A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels

Non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health issue due to its high prevalence and associated disability burden. Clinical practice guidelines recommend non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions for managing pain and function in people with LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To provide accessible, high-quality evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for people with LBP and to highlight areas of remaining uncertainty and gaps in the evidence regarding the effects of these interventions for people with LBP.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 15 April 2023, to identify Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials testing the effect of non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions, unrestricted by language. Major outcomes were pain intensity, function and safety. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the quality of the reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was placebo/sham.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 Cochrane reviews of 644 trials that randomised 97,183 adults with LBP. We have high confidence in the findings of 19 reviews, moderate confidence in the findings of two reviews, and low confidence in the findings of 10 reviews. We present results for non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions compared to placebo/sham or no treatment/usual care at short-term (≤ three months) follow-up. Placebo/sham comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to placebo, there is probably no difference in function (at one-week follow-up) for spinal manipulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.21; 2 trials, 205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for heated back wrap. Compared to placebo, heated back wrap may result in skin pinkness (6/128 participants versus 1/130; 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to sham acupuncture, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07; 3 trials, 957 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to sham traction, there is probably no difference in pain intensity for traction (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -4, 95% CI -17.7 to 9.7; 1 trial, 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for acupuncture. There may be no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture for safety outcomes (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.10; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 465 participants; low-certainty evidence). No treatment/usual care comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.41; 2 trials, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.49; 2 trials, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for massage. There may be no difference between massage and usual care for safety (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07; 1 trial, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to no treatment, acupuncture probably provides a medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -10.1, 95% CI -16.8 to -3.4; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a small improvement in function (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (MD 9.4, 95% CI 6.15 to 12.65; 1 trial, 734 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment/usual care, exercise therapies probably provide a small to medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2; 35 trials, 2746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (0 to 100 scale, MD -6.8, 95% CI -8.3 to -5.3; 38 trials, 2942 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, multidisciplinary therapies probably provide a medium reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.28; 9 trials, 879 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.19; 9 trials, 939 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment, psychological therapies using operant approaches probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.11; 3 trials, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, psychological therapies (including progressive muscle relaxation and behavioural approaches) probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -5.18, 95% CI -9.79 to -0.57; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there is probably no difference in function (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.02; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions and no treatment/usual care for safety (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Spinal manipulation probably makes no difference to function compared to placebo for people with acute/subacute LBP. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to sham acupuncture. There is probably no difference between traction and sham traction for pain intensity in people with chronic LBP. Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably reduces pain intensity slightly and improves function slightly for people with acute LBP. Acupuncture probably reduces pain intensity, and improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Exercise therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment/usual care. Multidisciplinary therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, psychological therapies probably reduce pain intensity slightly, but probably make no difference to function for people with chronic LBP.

Preferences for risks and benefits of treatment outcomes for chronic low back pain: Choice-based conjoint measure development and discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

Understanding individual patient preferences for chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes is essential for targeting available therapeutic options; yet tools to elicit patient outcome preferences are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test a choice-based conjoint (CBC) measure, commonly used in behavioral economics research, to elicit what outcomes patients with cLBP want to achieve and avoid.

DESIGN

We developed a survey-based CBC measure to allow patients to make risk/benefit trade-off choices between possible treatment outcomes. After extensive literature, clinician, and patient input, our measure included seven attributes: fatigue, anxiety/depression, difficulty thinking/making decisions, pain intensity, physical abilities, change in pain, and ability to enjoy life despite pain. Random-parameters logit models were used to estimate strength of preferences, and latent class analysis was used to identify patient characteristics associated with distinct preference.

SETTING

Online study using the Sawtooth web-based platform.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eleven individuals with cLBP recruited from online advertising as well as at clinical sites across multiple academic and private institutions.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

The most valued outcome was the highest level of physical activity (β = 1.6-1.98; p < .001), followed by avoiding cognitive difficulties (β = -1.48; p < .001). Avoidance of severe pain was comparable to avoiding constant fatigue and near-constant depression/anxiety (β = -0.99, -1.02); p < .001). There was an association between preferences and current pain/disability status; patients with higher pain had a stronger preference to avoid severe pain, whereas those with higher disability have stronger preferences for achieving physical activity. The latent class analysis identified two distinct groups: (1) more risk-seeking and willing to accept worse outcomes (56%); and (2) more risk-averse with a stronger preference for achieving maximum benefits (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study illuminated cLBP patient preferences for treatment outcomes and heterogeneity in these preferences. Patients stressed the importance of reaching high physical activity and avoiding cognitive declines, even over a desire to avoid pain. More work is needed to understand patient preferences to aid informed, shared decisions.

