JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v25i1e43034 37999947 10.2196/43034 Original Paper Original Paper Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention Compared With Face-to-Face Physiotherapy in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Mavragani Amaryllis Cashin Aidan Zhang Jinhua Chan Brian Koppenaal Tjarco PhD, PT 1
Research Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour Department of Health Innovations and Technology Fontys University of Applied Sciences Postbus 347 Eindhoven, 5600 AH Netherlands 31 653945086 t.koppenaal@fontys.nl
2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5319-4588 van Dongen Johanna M PhD 4 5 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-8742 Kloek Corelien JJ PhD, PT 2 6 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7426-7141 Arensman Remco M MSc, PT 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9462-963X Veenhof Cindy PhD, PT 2 3 6 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0970-2896 Pisters Martijn F PhD, PT 1 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2875-1709 Ostelo Raymond WJG PhD, PT 5 7 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-7210 Research Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour Department of Health Innovations and Technology Fontys University of Applied Sciences Eindhoven Netherlands Center for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care Julius Health Care Centers Utrecht Netherlands Physical Therapy Research, Department of Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Science and Sport University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center Utrecht University Utrecht Netherlands Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam Public Health research institute Amsterdam Netherlands Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam Movement Sciences research institute Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands Research Group Innovation of Human Movement Care Research Center Healthy and Sustainable Living HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Netherlands Department of Epidemiology and Data Science Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Netherlands Corresponding Author: Tjarco Koppenaal t.koppenaal@fontys.nl 2023 24 11 2023 25 e43034 28 9 2022 21 3 2023 6 7 2023 24 10 2023 ©Tjarco Koppenaal, Johanna M van Dongen, Corelien JJ Kloek, Remco M Arensman, Cindy Veenhof, Martijn F Pisters, Raymond WJG Ostelo. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 24.11.2023. 2023

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide, and its socioeconomic burden is substantial. Self-management support is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP and may support cost-effective management. However, providing adequate individually tailored self-management support is difficult. The integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care) seems promising to optimize tailored treatment and enhance patients’ self-management and, consequently, may reduce LBP-related costs.

 Objective

We aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.

 Methods

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care physiotherapy. Patients with nonspecific LBP were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) (n=104) or face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104). The content of both interventions was based on the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary clinical outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a). For the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning were the primary outcomes. Secondary clinical outcomes included fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. Costs were measured from societal and health care perspectives using self-report questionnaires. Effectiveness was estimated using linear mixed models. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences for the economic evaluation.

 Results

Neither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial differences were found between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy regarding physical functioning (mean difference [MD] −1.1, 95% CI −3.9 to 1.7) and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI −0.020 to 0.072) over 12 months. Regarding the secondary outcomes, fear avoidance beliefs showed a statistically significant improvement in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy (MD −4.3, 95% CI −7.3 to −1.3). Societal and health care costs were higher for stratified blended physiotherapy than for face-to-face physiotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (societal: €972 [US $1027], 95% CI −€1090 to €3264 [US –$1151 to $3448]; health care: €73 [US $77], 95% CI −€59 to €225 [US –$62 to $238]). Among the disaggregated cost categories, only unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher for stratified blended physiotherapy. From both perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability (ie, 0.23-0.81) of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy.

 Conclusions

The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective for improving physical functioning nor more cost-effective from societal or health care perspectives compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP.

 Trial Registration

ISRCTN 94074203; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN94074203

 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z

 economic evaluation eHealth nonspecific low back pain physiotherapy blended care mobile phone Introduction Background

Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability and disability-adjusted life years worldwide [1-3]. Most episodes of LBP are short lasting with few consequences. However, approximately 50% of patients with LBP seen in primary care settings have a trajectory of ongoing or fluctuating low- to moderate-intensity pain, which for some develops into persistent severe LBP [4]. Recurrent episodes of LBP are common; that is, approximately 33% of patients will experience a new episode within 1 year after recovery [5]. The costs associated with health care use and productivity losses from paid work (eg, because of work absence and reduced productivity while being at work) attributed to LBP are substantial [6]. In 2017, the annual Dutch societal cost of neck pain and LBP was estimated to be €937 million (US $990 million). Health care costs, including primary care, secondary care, alternative medicine, and medication expenditures, were estimated to be approximately €878 million (US $928 million) [7]. Owing to a greater availability of improved health care technologies in combination with higher levels of spending on these technologies (higher price per unit of service), population growth, and aging, the LBP-related socioeconomic burden is expected to grow even more in the upcoming years [6,8]. This increases the need to identify cost-effective strategies for the management of LBP.

Self-management support tailored to the needs and abilities of individual patients is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP [9-13]. In general, this support includes advice, reassurance, and education about the nonspecific nature of LBP and the resumption of normal activities and exercise. For patients with persistent symptoms, personalized and supervised exercise therapy should be considered, possibly supported by a graded activity approach or cognitive behavioral components [14,15]. In addition to a patient-centered and stratified approach, there are indications that patients’ adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behavior is important for the effectiveness of care [16-19].

Web-based applications such as smartphone apps have the potential to optimize personalized face-to-face treatment and enhance patients’ self-management and adherence to prescribed management between and after face-to-face sessions [20-24]. In addition, a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials concluded that smartphone and web-based self-management programs may be beneficial in improving pain and disability in patients with LBP [25]. Therefore, the integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care [24]) seems to be a promising approach in the management of LBP [26].

 Objectives

To investigate whether blended care for patients with nonspecific LBP can positively influence patients’ self-management and adherence to prescribed management of LBP and consequently improve patients’ physical functioning, we developed and evaluated the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP [27-29]. In the short term (ie, after 3 months), e-Exercise LBP was not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in terms of physical functioning. However, patient self-reported adherence was substantially better among patients receiving e-Exercise LBP than among those receiving face-to-face physiotherapy only [29]. Therefore, we hypothesized that, in the long term (ie, over 12 months), the stratified blended physiotherapy group patients would have improved self-management and adherence to prescribed LBP management strategies. This could lead to an improvement in physical functioning and other clinical outcomes, which in turn could result in a reduction in societal or health care costs. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended care (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.

 Methods Design Overview

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Details of the design and methods of the trial have been published previously [28].

 Ethical Considerations

The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands approved the study protocol (18-085/D), and the study was registered at the onset of patient enrollment (ISRCTN 94074203). All participants provided written informed consent before their inclusion and took part voluntarily. The study data were handled anonymously. The trial was reported according to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for cluster randomized trials (Multimedia Appendix 1) and the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards; Multimedia Appendix 2).

 Recruitment Setting and Randomization

A total of 58 Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices with 122 physiotherapists were randomized at the practice level by an independent researcher according to a 1:1 allocation ratio using a computer-generated, a priori–created random sequence table. Half of the practices (29/58, 50%) were instructed to treat their patients with nonspecific LBP according to the stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) protocol. The other half (29/58, 50%) treated their patients with face-to-face care following the recommendations of the guidelines for LBP of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [30]. Physiotherapists from practices allocated to stratified blended physiotherapy received two 4-hour training sessions on e-Exercise LBP, current best evidence practice, and the study procedures. Physiotherapists from practices allocated to face-to-face physiotherapy received one 4-hour training session in current best evidence practice and the study procedures. Enrollment of patients lasted from June 2018 to December 2019, and follow-up lasted 24 months. This study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at the primary end point, the 12-month follow-up [28].

