Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Invasive and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Low Back Pain: a Systematic Literature Review.

Author: Andronis L1, Kinghorn P2, Qiao S2, Whitehurst DG3,4,5, Durrell S6, McLeod H2
1Health Economics Unit, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
2Health Economics Unit, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
3Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
4International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
5Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
6Gloucestershire Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK.
Conference/Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy.
Date published: 2016 Aug 22
Other: Word Count: 248

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem, having a substantial effect on peoples' quality of life and placing a significant economic burden on healthcare systems and, more broadly, societies. Many interventions to alleviate LBP are available but their cost effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, document and appraise studies reporting on the cost effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological treatment options for LBP.

METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), 'similar article' searches and reference list scanning. Study selection was carried out by three assessors, independently. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist. Data were extracted using customized extraction forms.

RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified. Study interventions were categorised as: (1) combined physical exercise and psychological therapy, (2) physical exercise therapy only, (3) information and education, and (4) manual therapy. Interventions assessed within each category varied in terms of their components and delivery. In general, combined physical and psychological treatments, information and education interventions, and manual therapies appeared to be cost effective when compared with the study-specific comparators. There is inconsistent evidence around the cost effectiveness of physical exercise programmes as a whole, with yoga, but not group exercise, being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS: The identified evidence suggests that combined physical and psychological treatments, medical yoga, information and education programmes, spinal manipulation and acupuncture are likely to be cost-effective options for LBP.

PMID: 27550240 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0268-8