Preferences of patients with chronic low back pain about nonsurgical treatments: Results of a discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess patients' preferences of nonsurgical treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHOD

We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Quebec, Canada, in 2018. Seven attributes were included: treatment modality, pain reduction, the onset of treatment efficacy, duration effectiveness, difficulties with daily activities, sleep problems, and knowledge of the patient's body and pain location. Treatment modalities were corticosteroid injections, supervised body-mind physical activities, supervised sports physical activities, physical manipulations, self-management courses, and psychotherapy. Utility levels were estimated using a logit model, a latent class model and a Bayesian hierarchical model.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted on 424 $424$ individuals. According to the Bayesian hierarchical model, the conditional relative importance weights of attributes were as follows: (1) treatment modality (34.79%), (2) pain reduction (18.73%), (3) difficulties with daily activities (11.71%), (4) duration effectiveness (10.06%), (5) sleep problems (10.05%), (6) onset of treatment efficacy (8.60%) and (7) knowledge of the patient's body and pain location (6.06%). According to the latent class model that found six classes of respondents with different behaviours (using Akaike and Bayesian criteria), the treatment modality was the most important attribute for all classes, except for class 4 for which pain reduction was the most important. In addition, classes 2 and 5 refused corticosteroid injections, while psychotherapy was preferred only in class 3.

CONCLUSION

Given the preference heterogeneity found in the analysis, it is important that patient preferences are discussed and considered by the physicians. This will help to improve the patient care pathway in a context of a patient-centred model for a disease with growing prevalence.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A small group of patients was involved in the conception, design and interpretation of data. Participants in the DCE were all CLBP patients.

Supporting rehabilitation stakeholders in making service delivery decisions: a rapid review of multi-criteria decision analysis methods

PURPOSE

This review aimed to synthesize knowledge about multi-criteria decision analysis methods for supporting rehabilitation service design and delivery decisions, including: (1) describing the use of these methods within rehabilitation, (2) identifying decision types that can be supported by these methods, (3) describing client and family involvement, and (4) identifying implementation considerations.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review in collaboration with a knowledge partner, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles reporting primary research. We extracted relevant data from included studies and synthesized it descriptively and with conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 717 records, of which 54 met inclusion criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods were primarily used to understand the strength of clients' and clinicians' preferences (n = 44), and five focused on supporting decision making. Shared decision making with stakeholders was evident in only two studies. Clients and families were mostly engaged in data collection and sometimes in selecting the relevant criteria. Good practices for supporting external validity were inconsistently reported. Implementation considerations included managing cognitive complexity and offering authentic choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-criteria decision analysis methods are promising for better understanding client and family preferences and priorities across rehabilitation professions, contexts, and caseloads. Further work is required to use these methods in shared decision making, for which increased use of qualitative methods and stakeholder engagement is recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMulti-criteria decision analysis methods are promising for evidence-based, shared decision making for rehabilitation.However, most studies to date have focused on estimating stakeholder preferences, not supporting shared decision making.Cognitive complexity and modelling authentic and realistic decision choices are major barriers to implementation.Stakeholder-engagement and qualitative methods are recommended to address these barriers.

Exploring patient preference heterogeneity for pharmacological treatments for chronic pain: A latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

Several pharmaceutical treatments for chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are available or currently under development, each associated with different adverse events (AEs) and efficacy profiles. It is therefore important to understand what trade-offs patients are willing to make when choosing between treatments.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 437 adults with chronic pain caused by OA and/or CLBP. Respondents were presented with a series of scenarios and asked to choose between pairs of hypothetical treatments, each defined by six attributes: level of symptom control; risks of heart attack, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis and dependency; frequency and mode of administration and cost. Attributes were based on known profiles of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids and injected nerve growth factor inhibitors, the last of which were under clinical development at the time of the study. Data were analysed using a latent class (LC) model to explore preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Overall, respondents considered improving symptom control and reducing risk of physical dependency to be the most important attributes. The LC analysis identified four participant classes: an 'efficacy-focused' class (33.7%), a 'cost-averse' class (29.4%), a 'physical-dependence-averse' class (19.6%) and a 'needle-averse' class (17.3%). Subgroup membership was incompletely predicted by participant age and their responses to comprehension questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference heterogeneity across respondents indicates a need for a personalized approach to offering treatment options. Symptom improvement, cost, physical dependence and route of administration might be important to different patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Multiple treatment options that differ substantially in terms of efficacy and adverse events are available for the management of chronic pain. With a growing emphasis on a patient-centred care model that incorporates patients' priorities and values into treatment decisions, there is a need to understand how individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain balance the benefits and risks of treatment and how treatment priorities vary among individuals. This study was designed to identify patient preferences for different characteristics of treatments for the management of chronic pain and to investigate how preferences differ among respondents.