 Patients

Patients were eligible if they received physiotherapy treatment for nonspecific LBP (ie, pain in the lumbosacral region, sometimes associated with pain radiating to the buttock or leg) [30], were aged ≥18 years, possessed a smartphone or tablet (iOS or Android operating system) with access to the internet, and had sufficient command of the Dutch language. Physiotherapists informed potentially eligible patients about the study and informed the research team. The research team further informed the patients about the study, verified their eligibility, and obtained written informed consent. Patients were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: a specific cause of LBP determined through medical imaging or by a medical doctor, serious comorbidities (eg, malignancy or stroke), and current pregnancy (because of the prevalence of pelvic girdle pain as a specific form of LBP).

 Intervention Experimental: Stratified Blended Physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP)

e-Exercise LBP is a stratified blended intervention in which a smartphone app is integrated into face-to-face physiotherapy treatment [27,28]. Both the content of the smartphone app and the face-to-face physiotherapy treatment are based on the recommendations of the guidelines for LBP of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [30]. The duration and content of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention was matched to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP (ie, low, medium, or high) as assessed using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool [31]. The smartphone app contained video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises, and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The content of both the face-to-face care and the smartphone app was tailored to the patients’ individual needs and progress by the physiotherapists (Table 1). Although physiotherapists were asked to treat patients according to the stratified blended physiotherapy protocol, they were allowed to deviate from the protocol according to their own clinical judgment. Screenshots of the smartphone app are shown in Multimedia Appendix 3.

Overview of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise LBPa).

Low-risk profile Medium-risk profile High-risk profile
Smartphone app
Duration 3 weeks 12 weeks 12 weeks
Information module Knowledge-based platform with several self-management information themes (directly available) 12 weekly LBP self-management information themes, including assignments 12 weekly LBP self-management information themes, including assignments, pain education, and psychosocial risk factors
Exercise module 3 to 4 home-based exercises tailored to the patient’s specific functional limitations 3 to 4 home-based exercises tailored to the patient’s specific functional limitations 3 to 4 home-based exercises tailored to the patient’s specific functional limitations
Physical activity module Physical activity recommendations in accordance with the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Association for Physiotherapy A 3-day baseline test to determine current level of physical activity. An 11-week, 3-time-per-week, goal-oriented training program to maintain or improve the level of physical activity. In patients avoiding physical activity because of LBP, a graded activity functionality can be activated. A 3-day baseline test to determine current level of physical activity. An 11-week, 3-time-per-week, goal-oriented training program to maintain or improve the level of physical activity using a graded activity approach
Face-to-face care
Sessions 2 sessions Maximum of 8 sessions Maximum of 12 sessions
Content Reassurance, information about LBP, and instruction on self-management options and the importance of adequate physical activity behavior Content similar to the low-risk profile content, as well as the following: the physiotherapist can consider providing evidence-based interventions (eg, passive or active joint mobilization) as recommended by the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Association for Physiotherapy Content similar to the medium-risk profile content, as well as the following: the physiotherapist addresses patients’ specific psychosocial risk factors using a cognitive behavioral approach, and pain education is provided
Integration of face-to-face care and smartphone app
First session Provide information about LBP and instruction on home-based exercises addressing patients’ specific functional limitations using the smartphone app Provide information about LBP, instruction on home-based exercises addressing patients’ specific functional limitations, and instruction on 3-day baseline test using the smartphone app Provide information about LBP, instruction on home-based exercises addressing patients’ specific functional limitations, and instruction on 3-day baseline test using the smartphone app
Middle sessions N/Ab Evaluation of progress using the smartphone app and optimizing face-to-face care Evaluation of progress using the smartphone app and optimizing face-to-face care
Final session Evaluate progress using the smartphone app and provide recommendations to prevent recurrent episodes of LBP and maintain or improve the physical activity level Evaluate progress using the smartphone app and provide recommendations to prevent recurrent episodes of LBP and maintain or improve the physical activity level Evaluate progress using the smartphone app and provide recommendations to prevent recurrent episodes of LBP and maintain or improve the physical activity level

aLBP: low back pain.

bN/A: not applicable.

 Control: Face-to-Face Physiotherapy

Face-to-face physiotherapy was in line with the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [30]. The guidelines distinguish 3 different patient profiles based on the clinical course of recovery (ie, normal recovery, abnormal recovery without predominant psychosocial factors, and abnormal recovery with predominant psychosocial factors) but do not use a specific tool to stratify care a priori. The content of the face-to-face physiotherapy was the same as that of the stratified blended care intervention (ie, information, exercises, and recommendations regarding physical activity). However, no recommendations or restrictions were provided regarding the number of face-to-face sessions. Physiotherapists were instructed to treat patients without using any web-based applications to ensure contrast between the 2 groups. The exact content of the therapy was left to the discretion of the physiotherapists and their clinical expertise.

 Outcome Measures Overview

Primary and secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and at the 3- and 12-month follow-ups using web-based questionnaires and an accelerometer. No financial incentives were offered to complete the measurements. Reminders were sent after 7 and 14 days.

 Primary Outcome Measures

For the effectiveness evaluation, the primary clinical outcome measure was physical functioning. Following the internationally accepted “Core Outcome Set” for research on patients with nonspecific LBP [32], physical functioning was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.1a [33]. A higher ODI score indicated increased functional disability (range 0-100).

For the economic evaluation, the primary outcomes were physical functioning and health-related quality of life. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L [34,35]. This questionnaire comprises 5 health dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression), all of which can be scored at 5 severity levels. With this, the instrument differentiates between 3125 possible health states, which were converted into utility values (range 0-1) using the Dutch tariff [36]. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated by multiplying the patients’ utility values by their time spent in a certain health state using linear interpolation between measurement points [37].

 Secondary Clinical Outcome Measures

Secondary clinical outcomes included average LBP intensity in the last week measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale [32,38], mean number of minutes per day spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity objectively measured using the Activ8 accelerometer (2M Engineering) [39], fear avoidance beliefs about physical activity and work measured using the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire [40], pain catastrophizing measured using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale [41], self-efficacy measured using the General Self-Efficacy Scale [42,43], self-management ability assessed using the Dutch version of the short-form Patient Activation Measure [44], and patient self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises measured using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale [45]. A detailed description of the secondary clinical outcome measures can be found elsewhere [28,29].

 Cost Outcome Measures

Costs included intervention, other health care, informal care, absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid productivity costs because of nonspecific LBP. Costs were assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using 3-month retrospective self-reported cost questionnaires. All costs were converted into 2020 euros using consumer price indexes [46]. Discounting of costs was not necessary because of the trial’s 12-month follow-up period.

Intervention costs were estimated based on the patients’ total number of self-reported face-to-face physiotherapy and manual therapy sessions during the first 3 months of follow-up, valued using Dutch standard costs [47]. Intervention costs also included the cost per patient for the development, hosting, and maintenance of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention. These costs were estimated by dividing the total development, hosting, and maintenance costs (ie, €28,040 [US $29,622]) by the expected number of patients with nonspecific LBP who would be eligible for the e-Exercise LBP study during the first 5 years after implementing it broadly (ie, n=146,309) [48] and an expected implementation rate of 10%. Hence, these costs were €0.19 (US $0.20) per patient. Other health care costs included the cost of primary and secondary health care as well as medication use. Primary and secondary health care use were valued using Dutch standard costs [47]. If unavailable, prices according to professional organizations were used. Both prescribed and over-the-counter medication use were valued using unit prices derived from the Medicijnkosten.nl website [49,50]. Informal care (ie, care from family, friends, and other volunteers) was valued using a Dutch shadow price of €15.14 (US $15.99) per hour (in 2020 euros) [47]. Paid productivity losses comprised absenteeism (ie, sickness absence) and presenteeism (ie, reduced productivity while at work). Absenteeism was measured using a modified version of the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire and valued in accordance with the “friction cost approach” (FCA) using gender-specific price weights [51,52]. The FCA assumes that costs are limited to the friction period (ie, the period needed to replace a sick worker; 85 days). Presenteeism was measured using the “Productivity and Disease Questionnaire” and valued using gender-specific price weights as well [51-53]. To assess unpaid productivity losses, patients were asked to report the number of hours that they were not able to perform volunteer work and domestic and educational activities because of their nonspecific LBP, which were valued using the same Dutch shadow price of €15.14 (US $15.99) per hour [47].

