‐listed for at least 8 weeks with musculoskeletal pain, selected from the Norwegian mandatory sickness insurance system and volunteering to participate, were categorized into three groups differing in a prognosis score (good, medium, poor) for return to work, based on a brief, standardized screening of psychological and physiotherapy findings. They were then randomly assigned to three outpatient treatments with three different levels of intensity (ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment). The evaluation was based on 14 months follow‐up data on return to work collected from social security records. The patients with good prognosis for return to work do equally well with ordinary treatment as with the two more intensive treatments. The patients with medium prognosis benefit equally from the two multidisciplinary treatments. The patients with poor prognosis receiving extensive multidisciplinary treatment returned to work at a higher rate than patients with poor prognosis receiving ordinary treatment, 55 vs. 37% (P<0.05) at 14 months. Multidisciplinary treatment is effective concerning return to work, when given to patients who are most likely to benefit from that treatment. Measures of pain or quality of life are not included in this study. The cost–benefit analysis of the economic returns of the light multidisciplinary and the extensive multidisciplinary treatment programs yields a positive net present social value of the treatment. A simple, standardized, screening instrument including only psychological and physiotherapeutic observations may be a useful clinical tool for allocating patients with musculoskeletal pain to the right level of treatment.

Relative cost-effectiveness of extensive and light multidisciplinary treatment programs versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic low back pain on long-term sick leave: randomized controlled study.

Study Design. A subgroup of 195 patients with chronic low back pain, being part of a larger study of other musculoskeletal patients, were included in a randomized controlled prospective clinical study. Objectives. To evaluate the outcome in terms of return to work and cost-effectiveness of a light multidisciplinary treatment program with an extensive multidisciplinary program and treatment as usual initiated by their general practitioner. Summary of Background Data. Light multidisciplinary programs seem to reduce sick leave in patients with subacute low back pain. There are few, if any, previous studies of the effectiveness of light versus extensive multidisciplinary treatment on return to work in patients with chronic low back pain. Methods. Patients with chronic low back pain (n = 195), on an average sick-listed for 3 months, were included. The patients were randomized to a light multidisciplinary treatment program, an extensive multidisciplinary program, or treatment as usual by their primary physician. Full return to work was used as outcome response, and follow-up was 26 months after the end of treatment. Cost–benefit was calculated for the treatment programs. Results. In men significantly better results for full return to work were found for the light multidisciplinary treatment compared with treatment as usual, but no differences were found between extensive multidisciplinary treatment and treatment as usual. No significant differences between any of the two multidisciplinary treatment programs and the controls were found for women. Productivity gains for the society from light multidisciplinary treatment versus “treatment as usual” of 57 male patients with low back pain would during the first 2 years accumulate to U.S.

Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain: a 3-year follow-up study.

852.000. Conclusions. The light multidisciplinary treatment model is a cost-effective treatment for men with chronic low back pain.

Return to work after comparing outpatient multidisciplinary treatment programs versus treatment in general practice for patients with chronic widespread pain

Study Design. A randomized clinical trial. Objectives. To evaluate long-term clinical and economical effects of a light mobilization program on the duration of sick leave for patients with subacute low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Twelve-month follow-up results from a previous study showed that early intervention with examination at a spine clinic, giving the patients information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible had significant effect in reducing sick leave. At 12-month follow-up, 68.4% in the intervention group were off sick leave, as compared with 56.4% in the control group. Patients in this study were followed-up for a period of 3 years to investigate possible long-term effects. Materials and Methods. Four hundred fifty-seven patients placed on a sick list for 8 to 12 weeks for low back pain were randomized into two groups: an intervention group (n = 237) and a control group (n = 220). The intervention group was examined at a spine clinic and given information and advice to stay active. The control group was not examined at the clinic but was treated within the primary health care. Results. Over the 3 years of observation, the intervention group had significantly fewer days of sickness compensation (average 125.7 d/person) than the control group (169.6 d/person). This difference is mainly caused by a more rapid return to work during the first year. There was no significant difference for the second or third year. In particular, there is no increased risk for reoccurrence of illness from early return to work. At 6-month follow-up, patients in the intervention group were less likely to use bed rest and more likely to use stretching and walking to cope with their back pain compared with the control group. This effect diminished. At 12-month follow-up, the only significant difference between the groups was in the use of stretching. Economic returns of the intervention were calculated in terms of increases in the net present value of production for the society because of the reduction in number of days on sick leave. Net benefits accumulated over 3 years of treating the 237 patients in the intervention group amount to approximately

Work-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy and individual job support to increase work participation in common mental disorders: a randomised controlled multicentre trial.

2,822 per person. Conclusions. For patients with subacute low back pain, a brief and simple early intervention with examination, information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible had economic gains for the society. The effect occurred during the first year after intervention. There were no significant long-term effects of the intervention. The initial gain obtained during the first year does not lead to any increased costs or increased risks for reoccurrence of illness over the next 2 years.

Inequity in the use of physician services in Norway before and after introducing patient lists in primary care

Former studies have questioned the quality and effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for working‐age adults with fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain (CWP). High‐quality trials are needed, and return to work should also be included as an outcome variable. This randomized study evaluated the return‐to‐work outcome of an extensive and a light multidisciplinary treatment program combining cognitive strategies and exercise versus treatment‐as‐usual initiated by a general practitioner, for CWP patients. The patients (n = 208), on sick leave for 3 months on average, were randomized to the extensive program including group sessions, a light and more individual program, and to treatment‐as‐usual. The number of days absent from work and full return to work were used as an outcome, and follow‐up lasted 54 months after the programs ended. The regression analysis showed that the extensive program was associated with significantly fewer days absent from work among women. For women, the mean effect of extensive treatment versus treatment‐as‐usual on total number of days absent from work was estimated to −206.95 days. Among men, the light program was associated with significantly more days absent from work compared to treatment‐as‐usual. Both among men and women, independent of type of treatment, patients with poorer health (poor prognosis) were absent from work more days than patients with good prognosis. In our sample, higher age significantly increased the number of days absent from work, but only for women. The extensive outpatient multidisciplinary treatment program was effective in returning women to work.

Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (The CINS Trial): A Randomized Controlled, Multicenter Trial Comparing a Brief Intervention with Additional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seal Oil, and Soy Oil for Sick-Listed Low Back Pain Patients

Objectives Common mental disorders (CMDs) are a major cause of rising disability benefit expenditures. We urgently need evidence on programmes that can increase work participation in CMDs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of work-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and individual job support for people struggling with work participation due to CMDs. Methods A randomised controlled multicentre trial (RCT) including 1193 participants was conducted. Participants were on sick leave, at risk of going on sick leave or on long-term benefits. The intervention integrated work-focused CBT with individual job support. The control group received usual care. The main outcome was objectively ascertained work participation at 12 months follow-up, with changes in mental health and health-related quality of life as secondary outcomes. Results A larger proportion of participants in the intervention group had increased or maintained their work participation at follow-up compared to the control group (44.2% vs 37.2%, p=0.015). The difference remained significant after 18 months (difference 7.8%, p=0.018), and was even stronger for those on long-term benefits (difference 12.2%, p=0.007). The intervention also reduced depression (t=3.23, p≤0.001) and anxiety symptoms (t=2.52, p=0.012) and increased health-related quality of life (t=2.24, p=0.026) more than usual care. Conclusions A work-focused CBT and individual job support was more effective than usual care in increasing or maintaining work participation for people with CMDs. The effects were profound for people on long-term benefits. This is the first large-scale RCT to demonstrate an effect of a behavioural intervention on work participation for the large group of workers with CMDs. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT01146730.

Trial participant representativeness compared to ordinary service users in a work rehabilitation setting

BackgroundInequity in use of physician services has been detected even within health care systems with universal coverage of the population through public insurance schemes. In this study we analyse and compare inequity in use of physician visits (GP and specialists) in Norway based on data from the Surveys of Living Conditions for the years 2000, 2002 and 2005. A patient list system was introduced for GPs in 2001 to improve GP accessibility, strengthen the stability of the patient-doctor relationship and ensure equity in the use of health care services for the entire population.MethodWe measure horizontal inequity by concentration indices and investigate changes in inequity over time when decomposing the concentration indices into the contribution of its determinants.ResultsWe find that pro-rich inequity in the probability of seeing a private outpatient specialist has declined, but still existed in 2005.ConclusionImproved patient-doctor stability as well as better GP accessibility facilitated by the introduction of patient lists improved access to private specialist services. In particular the less well off benefited from this reform.

Long-term effects on income and sickness benefits after work-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy and individual job support: a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Study Design. A randomized controlled trial. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a tailored and manualized cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) or nutritional supplements of seal oil and soy oil had any additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention (BI) on return to work (RTW). Summary of Background Data. Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial and cost-effective for patients with low back pain (LBP). CBT is recommended for LBP, but evidence on RTW is lacking. Seal oil has previously been shown to have a possible effect on muscle pain, but no randomized controlled trials have so far been carried out in LBP patients. Methods. Four hundred thirteen adults aged 18 to 60 years were included. Participants were sick-listed 2 to 10 months due to LBP. Main outcome was objectively ascertained work participation at 12-month follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to BI (n = 100), BI and CBT (n = 103), BI and seal oil (n = 105), or BI and soy oil (n = 105). BI is a two-session cognitive, clinical examination program followed by two booster sessions, while the CBT program is a tailored, individual, seven-session manual-based treatment. Results. At 12-month follow-up, 60% of the participants in the BI group, 50% in the BI and CBT group, 51% in the BI and seal oil group, and 53% in the BI and soy oil group showed reduced sick leave from baseline, and had either partly or fully RTW. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (&khgr;2 = 2.54, P = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups at any of the other follow-up assessments either, except for a significantly lower sick leave rate in the BI group than the other groups during the first 3 months of follow-up (&khgr;2 = 9.50, P = 0.02). Conclusion. CBT and seal oil had no additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention on sick leave. The brief cognitive intervention alone was superior in facilitating a fast RTW. Level of Evidence: 2

EPA-1090 – The effectiveness of a work-focused cognitive behavioural therapy and individual job support on return to work for common mental disorders: randomized controlled multicenter trial

Background Study representativeness is a major concern for generalizations from trials. The extent of the problem varies with study design and context. There is a strong emphasis on developing interventions to help people remain in the work force despite mental illness. We need to know if results from upcoming trials in this area are valid for those that later might receive the services. Method The AWaC trial was a multicenter RCT conducted at six different treatment centers (n = 1193). After the trial was over, the centers were upheld and run as ordinary services. At that time, we surveyed 80 ordinary service users with the same baseline questionnaire as used in the trial, and compared them with those who participated in the trial. Results There were a higher proportion of people with the highest level of education (4 years or more at university/college) in the post-trial comparison sample. This sample also reported to be “dissatisfied” with their job more often, but rated their chances for return to work as “bad” less often than the ordinary trial participants. No further significant differences between the two samples in any of the other education categories, or for any of the other demographic, health or work related comparisons were found. Discussion Participation bias is likely to depend on study context, but in the setting of a trial to help improve work participation among people who struggle with common mental disorders, the trial participants were overall very similar to those who sought the same services as ordinary practice.