Sedimentation of health technology assessment in hospitals: a scoping review

The aim of this study was to analyze the level of sedimentation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) in diverse contexts. A scoping review was conducted according to the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute, whose data analysis model consisted of the combination of Donabedian's structure, process, and outcome categories and the dimensions of the project Adopting Hospital Based Health Technology Assessment in European Union (AdHopHTA). We identified 270 studies, and after removing duplicates and reading full texts, 36 references met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-six hospitals were identified, of which there were 24 large-scale hospitals with extra bed capacity. Twenty-three hospitals were affiliated with universities. Canada stood out with five university hospitals, four of which with public funding. Half of the identified hospitals had hospital-based HTA units (18/36). Hospitals with sedimented levels of HTA corresponded to 75% of the sample (27/36), and the remainder had partially sedimented HTA, or 25% of the hospitals in the review (9/36). There were no hospitals with incipient sedimentation. Measuring the level of HTA sedimentation in the hospitals contributed to understanding how their participation has occurred in the field of hospital-based HTA. This study revealed the importance of identifying factors such as sustainability, growth, and evolution of hospital-based HTA in countries with and without a tradition in this field.

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact.

METHODS

We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed.

CONCLUSION

The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.

Oral or Topical Pain Therapy-How Would Patients Decide? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

To ensure an adequate pain therapy with high patient adherence, it is necessary to know and consider patient preferences. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain patients' preferences regarding treatment with systemic or topical pain medication. Patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (pNP) were recruited in two pain-focused practices in Germany. To identify relevant attributes of topical or systemic pain medication, a literature review and face-to-face interviews with experts for pain treatment were conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were noticeable onset of effect, time spent in medical office, risk of systemic and local side effects, and impairment of daily life with regard to sleep quality and sexuality. The model was estimated with a mixed multinomial logit regression model. The study included 153 participants suffering from moderate to severe pNP. Most important attributes from patient's perspective was noticeable onset of effect (odds ratio 2.141 [95% confidence interval 1.837 to 2.494]), followed by risk of systemic side effects (2.038 [1.731 to 2.400]) and risk of sexual dysfunction (1.839 [1.580 to 2.140]), while risk of local side effects regarding skin ranked fourth (1.612 [1.321 to 1.966]). The impairment of sleep quality was also significant but less important (1.556 [1.346 to 1.798]). Local side effects were more likely to be accepted than systemic side effects. The risk of sexual dysfunction as a side effect of treatment is very important for patients, although it has received little attention in the literature.

EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utility scores in people living with chronic low back pain: a survey from Quebec

OBJECTIVE

To describe how chronic low back pain (CLBP) impacts on utility scores and which patients' characteristics most affect these scores in the province of Quebec.

SETTINGS

Province of Quebec, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

569 adult patients with CLBP.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

An online survey on low back pain was conducted between October 2018 and January 2019. The EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form Six Dimensions version 2 (SF-6Dv2) are two generic preference-based measures used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and provide quality-adjusted life-year utility values.

RESULTS

The number of subjects who agreed to participate was 610, but 41 were excluded because 8 had low back pain for less than 3 months and 33 did not start the survey. A total of 569 subjects were analysed, but only 410 completed the survey up to the EQ-5D-5L or SF-6Dv2 sections. Median (range) of EQ-5D-5L was 0.622 (-0.072 to 0.905), and mean (range) of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-Visual Analogue Scale was 0.561 (0.301-0.829) and 51.0 (0-100), respectively. In all multivariate models, health or life satisfaction increased the health utility score, while pain reduced it. Co-occurring health problems were present for a majority (68%) of participants, mainly fatigue/insomnia (57.4%), musculoskeletal disorder (56.2%) and mental disorder (44%).

CONCLUSION

This study provided utility scores with EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in patients with CLBP in Quebec, and results were similar to other studies conducted in different settings. These values were well below those reported in the Quebec general population and highlight the association between CLBP and HRQoL.

Patient preferences for osteoarthritis pain and chronic low back pain treatments in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To quantify preferences for attributes of potential analgesic treatments for moderate-to-severe pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and/or chronic low back pain (CLBP) as relevant to injectable nerve growth factor (NGF)-inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids.