 Baseline Measures

Baseline measures included demographic and potential confounding variables (ie, sex, age, BMI, presence of comorbidities, educational level, employment status, previous LBP surgeries, duration of LBP complaints, the presence of central sensitivity assessed using the Central Sensitization Inventory [54], and the risk of developing persistent LBP assessed using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool [31,55]).

 Data Analysis Overview

Statistical analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Descriptive statistics were used to explore between-group baseline comparability and describe patients’ general characteristics. Using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching, 10 complete data sets were created (loss of efficiency of <5%) [56]. The imputation model consisted of variables that differed between groups at baseline, variables that were related to the “missingness” of data, variables associated with the outcome, and all available baseline and follow-up costs and clinical outcome measures. Each imputed data set was then analyzed separately, as specified in the following section. Pooled estimates were calculated using the rules by Rubin [57] incorporating both within-imputation variability (ie, uncertainty about the results from one imputed data set) and between-imputation variability (ie, reflecting the uncertainty because of missing information) [56]. Analysis of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was performed using Stata (version 13.0; StataCorp LLC).

 Analysis of Effectiveness

The effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for the primary and secondary clinical outcomes was estimated using linear mixed models. A 2-level structure was used comprising repeated measurements (level 1) nested within patients (level 2). The necessity of using additional levels in the random-effects model to control for the clustering of patients within physiotherapy practices and individual physiotherapists was checked using log-likelihood ratios [58]. Overall mean differences (MDs) for the complete duration of follow-up, as well as MDs per time point, were estimated between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy. Regression coefficients with 95% CIs were used to signify the differences between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy. Analyses were adjusted for baseline values of clinical outcome measures (eg, utility score and physical functioning) and variables with a substantial difference at baseline that changed the regression coefficient for the between-group estimate by ≥10% (ie, duration of LBP complaints).

 Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness

As indicated previously, an economic evaluation was performed from both societal and health care perspectives. When the societal perspective was applied, all costs were included. When the health care perspective was applied, only costs accruing to the formal Dutch health care sector were included.

Mean between-group cost differences were calculated for total and disaggregated costs using ordinary least squares regression analyses. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences (ie, ΔC and ΔE) while adjusting for baseline values and confounders and considering the possible correlation between costs and effects. Variables were considered confounders if they differed considerably at baseline between the groups or changed the regression coefficient by >10%. For effects, the duration of LBP complaints was a confounder. For costs, the confounders were employment status (societal perspective) and the duration of complaints (health care perspective). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the adjusted differences in total costs by the adjusted differences in effects (ie, ΔC/ΔE). Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapping with 5000 replications was used to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost differences and ICERs.

Uncertainty surrounding the ICERs was graphically illustrated by plotting bootstrapped cost-effect pairs on cost-effectiveness planes. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were constructed to indicate the probability of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy at different values of willingness to pay [37]. In the Netherlands, threshold values for willingness to pay of €10,000 to €80,000 (US $10,564 to $84,513) per QALY are commonly used for societal perspective analyses [59]. For physical functioning, such threshold values are currently lacking.

 Sensitivity Analyses

In total, 3 sensitivity analyses were conducted as part of the economic evaluation. In the first sensitivity analysis, only data from complete cases on the primary clinical and cost outcome measures were included. In the second sensitivity analysis, absenteeism costs were estimated using the human capital approach assuming that productivity losses are generated for the entire duration of absence. In the third sensitivity analysis, the analysis was performed per risk group for developing persistent LBP (low, medium, and high) separately as this proved to be an effect modifier of the between-group differences between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy in the short term [29].

 Sample Size

Sample size calculations were based on the recommendations of Campbell et al [60] for cluster randomized trials. To detect clinically relevant MDs between the groups at the 12-month follow-up, a difference of >6 points in physical functioning (ODI) and an SD of 14.5 were used [61-63]. In addition, repeated measures of the primary outcome during follow-up were considered, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05 was used. For the repeated measures of physical functioning, a correlation of 0.5 was estimated between baseline and follow-up measurements until the 12-month follow-up [64]. On the basis of these assumptions (power of 80%; Cronbach α=.05) and an average cluster size of 5, a total of 165 patients were needed. With an expected dropout rate of 20%, a total of 208 participating patients (n=104 per arm) were needed.

 Results Flow of Participants, Therapists, and Centers Through the Study

In total, 208 eligible patients participated: 104 (50%) were allocated to the stratified blended physiotherapy group, and 104 (50%) were allocated to the face-to-face physiotherapy group (Figure 1). Complete data on all primary clinical and cost outcome measures were obtained from 82.2% (171/208) of the patients. A total of 1.9% (4/208) of the patients (2/4, 50% from the stratified blended physiotherapy group and 2/4, 50% from the face-to-face physiotherapy group) were excluded from all analyses as they were diagnosed with specific LBP immediately after inclusion and, hence, did not meet the inclusion criteria anymore. At baseline, the stratified blended physiotherapy group comprised more male individuals, more patients with a low level of education, and more patients with an LBP duration of >12 months than the face-to-face physiotherapy group. No other relevant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups (Table 2).

Flow diagram of the e-Exercise LBP study. LBP: low back pain.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients from the stratified blended physiotherapy group and face-to-face physiotherapy group (N=208).a

