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

Spine

THE CLINICAL AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF A PHYSIOTHERAPY-DELIVERED PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL GROUP INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH NEUROGENIC CLAUDICATION: THE BOOST RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

The Society for Back Pain Research (SBPR) Annual General Meeting, ‘PANNING FOR GOLD’ 50+ Anniversary Meeting, Coventry, England, 30 June – 1 July 2022.



Abstract

Purpose and background

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with neurogenic claudication (NC) which is a debilitating spinal condition.

Methods and results

A randomised controlled trial of 438 participants. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data was also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (symptoms), ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and falls. The analysis was intention-to-treat. We collected the EQ5D and health and social care use to estimate cost-effectiveness.

Participants were, on average, 74.9 years old (SD 6.0). There was no significant difference in ODI scores between groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference (MD): −1.4 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI) −4.03,1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favoured the BOOST programme (adjusted MD: −3.7 [95% CI −6.27, −1.06]). Symptoms followed a similar pattern. The BOOST programme resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD −0.2 [95% CI −0.45, −0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA at 12 months. Probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged from 67%–89% across cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

The BOOST programme improves mobility and reduces falls in older adults with NC compared to BPA at 12 months follow-up. It is good value for the NHS. Future iterations of the programme will consider ways to reduce symptoms and disability long-term.

Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest

Sources of funding: National Institute of Health Research – Programme for Applied Research NIHR - PTC-RP-PG-0213-20002: Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST)

Publication and presentations: The clinical effectiveness paper has just been accepted for publication in the Journal of Gerontology Series A. The health economic analysis is not yet published.

It was presented at the Physiotherapy UK conference and the International Back and Neck Pain Forum in 2021.


Email address: