Cited by 43Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPregnancy-related medical research

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive Patient Education for Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive-based education program on patients with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care, compared to usual treatment, provided by general practitioners (GP) and physiotherapists (PT). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient education has been reported to have a favorable effect on patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. In this study, an "Explain Pain" model was adapted to fit into an ordinary clinical setting in Norwegian primary care. METHODS: Sixteen GPs and 20 PTs participated in the study and a total of 216 patients were recruited. The GPs and PTs were randomly assigned to provide either a cognitive patient education or usual treatment. All patients in both groups were provided with four consultations of 30 min with their provider during the study. In the intervention group the patients were educated according to a specific manual written for the purpose of this study. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent responded at 4-week, and 68% at the 12-month follow-up. There was a substantial improvement in function, pain, and sick leave in both groups. After 4 weeks the intervention group scored 0.51 RMDQ points lower than the control group (Beta -0.506 [95% CI -1.76-0.75]). After 12 months the intervention group scored 0.66 RMDQ points higher than the control group (Beta 0.66 [95% CI -0.56-1.88]). There was no significant difference in QALYs in the two treatment groups; the estimated difference was 0.005 (-0.016-0.027) in favor of the intervention. CONCLUSION: This study showed no clinical or health economic benefits as a result of adding a cognitive education program to usual treatment for patients with subacute and chronic LBP. Potential weaknesses such as a long recruiting period and potentially low compliance with the cognitive intervention warrant a careful interpretation of the results.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0000000000001268

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Werner, E. L., Storheim, K., Løchting, I., Wisløff, T., & Grotle, M.
Affiliations
Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Werner, Erik L.
Venue
SPINE
Published
2016-03
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
455-462
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2331543347
Cited by
43
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Spine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus
  • Akershus University College of Applied Science
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
low back pain, chronic low back pain, subacute low back pain, primary care, general practitioners, physiotherapists, cost-effectiveness, health-related quality of life, sick leave
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Primary Health Care, Low Back Pain, Sick Leave, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review