header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

THE ACCESS TRIAL: RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL OF PUBLIC HOSPITAL-BASED VERSUS PRIVATE COMMUNITY-BASED PHYSIOTHERAPY FOR LOW BACK PAIN: 12 MONTH FOLLOW-UP CLINICAL OUTCOME RESULTS.



Abstract

Background & Purpose: This pragmatic randomised clinical trial (RCT) investigated differences in the clinical outcomes of physiotherapy for low back pain (LBP) delivered in

  1. public hospital-based secondary care versus

  2. private community-based primary care in Ireland.

Methods: Between March 2005 and May 2006, 160 consenting subjects [110F, 50M; mean age (SD) yrs: 41.28 (12.83)] were recruited, stratified (acute: < 3/12; chronic: > 3/12), and randomly allocated to public hospital (H) or private community (P) physiotherapy. Subjects completed clinical outcomes (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). SF-36, Fear Avoidance Beliefs & Back Beliefs Questionnaires) at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation and the Patient Satisfaction with Outpatient Physical Therapy (PTOPS) survey at the end of treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 12).

Results: There were no significant differences between groups at baseline (p> 0.05). Patient response rates were 85% (n=137), 80% (n=128) and 74% (n=118) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Despite significantly longer waiting times for public hospital physiotherapy, repeated measures ANOVA found no significant differences over time between groups for any of the outcome measures (p> 0.05), except ‘patient satisfaction with outcome,’ which was significantly higher in the P group (median difference: 0.00; p=0.020, Mann Whitney U=1324.50).

Conclusions & Implications: The trial cannot recommend one physiotherapy setting over the other for LBP management. However, the limited adherence to LBP clinical guidelines in both settings and the lack of improvement in psychosocial outcomes in subjects managed in both settings warrant further investigation.

Acknowledgements: Physiotherapists, General practitioners and patients in both settings.

Correspondence should be addressed to SBPR at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.