Characteristic Stratified blended physiotherapy Face-to-face physiotherapy
All(n=104) Complete(n=82) Incomplete(n=22) All(n=104) Complete(n=89) Incomplete(n=15)
Sex (female), n (%) 45 (43.3) 34 (41.5) 11 (50) 57 (54.8) 51 (57.3) 6 (40)
Age (years), mean (SD) 48.1 (15.1) 50.2 (14.8) 40.4 (13.7) 47.3 (13.6) 48.1 (13.5) 42.5 (13.5)
BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD) 25.8 (3.8) 26.0 (3.9) 24.9 (3.2) 26.3 (5.1) 26.4 (5.2) 26.0 (4.7)
Presence of comorbidities (yes), n (%) 38 (36.5) 31 (37.8) 7 (31.8) 28 (26.9) 26 (29.2) 2 (13.3)
Employment (yes), n (%) 79 (76) 62 (75.6) 17 (77.3) 84 (80.8) 70 (78.7) 14 (93.3)
Past LBPb surgery, n (%)
None 100 (96.2) 79 (96.3) 21 (95.5) 101 (97.1) 87 (97.8) 14 (93.3)
Lumbar fusion 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (6.7)
Lumbar discectomy 4 (3.8) 3 (3.7) 1 (4.5) 2 (1.9) 2 (2.2) 0 (0)
Central sensitization (score of 0-100),mean (SD) 30.9 (13.4) 29.5 (13.3) 37.1 (12.3) 30.2 (12.2) 28.8 (11.4) 39.0 (13.6)
Educational level, n (%)
Low 22 (21.2) 15 (18.3) 7 (31.8) 13 (12.5) 12 (13.5) 1 (6.7)
Middle 33 (31.7) 22 (26.8) 11 (50) 36 (34.6) 32 (36) 4 (26.7)
High 49 (47.1) 45 (54.9) 4 (18.2) 55 (52.9) 45 (50.6) 10 (66.7)
Duration of LBP complaints, n (%)
0-6 weeks 37 (35.6) 30 (36.6) 7 (31.8) 49 (47.1) 39 (43.8) 10 (66.7)
6-12 weeks 11 (10.6) 7 (8.5) 4 (18.2) 19 (18.3) 18 (20.2) 1 (6.7)
12 weeks-12 months 9 (8.7) 7 (8.5) 2 (9.1) 9 (8.7) 7 (7.9) 2 (13.3)
>12 months 47 (45.2) 38 (46.3) 9 (40.9) 27 (26) 25 (28.1) 2 (13.3)
Risk of developing persistent LBP, n (%)
Low 59 (56.7) 50 (61) 9 (40.9) 64 (61.5) 56 (62.9) 8 (53.3)
Medium 35 (33.7) 26 (31.7) 9 (40.9) 37 (35.6) 31 (34.8) 6 (40)
High 10 (9.6) 6 (7.3) 4 (18.2) 3 (2.9) 2 (2.2) 1 (6.7)
Utility score (0-1), mean (SD) 0.731 (0.188) 0.751 (0.152) 0.654 (0.278) 0.752 (0.130) 0.759 (0.131) 0.710 (0.115)
Physical functioning (score of 0-100), mean (SD) 19.4 (15.6) 18.7 (14.3) 21.7 (20.0) 20.4 (14.0) 19.9 (14.5) 23.2 (10.8)
Pain intensity (average 7-day score of 0-10), mean (SD) 5.6 (2.0) 5.5 (2.0) 6.1 (1.9) 5.4 (2.0) 5.3 (2.0) 5.7 (1.9)
Physical activity (MVPAc min per day), mean (SD) 80.3 (36.8) 81.6 (37.3) 73.3 (33.9) 74.8 (40.9) 75.0 (40.7) 73.6 (44.3)
Fear avoidance beliefs (score of 0-96), mean (SD) 27.9 (16.0) 24.9 (13.9) 40.8 (18.5) 25.1 (16.2) 24.1 (15.8) 31.5 (17.8)
Pain catastrophizing (score of 0-52), mean (SD) 11.1 (9.3) 9.8 (7.9) 16.7 (12.5) 10.2 (8.7) 9.6 (8.7) 13.9 (8.3)
Self-efficacy (score of 10-40), mean (SD) 32.1 (4.4) 32.4 (4.4) 31.0 (4.3) 33.1 (3.6) 33.0 (3.8) 33.7 (2.6)
Patient activation (score of 0-100), mean (SD) 62.5 (12.4) 63.5 (11.7) 58.6 (14.2) 64.8 (12.6) 65.3 (13.1) 61.4 (8.8)

aPercentages may not reach 100 because of rounding.

bLBP: low back pain.

cMVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

 Effectiveness

In the linear mixed model analyses for the primary and secondary clinical outcomes, the log-likelihood ratios of the naïve models and the models including a random intercept for both physiotherapy practice and physiotherapist were similar. Therefore, physiotherapy practice and physiotherapist were not included as a level in the linear mixed model analyses.

Both interventions were associated with improved clinical outcomes from baseline to the 12-month follow-up (within-group changes are presented in Multimedia Appendix 4). From a clinical perspective, there was neither a clinically relevant nor a statistically substantial adjusted between-group difference over 12 months in the primary outcome of physical functioning (MD −1.1, 95% CI −3.9 to 1.7). Per time point, adjusted between-group differences in physical functioning were neither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial. For most secondary clinical outcomes, there was neither a clinically relevant nor a statistically substantial adjusted between-group difference over 12 months. A statistically substantial adjusted between-group difference over 12 months and per time point was found in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy for fear avoidance beliefs (ie, overall MD −4.3, 95% CI −7.3 to −1.3; 3-month MD −3.9, 95% CI −7.5 to −0.4; 12-month MD −4.7, 95% CI −8.5 to −0.9). In addition, at the 3-month time point, a statistically substantial adjusted between-group difference was found in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy for patients’ self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises (MD 0.8, 95% CI 0.1-1.6). Overall, differences in secondary clinical outcomes and differences per time point were not considered clinically relevant (Table 3).

Adjusted overall between-group differences and adjusted between-group differences per time point for the primary and secondary clinical outcome measures.

Outcome Stratified blended physiotherapy (n=102), mean (95% CI) Face-to-face physiotherapy (n=102), mean (95% CI) Adjusted between-group difference per time pointa (N=204), mean (95% CI) Adjusted overall between-group differencea (N=204), mean (95% CI)
Physical functioning (ODIb; 0-100) −1.1 (−3.9 to 1.7)
Baseline 19.4 (16.3 to 22.4) 20.2 (17.5 to 22.9) N/Ac
3 months 9.7 (6.6 to 12.7) 9.4 (7.0 to 11.9) −0.6 (−4.3 to 3.2)
12 months 8.0 (5.3 to 10.6) 8.9 (6.0 to 11.7) −1.7 (−5.5 to 2.2)
Utility score (EQ-5D-5L; 0-1) 0.026 (−0.020 to 0.072)
Baseline 0.729 (0.692 to 0.765) 0.751 (0.725 to 0.776) N/A
3 months 0.847 (0.813 to 0.880) 0.841 (0.806 to 0.876) 0.023 (−0.029 to 0.074)
12 months 0.851 (0.803 to 0.900) 0.840 (0.791 to 0.889) 0.029 (−0.032 to 0.090)
Average pain intensity in previous 7 days (NRSd; 0-10) −0.3 (−0.9 to 0.2)
Baseline 5.7 (5.3 to 6.0) 5.4 (5.0 to 5.8) N/A
3 months 3.2 (2.7 to 3.8) 3.0 (2.5 to 3.4) 0.0 (−0.7 to 0.7)
12 months 2.4 (1.8 to 2.9) 2.7 (2.2 to 3.2) −0.6 (−1.3 to 0.0)
Physical activity (Activ8; MVPAe min per day) 2.5 (−6.9 to 11.8)
Baseline 80.1 (71.5 to 88.7) 74.1 (65.6 to 82.7) N/A
3 months 76.2 (67.0 to 85.3) 69.7 (62.1 to 77.2) 2.5 (−7.5 to 12.6)
12 months 76.7 (65.8 to 87.7) 70.4 (62.2 to 78.7) 2.4 (−10.6 to 15.3)
Fear avoidance beliefs (FABQf; 0-96) −4.3 (−7.3 to −1.3)
Baseline 28.1 (24.9 to 31.2) 25.4 (22.2 to 28.5) N/A
3 months 23.3 (20.5 to 26.2) 25.0 (21.6 to 28.4) −3.9 (−7.5 to −0.4)
12 months 21.5 (18.1 to 24.9) 24.0 (20.5 to 27.4) −4.7 (−8.5 to −0.9)
Pain catastrophizing (PCSg; 0-52) −1.0 (−2.6 to 0.6)
Baseline 11.1 (9.2 to 13.0) 10.3 (8.6 to 12.0) N/A
3 months 9.1 (7.5 to 10.8) 9.3 (7.3 to 11.3) −0.9 (−2.9 to 1.0)
12 months 7.9 (6.2 to 9.6) 8.2 (6.6 to 9.9) −1.1 (−3.1 to 0.9)
Self-efficacy (GSEh Scale; 10-40) 0.1 (−0.8 to 1.0)
Baseline 32.0 (31.2 to 32.9) 33.1 (32.4 to 33.8) N/A
3 months 31.9 (31.0 to 32.8) 32.6 (31.9 to 33.4) −0.0 (−1.0 to 1.0)
12 months 32.6 (31.7 to 33.4) 33.0 (32.2 to 33.9) 0.2 (−0.9 to 1.3)
Patient activation (PAMi 13–Dutch; 0-100) 0.6 (−2.4 to 3.5)
Baseline 62.5 (60.0 to 64.9) 64.7 (62.2 to 67.2) N/A
3 months 61.9 (59.5 to 64.4) 64.5 (61.9 to 67.1) −1.5 (−4.9 to 2.0)
12 months 65.6 (62.5 to 68.6) 64.0 (61.2 to 66.9) 2.6 (−1.0 to 6.2)
Patient self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises (EARSj; 0-24)k 0.5 (−0.0 to 1.1)
Baseline — — N/A
3 months 11.9 (11.4 to 12.5) 11.1 (10.7 to 11.6) 0.8 (0.1 to 1.6)
12 months 12.4 (11.8 to 13.1) 12.2 (11.7 to 12.7) 0.2 (−0.5 to 1.0)

