title: Implementing stratified primary care management for low back pain: cost-utility analysis alongside a prospective, population-based, sequential comparison study.
abstract: METHODS
  Within-study cost-utility analysis.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within risk-defined patient subgroups (that is, patients at low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling pain).
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Individual-level data collected alongside a prospective, sequential comparison of separate patient cohorts with 6-month follow-up.
  
  
  METHODS
  Adopting a cost-utility framework, the base case analysis estimated the incremental LBP-related health care cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) by risk subgroup. QALYs were constructed from responses to the 3-level EQ-5D, a preference-based health-related quality of life instrument. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses examined alternative methodological approaches, including a complete case analysis, the incorporation of non-back pain-related health care use and estimation of societal costs relating to work absence.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Stratified care was a dominant treatment strategy compared with usual care for patients at high risk, with mean health care cost savings of £124 and an incremental QALY estimate of 0.023. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources for patients at low and medium risk is no greater than 60% irrespective of a decision makers' willingness-to-pay for additional QALYs. Patients at medium and high risk of persistent disability in paid employment at 6-month follow-up reported, on average, 6 fewer days of LBP-related work absence in the stratified care cohort compared with usual care (associated societal cost savings per employed patient of £736 and £652, respectively).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  At the observed level of adherence to screening tool recommendations for matched treatments, stratified care for LBP is cost-effective for patients at high risk of persistent disabling LBP only.
  
  
  METHODS
  2.
authors.affiliation: *Faculty of Health Sciences, Blusson Hall, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada †Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ‡School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada §Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom; and ¶Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: David G T
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Whitehurst
authors.forename: Stirling
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bryan
authors.forename: Martyn
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lewis
authors.forename: Elaine M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Hay
authors.forename: Ricky
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Mullis
authors.forename: Nadine E
authors.initials: NE
authors.lastname: Foster
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000628:therapy*; D008297:Male; D059408:Pain Management / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods*; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011788:Quality of Life