METHODS

We used a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences for attributes of OA and CLBP pharmaceutical treatments, and a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise to further characterize the relative importance of treatment-related side-effect risks. The survey was completed online by 602 US residents with self-reported chronic, moderate-to-severe OA pain and/or CLBP who had tried, had contraindications for, or were unwilling to take currently available pharmaceutical therapies. In the DCE, respondents repeatedly chose between two hypothetical treatments defined by six attributes (symptom control; treatment-related risks of (1) severe joint problems, (2) heart attack, and (3) physical dependence; mode/frequency of administration; and cost). In the BWS exercise, respondents evaluated ten side-effect risks. Random-parameters logit models were estimated; conditional relative attribute importance, maximum acceptable risks, and willingness to pay were calculated.

RESULTS

The most important DCE attributes were improving symptom control (scaled conditional relative importance, 10.00) and reducing risk of physical dependence (6.99). The three most important BWS attributes were, in rank order, risks of stroke, physical dependence, and heart attack. Respondents were willing to accept a > 4% treatment-related risk of severe joint problems for even modest symptom improvement.

CONCLUSION

A pharmaceutical treatment with a risk of severe joint problems was viewed as an acceptable alternative to other treatments with comparable efficacy but risks associated with NSAIDs or opioids.

Predicting SF-6Dv2 utility scores for chronic low back pain using the Oswestry Disability Index and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire

Background: Generic preference-based measures are used to evaluate disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Objective: To evaluate if Short Form Six-Dimensions (SF-6Dv2) is correlated with specific current questionnaires used in chronic low back pain (CLBP) and if a predictive equation of SF-6Dv2 could be established. Methods: Between October 2018 and January 2019, an online survey on CLBP was conducted. HRQoL was measured with two specific questionnaires, i.e. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and with the new version of the SF-6Dv2 as a generic preference-based measure. Results: 402 subjects completed at least two of the three HRQoL questionnaires. Mean (95% confidence interval) of SF-6Dv2, ODI, or RMDQ were, respectively, 0.561 (0.553-0.569), 43.7 (42.1-45.2), and 10.3 (9.8-10.8). SF-6Dv2 was moderately correlated with ODI and RMDQ (r = -0.635 and r = -0.542, p < 0.001). The best model to predict SF-6Dv2 explained 50.6% of variability and included ODI. The correlation between actual and predicted SF-6Dv2 was 0.71. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that SF-6Dv2 was moderately correlated with ODI and RMDQ and that ODI was a better predictor. There was a strong correlation between actual and predicted SF-6Dv2 from multivariate models. These results suggest that the model can be used in similar studies to estimate the SF-6Dv2 when it was not measured.

Predicting EQ-5D-5L Utility Scores from the Oswestry Disability Index and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Cost utility analysis is important for measuring the impact of chronic disease and helps clinicians and policymakers in patient management and policy decisions, but generic preference-based measures are not always considered in clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL)-specific questionnaires used in chronic low back pain (CLBP) can predict EQ-5D-5L utility scores.

METHODS

The data come from an online survey on low back pain conducted between October 2018 and January 2019. Health utility scores for EuroQol Five Dimensions Five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) were calculated with the recommended model of Xie et al. The EQ-5D-5L health states ranged from -0.148 for the worst (55555) to 0.949 for the best (11111). Univariate and multivariate linear regression were performed to predict EQ-5D-5L with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Analyses were performed in 408 subjects who completed the questionnaires EQ-5D-5L, ODI or RMDQ. Median (range) of EQ-5D-5L was 0.622 (-0.072 to 0.905). There was high correlation between EQ-5D-5L and ODI (r=-0.78, p<0.001), while it was moderate with RMDQ (r=-0.62, p<0.001). The multivariate model to predict EQ-5D-5L with ODI explained 67.6% of variability, and the correlation between actual and predicted EQ-5D-5L was 0.82. Principal predictors were ODI, duration of LBP, invalidity, health satisfaction (0-10 cm), life satisfaction (0-10 cm), and intensity of pain today (0-10 cm).

CONCLUSION

Data from this study demonstrated that individual correlation between ODI and EQ-5D-5L was high, but moderate with RMDQ. Correlations between actual and predicted EQ-5D-5L from multivariate models were higher and very high. Considering these results, the multivariate model can be used in similar studies for patient with CLBP to estimate the utility scores from the ODI when the EQ-5D-5L was not measured.