aAdjusted for baseline and duration of low back pain complaints (<12 weeks vs >12 weeks).

bODI: Oswestry Disability Index.

cN/A: not applicable.

dNRS: numeric rating scale.

eMVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

fFABQ: Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire.

gPCS: Pain Catastrophizing Scale.

hGSE: General Self-Efficacy.

iPAM: Patient Activation Measure.

jEARS: Exercise Adherence Rating Scale.

kPatient self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises could only be measured after the treatment period.

 Cost-Effectiveness Resource Use and Costs

Total societal (FCA) and total health care costs were higher in the stratified blended physiotherapy group (societal FCA: €5680 [US $6000], SE of the mean [SEM]=€1160 [US $1225]; health care: €512 [US $541], SEM=€64 [US $68]) than in the face-to-face physiotherapy group (societal FCA: €4851 [US $5125], SEM=€701 [US $741]; health care: €439 [US $464], SEM=€47 [US $50]). The adjusted between-group differences in total costs were not statistically substantial. Most of the disaggregated costs were highest in the stratified blended physiotherapy group. Exceptions included intervention and absenteeism costs, which were highest in the face-to-face physiotherapy group. Of all the disaggregated cost differences, only the adjusted difference in unpaid productivity costs was statistically substantial (Table 4). A detailed overview of the mean costs per participant over 12 months in the complete cases only and per risk group for developing persistent LBP is provided in Multimedia Appendix 5 for both treatment groups.

Mean costs per participant in the stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy groups and the mean cost difference between groups during the 12-month follow-up period.

Cost category Cost per participant (€), mean (SEMa) Cost difference (€), mean (95% CI)
Stratified blended physiotherapy (n=102) Face-to-face physiotherapy (n=102) Crude (N=204) Adjustedb (N=204)
Health carec 512 (64) 439 (47) 73 (−60 to 220) 73 (−59 to 225)
Intervention 210 (14) 222 (11) −12 (−44 to 19) −13 (−44 to 19)
Primary health care excluding intervention 219 (39) 148 (30) 71 (−12 to 154) 72 (−11 to 154)
Secondary health care 74 (33) 62 (20) 11 (−43 to 99) 12 (−43 to 102)
Medication 10 (3) 7 (2) 2 (−3 to 9) 2 (−4 to 9)
Informal care 629 (162) 479 (115) 150 (−174 to 484) 143 (−185 to 475)
Absenteeism FCAd 773 (370) 646 (283) 127 (−607 to 929) 161 (−557 to 974)
Absenteeism HCAe 587 (256) 1344 (967) −757 (−5182 to 404) −703 (−4905 to 435)
Presenteeism 2863 (867) 2859 (536) 3 (−1446 to 1532) 131 (−1291 to 1642)
Unpaid productivity 904 (202) 427 (102) 477 (133 to 892) 464 (122 to 880)f
Societal FCAg 5680 (1160) 4851 (701) 830 (−1265 to 3124) 972 (−1090 to 3264)
Societal HCAg 5494 (1130) 5549 (1140) −55 (−3500 to 2297) 108 (−3207 to 2457)

aSEM: SE of the mean.

bAdjusted for employment status (yes or no).

cHealth care costs are the sum of the primary health care costs, secondary health care costs, medication costs, and intervention costs.

dFCA: friction cost approach.

eHCA: human capital approach.

fStatistically substantial difference between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy.

gSocietal costs are the sum of the health care costs, informal care costs, absenteeism costs, presenteeism costs, and unpaid productivity costs.

 Effectiveness

The stratified blended physiotherapy group and face-to-face physiotherapy group gained an average of 0.834 (SEM=0.015) and 0.829 (SEM=0.016) QALYs during the 12-month follow-up, respectively. There was neither a clinically relevant nor a statistically substantial adjusted between-group difference during the 12-month follow-up period in terms of QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI −0.020 to 0.072; Table 3).

 Societal Perspective

The ICER for QALYs was 49,159, indicating that—on average—stratified blended physiotherapy was associated with an additional cost of €49,159 (US $51,932) per QALY gained compared with face-to-face physiotherapy (Table 5 and Figure 2A). The CEAC indicated that, if society is not willing to pay anything per QALY gained, the probability of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy is 0.23 (Figure 3A). This probability increases to a maximum of 0.50 at a willingness to pay of €50,000 (US $52,821) per QALY.

For physical functioning, the ICER was −614. This indicates that stratified blended physiotherapy was—on average—associated with a societal cost of €614 (US $649) per 1-point improvement on the ODI compared with face-to-face physiotherapy (Table 5 and Figure 2B). Note that a lower ODI score indicates an improved level of physical functioning. The CEAC shows that, if decision makers are not willing to pay anything per 1-point improvement on the ODI, the probability of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy is 0.23 (Figure 3B). This probability increases to 0.63 at a willingness to pay of €1000 (US $1056) per point improvement and to 0.79 at a willingness to pay of €10,000 (US $10,564) per point improvement.

Differences in pooled mean costs and effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and the distribution of incremental cost-effect pairs around the quadrants of the cost-effectiveness planes (N=204).

Analysis Participants, n (%) Outcome ΔCa (€b; 95% CI) ΔEc (points; 95% CI) ICER (€ per point) Distribution on the CEd plane (%)
SB PTe F2F PTf NEg SEh SWi NWj
Main analysis (imputed data set)
Societal perspective 102 (50) 102 (50) QALYk (0-1) 994 (−1002 to 3320) 0.02 (−0.02 to 0.06) 49,159 62.2 22 1.0 14.8
Societal perspective 102 (50) 102 (50) Physical functioning (ODIl; 0-100) 1004 (−1007 to 3306) −1.63 (−5.43 to 2.16) −614 60.9 19.4 3.4 16.3
Health care perspective 102 (50) 102 (50) QALY (0-1) 47 (−81 to 192) 0.02 (−0.02 to 0.06) 2239 59.1 25.6 1.3 13.9
Health care perspective 102 (50) 102 (50) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 47 (−81 to 192) −1.69 (−5.43 to 2.05) −28 57.6 24.2 2.4 15.8
Sensitivity analysis 1—complete cases (original data set)
Societal perspective 82 (40.2) 89 (43.6) QALY (0-1) −385 (−1910 to 1137) 0.02 (−0.00 to 0.04) Dominant 29.6 64.3 2.6 3.5
Societal perspective 82 (40.2) 89 (43.6) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) −385 (−1915 to 1133) −2.14 (−4.80 to 0.28) Dominant 31 64.7 1.5 2.8
Health care perspective 82 (40.2) 89 (43.6) QALY (0-1) −47 (−158 to 84) 0.02 (−0.00 to 0.43) Dominant 21.5 73.9 2.6 2.1
Health care perspective 82 (40.2) 89 (43.6) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) −47 (−150 to 93) −2.26 (−4.97 to 0.30) Dominant 22.8 73.3 2.3 1.6
Sensitivity analysis 2—human capital approach (imputed data set)
Societal perspective 102 (50) 102 (50) QALY (0-1) 136 (−3071 to 2448) 0.02 (−0.02 to 0.06) 6926 41.3 42.1 4.3 12.4
Societal perspective 102 (50) 102 (50) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 145 (−3126 to 2455) −1.57 (−5.34 to 2.21) −92 42 37.9 8 12.1
Sensitivity analysis 3—per risk group for developing persistent LBPm (imputed data set)
Low risk
Societal perspective 58 (28.4) 62 (30.4) QALY (0-1) 46 (−2284 to 2492) 0.01 (−0.02 to 0.05) 3498 34.9 44.4 5.3 15.4
Societal perspective 58 (28.4) 62 (30.4) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 47 (−2239 to 2526) −0.89 (−4.46 to 2.70) −53 31.1 37.3 12.3 19.3
Health care perspective 58 (28.4) 62 (30.4) QALY (0-1) −21 (−165 to 186) 0.01 (−0.02 to 0.05) Dominant 25.1 53 7.9 14.1
Health care perspective 58 (28.4) 62 (30.4) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) −21 (−162 to 193) −0.84 (−4.38 to 2.71) Dominant 22.5 45.1 16.2 16.3
Medium risk
Societal perspective 34 (16.7) 37 (18.1) QALY (0-1) 1124 (−2357 to 5767) 0.01 (−0.06 to 0.09) 93,372 35.9 25.7 8.6 29.8
Societal perspective 34 (16.7) 37 (18.1) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 1128 (−2370 to 5810) −2.83 (−10.70 to 5.03) −398 50.1 26.3 7.6 16.1
Health care perspective 34 (16.7) 37 (18.1) QALY (0-1) 101 (−139 to 348) 0.01 (−0.06 to 0.09) 8485 43.5 17.8 4.6 34.1
Health care perspective 34 (16.7) 37 (18.1) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 101 (−139 to 345) −2.83 (−10.63 to 4.98) −36 55.6 20.4 1.7 22.3
High risk
Societal perspective 10 (4.9) 3 (1.5) QALY (0-1) 5225 (−2183 to 15,878) 0.23 (−0.25 to 0.71) 22,761 66.1 11.1 0.1 22.7
Societal perspective 10 (4.9) 3 (1.5) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 5182 (−2610 to 15,773) −12.88 (−31.18 to 5.42) −402 83.9 11.2 0.1 4.7
Health care perspective 10 (4.9) 3 (1.5) QALY (0-1) 425 (130 to 896) 0.23 (−0.26 to 0.72) 1885 75.3 0.1 0 24.5
Health care perspective 10 (4.9) 3 (1.5) Physical functioning (ODI; 0-100) 425 (125 to 901) −12.81 (−30.64 to 5.02) −33 95.1 0.2 0 4.7

aC: cost.

bA currency exchange rate of CAD €1=US $1.05642 is applicable.

cE: effect.

dCE: cost-effectiveness.

eSB PT: stratified blended physiotherapy.

fF2F PT: face-to-face physiotherapy.

gRefers to the northeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness (CE) plane, indicating that stratified blended physiotherapy (SB PT) is more effective and costlier than face-to-face physiotherapy (F2F PT).

hRefers to the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness (CE) plane, indicating that stratified blended physiotherapy (SB PT) is more effective and less costly than face-to-face physiotherapy (F2F PT).

iRefers to the southwest quadrant of the cost-effectiveness (CE) plane, indicating that stratified blended physiotherapy (SB PT) is less effective and costly than face-to-face physiotherapy (F2F PT).

jRefers to the northwest quadrant of the cost-effectiveness (CE) plane, indicating that stratified blended physiotherapy (SB PT) is less effective and costlier than face-to-face physiotherapy (F2F PT).

kQALY: quality-adjusted life year.

lODI: Oswestry Disability Index.

mLBP: low back pain.

Cost-effectiveness planes from the societal and health care perspectives. ODI: Oswestry Disability Index; QALY: quality-adjusted life year.

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves from the societal and health care perspectives. ODI: Oswestry Disability Index; QALY: quality-adjusted life year.

 Health Care Perspective

The ICER for QALYs was 2239, indicating that stratified blended physiotherapy was—on average—associated with an additional cost of €2239 (US $2365) per QALY gained compared with face-to-face physiotherapy (Table 5 and Figure 2C). The CEAC indicated that, if the health care system is not willing to pay anything per QALY gained, the probability of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy is 0.27 (Figure 3C). This probability gradually increases to a maximum of 0.75 at a willingness to pay of €10,000 (US $10,564) per QALY.

For physical functioning, the ICER was −28. This indicates that stratified blended physiotherapy was—on average—associated with a health care cost of €28 (US $30) per 1-point improvement on the ODI compared with face-to-face physiotherapy (Table 5 and Figure 2D). Note that a lower ODI score indicates an improved level of physical functioning. The CEAC shows that, if decision makers are not willing to pay anything per 1-point improvement on the ODI, the probability of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy is 0.27 (Figure 3D). This probability increases to 0.81 at a willingness to pay of €1000 (US $1056) per point improvement and remains the same at a higher willingness to pay.

 Sensitivity Analysis

The direction and magnitude of the differences in costs and effects between the stratified blended physiotherapy group and the face-to-face physiotherapy group as estimated in the sensitivity analyses were not completely in line with those estimated in the main analysis. In particular, when analyzing complete cases only (sensitivity analysis 1), cost differences between the stratified blended physiotherapy group and the face-to-face physiotherapy group were found to be in favor of the stratified blended physiotherapy group, whereas when missing values were imputed (main analysis), these cost differences were in favor of the face-to-face physiotherapy group. This resulted in slightly different CEACs than those obtained in the main analysis and showed that, in the complete-case analysis, stratified blended physiotherapy was dominant over face-to-face physiotherapy. The results of sensitivity analysis 3 showed that, for both perspectives, the cost difference between the stratified blended physiotherapy group and the face-to-face physiotherapy group increased with a higher risk of developing persistent LBP; that is, for the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, the differences in costs from the societal perspective (QALYs) were €46 (US $49), €1124 (US $1187), and €5225 (US $5520), respectively. For the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, the differences in costs from the health care perspective (QALYs) were –€21 (US –$22), €101 (US $107), and €425 (US $449), respectively. In line with the main analysis, from the societal perspective, stratified blended physiotherapy did not seem to be cost-effective for the different risk groups for developing persistent LBP (Table 5). In addition, from the health care perspective, results for the medium- and high-risk groups were in line with the main analysis; that is, stratified blended physiotherapy did not seem to be cost-effective when compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. In the low-risk group, stratified blended physiotherapy was dominant over face-to-face physiotherapy (Table 5).

