Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Supports for Home Care Workers With Recurrent Low Back Pain
Authors:
- Pepijn D. D. M. RoelofsPRPepijn D. D. M. Roelofs
- Sita M. A. Bierma-ZeinstraSBSita M. A. Bierma-Zeinstra
- Mireille N. M. van PoppelMPMireille N. M. van Poppel
- Willem van MechelenWMWillem van Mechelen
- Bart W. KoesBKBart W. Koes
- Maurits W. van TulderMTMaurits W. van Tulder
- 1 December 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Spine
- Vol. 35 (26) , E1619-E1626
Abstract
Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a 12-months randomized-controlled trial. To determine the cost-effectiveness of wearing a lumbar support for home care workers with recurrent low back pain (LBP) (secondary prevention). LBP is a large medical and economical burden. Evidence on the secondary preventive use of lumbar supports is sparse. A total of 360 home care workers with a self-reported history of LBP were randomly assigned to usual care or usual care plus wearing a lumbar support on working days with LBP, during a 1-year period. Primary clinical outcome measures were the average number of self-reported days with LBP, number of calendar days sick leave in general, and quality of life. Direct and indirect costs were measured by means of cost diaries. Differences in mean costs between groups, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were evaluated, and cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves presented by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. During the intervention period, the home care workers using a lumbar support in addition to usual care reported on average 54 fewer days with LBP (95% confidence interval [CI], -85 to -29). The estimated mean difference in sick leave was not statistically significant (-5.0 days per year in favor of the lumbar support group; 95% CI, -21.1 to 6.8). There was no statistically significant difference in quality of life. Direct costs were 235 euros (US$ 266) lower in the lumbar support group (95% CI, -386 to -79). Indirect costs were 255 euros (US$ 288) lower, but this was not statistically significant (95% CI, -879 to 299). Lumbar support seems to be a cost-effective addition to usual care for home care workers with recurrent LBP. For estimating the LBP-related indirect costs, it would be more precise when an objective measure for LBP-related sick leave would have been available. There is a need for more evidence to confirm these findings, also in other working populations.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Chapter 2 European guidelines for prevention in low back painEuropean Spine Journal, 2006
- An update of a systematic review of controlled clinical trials on the primary prevention of back pain at the workplaceOccupational Medicine, 2004
- Lumbar Supports for Prevention and Treatment of Low Back PainSpine, 2001
- Prevalence and consequences of low back problems in the Netherlands, working vs non-working population, the MORGEN-studyPublic Health, 1999
- Lumbar Supports for Prevention of Low Back Pain in the WorkplaceJAMA, 1998
- Lumbar Supports and Education for the Prevention of Low Back Pain in IndustryJAMA, 1998
- Prevalence of back pain and characteristics of the physical workload of community nursesErgonomics, 1996
- A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The NetherlandsPain, 1995
- Back pain and its correlates among workers in family careOccupational Medicine, 1993
- The Influence of Prophylactic Orthoses on Abdominal Strength and Low Back Injury in the WorkplaceAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 1990