• Benedict M Wand, Christien Bird, James H McAuley, Caroline J Doré, Maureen MacDowell, and Lorraine H De Souza.
• School of Physiotherapy, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, WA, Australia.
• Spine. 2004 Nov 1;29(21):2350-6.

Study DesignA single blind randomized controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with acute simple low back pain.ObjectivesTo compare two research-based models of care for acute low back pain and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention.Summary Of Background DataNational guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of acute low back pain. The guidelines suggest two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these approaches to the management of acute low back pain.MethodsAmong 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an "assess/advise/treat" group or an "assess/advise/wait" group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (Visual Analogue Scale), functional disability (the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), mood (Modified Zung Self Rated Depression Score, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), general health (Euroqol), and quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.ResultsAt 6 weeks, the assess/advise/treat group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health, and quality of life than patients in the assess/advise/wait group (P < 0.05). Disability and pain were not significantly different between the groups at long-term follow up (P > 0.05). However, mood, general health, and quality of life remained significantly better in the assess/advise/treat group (P < 0.05).ConclusionsAt short-term, intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and general health. The timing of intervention affects the development of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore, an assess/advise/treat model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an assess/advise/wait model of care.

27 keywords...

hide…