 Discussion Principal Findings

This study evaluated the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Both interventions were associated with improved clinical outcomes from baseline to the 12-month follow-up, but the study results showed neither a clinically relevant nor a statistically substantial between-group difference in the primary outcome of physical functioning and in most secondary outcomes. Over 12 months, and for each time point, only fear avoidance beliefs improved substantially more in patients who were allocated to the e-Exercise LBP group. At 3 months, patients who were allocated to the e-Exercise LBP group reported a better adherence to prescribed home exercises. However, the overall between-group difference and the differences in improvement per time point in both fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence to prescribed home exercises were not considered clinically relevant. Regarding the intervention’s cost-effectiveness, from both the societal and health care perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability of e-Exercise LBP being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. To illustrate, e-Exercise LBP had a low probability (ie, 0.29 and 0.60) of cost-effectiveness at the upper and lower bounds, respectively, of the informal Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold for QALYs (ie, €10,000 to €80,000 [US $10,564 to $84,513] per QALY). From the health care perspective and the outcome of physical functioning, willingness-to-pay thresholds were lacking. However, we consider the maximum probability of e-Exercise LBP being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for both outcomes to be moderate at best (ie, <0.81). Hence, from both the societal and health care perspectives, e-Exercise LBP does not seem to be cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy among patients with nonspecific LBP. Between-group differences in costs and effects as estimated in the sensitivity analyses were not completely in line with our main analysis. In particular, the point estimates of the cost differences in the complete-case analysis were more positive than those in the main analysis and showed that e-Exercise LBP was dominant over face-to-face physiotherapy. However, the uncertainty surrounding the point estimates of the complete-case analysis was large, resulting in a relatively low probability of e-Exercise LBP being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy, a conclusion that is similar to that of the main analysis. This was also the case for the other sensitivity analyses.

From a clinical perspective, the results of this study for the primary and secondary clinical outcomes are in line with the short-term results of the e-Exercise LBP study [29] and complement the findings of previous systematic reviews of RCTs on the added value of integrating web-based applications into the treatment of patients with LBP [23,25,26,65]. Possible explanations for the lack of short-term effectiveness (eg, the relatively large proportion of patients with a low risk of developing persistent LBP included in the analysis who have a favorable natural prognosis and the fact that blended care is not suitable for all patients) also apply to the findings of this study and have been discussed in detail previously [29]. In general, the selected contrast between the 2 studied interventions (ie, the same content delivered either face-to-face or stratified and blended) could be too small and, therefore, hamper a clear conclusion about the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP [66,67]. Given the meaningful and comparable within-group effects in the short term for both e-Exercise LBP and face-to-face physiotherapy, an equivalence design may have been a better alternative to substantiate the possible added value of e-Exercise LBP.

Although several studies [23,26,68] have assessed the added value of integrating web-based applications into the treatment of patients with nonspecific LBP, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is scarce. Suman et al [69] studied the cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted eHealth strategy in which face-to-face care was supported by multiple web-based components compared with a digital patient letter for patients with nonspecific LBP in primary care in the Netherlands. The reported mean societal and health care costs (€8444 [US $8920] and €1659 [US $1753]; index year 2016, respectively) and the average number of QALYs gained (0.881) during the 12-month period after receiving the intervention are comparable with our findings. The costs and effects of both treatment groups in our study are also comparable with those of other primary care physiotherapy treatments for patients with nonspecific LBP. In a review by Miyamoto et al [70] on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in comparison with usual care, the number of gained QALYs during a 12-month follow-up ranged from 0.60 for physiotherapy [71] to 0.78 for exercise therapy [72]. Van de Roer et al [73] reported a mean societal cost of €4421 ([US $4670; index year 2004]) after 12 months for patients receiving face-to-face physiotherapy in line with the LBP guidelines of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [30]. Thus, even though our stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more cost-effective when compared with face-to-face physiotherapy, its costs and effects can be considered roughly the same as those of other existing primary care physiotherapy treatments for patients with nonspecific LBP. As a result, the decision regarding which intervention to administer, reimburse, or implement can be based on the preferences of the patient and the decision maker at hand. This also matches current ideas of health care policy makers regarding the integration of technology into health care [74].

A possible explanation for the lack of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP might be that, in contrast to our expectations, e-Exercise LBP did not result in a change in patients’ self-management behavior when compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. This is in line with our short-term results [29], and several explanations for this observation are possible. Even though integrating an app within face-to-face physiotherapy did result in substantially better self-reported adherence at the 3-month follow-up, the content of the app (ie, self-management information, integrated fortnightly reminders, and the continuing availability of the app) may have been insufficient to further support patients’ self-management behavior in the home setting. In contrast, the results of our qualitative study did reveal that patients with chronic LBP (ie, an LBP duration of >12 weeks at the start of the study) did show adequate self-management behavior when experiencing a relapse in LBP [75]. In case of a relapse, patients indicated that they first tried to gain control over their new episode of LBP before contacting a health care professional. However, patients did indicate that one of the biggest struggles was to maintain adequate health behavior in the pain-free periods between relapses in LBP. Thus, this could mean that, to facilitate long-term behavior change in patients’ management of LBP, more personalized self-management support during and after treatment is needed.

The comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in our study might also be an important reason why we were not able to demonstrate better effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of our stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP. Despite the reasonably strong evidence that some physiotherapy interventions (compared with minimal or no intervention) for patients with nonspecific LBP are effective, the effect sizes are typically small [2,10,76,77]. As we wanted to evaluate the advantages of stratified blended physiotherapy in a pragmatic way, we decided to compare it with face-to-face physiotherapy according to the guidelines for LBP of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy [30]. As the content of both interventions was based on the guidelines, the selected between-group contrast in the delivery of treatment might have been small beforehand. In addition, given the fact that blended treatment might not be beneficial for all patients [24,78] and that this suitability was not used as an inclusion criterion, the between-group contrast might have been even smaller than expected. Consequently, a between-group difference in either effects or costs between e-Exercise LBP and face-to-face physiotherapy during the 12-month follow-up period could not be expected, either [66].

A final observation regarding our results is that presenteeism costs contributed substantially to the total societal costs (ie, 50.4% for stratified blended physiotherapy and 58.9% for face-to-face physiotherapy). This finding is in line with previous studies showing that, in many chronic conditions, presenteeism constitutes the greatest proportion of the overall associated costs [79,80]. In addition, presenteeism is a risk factor for future absenteeism and a decrement in self-rated health [81]. The distribution of total costs across the disaggregate cost categories highlights the importance of targeting presenteeism as part of future (blended) and possible cost-effective interventions for patients with nonspecific LBP.

 Strengths and Limitations

The pragmatic cluster RCT design with a follow-up period of 12 months is an important strength of this study. Such a design is acknowledged as the best setup for evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in a real-world setting. The pragmatic approach and the involvement of 42 physiotherapy practices and 68 physiotherapists across the Netherlands improve the generalizability of the results to daily physiotherapy practice in the Netherlands [37]. A second strength is that the economic evaluation was performed from both societal and health care perspectives. In addition to the societal perspective, which is recommended in the Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation, the evaluation of the narrower health care perspective enables health care decision makers to first consider the intervention’s cost-effectiveness from their own perspective and compare this with its cost-effectiveness from the broader societal perspective. As a result, better informed decisions can be made as local policy is then considered with societal optimality in mind [82,83]. A final strength is that, in addition to QALYs as an outcome measure, physical functioning was used as an outcome measure in the economic evaluation as well. This is important as it helps understand whether the changes in QALYs are in line with the clinical effect of the studied intervention. However, note that a willingness-to-pay threshold is missing for physical functioning, making it more difficult to interpret the intervention’s cost-effectiveness in terms of this outcome.

