Cognitive-Behavioural Rehabilitation vs. Primary Care for Back and Neck Pain
Author Information
Author(s): Lindell Odd, Johansson Sven-Erik, Strender Lars-Erik
Primary Institution: Center for Family and Community Medicine, Karolinska Institutet
Hypothesis
Will the outcomes differ in respect of sick-listing and number of health-care visits within an 18-month follow-up for patients with subacute and chronic non-specific back and neck pain?
Conclusion
Cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation may be superior to primary care in the long run, especially for subacute patients.
Supporting Evidence
- Return-to-work share and chance were equivalent between the groups.
- Net days and visits were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group.
- Subacute patients showed a significantly greater return-to-work chance with rehabilitation.
Takeaway
This study looked at two ways to help people with back and neck pain: one group got special therapy to help them get back to work, while the other group just saw their regular doctor. The therapy group seemed to do better over time.
Methodology
125 patients were randomly assigned to either cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation or continued primary care, with outcomes measured over 18 months.
Potential Biases
Blinding was not possible for the interventions, which could introduce bias.
Limitations
The inclusion plan was not fulfilled, which may have affected the ability to demonstrate differences between groups.
Participant Demographics
Patients were Swedish primary-care patients aged up to 59 years, with a mix of genders and varying levels of education.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Confidence Interval
95%CI1.001 – 12.2
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website