This study also has some limitations. An important limitation is that incomplete cases had—on average—higher levels of physical functioning, lower utility scores, and higher aggregate and disaggregate costs than complete cases. This suggests that the results of the complete-case analysis are likely biased to some extent by the self-selection of patients. To address this limitation, multiple imputation, which is considered an appropriate method for imputing data that are related to observed data (ie, missing at random) and simultaneously accounts for uncertainty about the missing data by creating several imputed data sets and pooling their results, was used to handle missing data [56]. In addition, the amount of missing data in this study (ie, 14% to 21%) was relatively low compared with those in similar studies [84,85], which further improves the reliability of our multiple imputation results. As a result, greater value is attached to the results of the main analysis when compared with the complete-case analysis despite the latter being more positive. A second limitation is that stratified blended physiotherapy is still considered a “black box.” Although we provided a 2-day training for physiotherapists on the integration of the app into face-to-face physiotherapy, we have no insight into the actual fidelity of the intervention (ie, the degree to which the intervention was delivered as intended). Possibly, low fidelity contributed to the absence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared with face-to-face physiotherapy [67]. Another limiting factor was the use of retrospective self-report questionnaires administered every 3 months to collect the cost and effect data. Self-report questionnaires are a possible source of “social desirability” or “recall bias.” However, because of the design, any recall bias or socially desirable answers are likely to have affected both groups equally, and hence, there is a small probability that the between-group differences are incorrect.

 Conclusions

This study shows that the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective in terms of physical functioning nor more cost-effective from a societal or health care perspective when compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP. As clinical outcomes improved in both groups from baseline to the 12-month follow-up and no statistically substantial total cost or effect differences were found between the stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP and face-to-face physiotherapy, the 2 interventions seem to be equivalent. As a result, the decision regarding which intervention should be administered or implemented can be based on the preferences of the patient and the physiotherapist or the decision maker at hand.

CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth) V1.6 checklist.

CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist.

Screenshots of the smartphone app.

Within-group changes in the stratified blended physiotherapy group and the face-to-face physiotherapy group for the primary and secondary clinical outcome measures during the 12-month follow-up period.

Mean costs per participant in the stratified blended physiotherapy group and the face-to-face physiotherapy group during the 12-month follow-up period for complete cases and per risk group for developing persistent low back pain.

 Abbreviations CEAC

cost-effectiveness acceptability curve

 CHEERS

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards

 CONSORT

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

 FCA

friction cost approach

 ICER

incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

 LBP

low back pain

 MD

mean difference

 ODI

Oswestry Disability Index

 QALY

quality-adjusted life year

 RCT

randomized controlled trial

 SEM

SE of the mean

This study was cofunded by the Taskforce for Applied Research SIA (RAAK.PRO02.063), part of the Dutch Research Council. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors are grateful for the invaluable help provided by Loes Kolenberg in the analysis of the physical activity data. They did not use generative artificial intelligence in any part of manuscript writing.

 Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

TK participated in the development of the design of the study, conducted the study, conducted the statistical analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. JMvD participated in the development of the design of the study, assisted and advised on the statistical analyses, and participated in the write-up and revision of the manuscript. CJJK participated in the development of the design of the study and the write-up and revision of the manuscript. RMA participated in the design of the study, carried out the study, and participated in revising the manuscript. CV supervised the project, advised on the design of the study and statistical analysis, and participated in revising the manuscript. MFP was the principal investigator, developed the design of the study, and participated in the write-up and revision of the manuscript. RWJGO supervised the project, advised on the design of the study and statistical analysis, and participated in revising the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

None declared.

 GBD 2016 DiseaseInjury IncidencePrevalence Collaborators Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 Lancet 2017 09 16 390 10100 1211 59 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 28919117 S0140-6736(17)32154-2 PMC5605509 Maher C Underwood M Buchbinder R Non-specific low back pain Lancet 2017 02 18 389 10070 736 47 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9 27745712 S0140-6736(16)30970-9 GBD 2017 DALYsHALE Collaborators Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet 2018 11 10 392 10159 1859 922 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32335-3 30415748 S0140-6736(18)32335-3 PMC6252083 Kongsted A Kent P Axen I Downie AS Dunn KM What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016 05 21 17 220 10.1186/s12891-016-1071-2 27209166 10.1186/s12891-016-1071-2 PMC4875630 da Silva T Mills K Brown BT Herbert RD Maher CG Hancock MJ Risk of recurrence of low back pain: a systematic review J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017 05 47 5 305 13 10.2519/jospt.2017.7415 28355981 Hartvigsen J Hancock MJ Kongsted A Louw Q Ferreira ML Genevay S Hoy D Karppinen J Pransky G Sieper J Smeets RJ Underwood M Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2356 67 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X 29573870 S0140-6736(18)30480-X Kosten van ziekten 2017 Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport 2021-09-01 https://statline.rivm.nl/#/RIVM/nl/dataset/50050NED/table?ts=1630482075339 Bodenheimer T High and rising health care costs. Part 2: technologic innovation Ann Intern Med 2005 06 07 142 11 932 7 10.7326/0003-4819-142-11-200506070-00012 15941701 142/11/932 Lin I Wiles L Waller R Goucke R Nagree Y Gibberd M Straker L Maher CG O'Sullivan PP What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review Br J Sports Med 2020 01 54 2 79 86 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878 30826805 bjsports-2018-099878 Foster NE Anema JR Cherkin D Chou R Cohen SP Gross DP Ferreira PH Fritz JM Koes BW Peul W Turner JA Maher CG Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2368 83 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6 29573872 S0140-6736(18)30489-6 Corp N Mansell G Stynes S Wynne-Jones G Morsø L Hill JC van der Windt DA Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: a systematic review of guidelines Eur J Pain 2021 02 25 2 275 95 10.1002/ejp.1679 33064878 PMC7839780 Caneiro JP Roos EM Barton CJ O'Sullivan K Kent P Lin I Choong P Crossley KM Hartvigsen J Smith AJ O'Sullivan P It is time to move beyond 'body region silos' to manage musculoskeletal pain: five actions to change clinical practice Br J Sports Med 2020 04 54 8 438 9 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100488 31604698 bjsports-2018-100488 Hutting N Johnston V Staal JB Heerkens YF Promoting the use of self-management strategies for people with persistent musculoskeletal disorders: the role of physical therapists J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019 04 49 4 212 5 10.2519/jospt.2019.0605 30931733 Wong JJ Côté P Sutton DA Randhawa K Yu H Varatharajan S Goldgrub R Nordin M Gross DP Shearer HM Carroll LJ Stern PJ Ameis A Southerst D Mior S Stupar M Varatharajan T Taylor-Vaisey A Clinical practice guidelines for the noninvasive management of low back pain: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration Eur J Pain 2017 02 21 2 201 16 10.1002/ejp.931 27712027 Oliveira CB Maher CG Pinto RZ Traeger AC Lin CW Chenot JF van Tulder M Koes BW Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview Eur Spine J 2018 11 27 11 2791 803 10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2 29971708 10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2 Beinart NA Goodchild CE Weinman JA Ayis S Godfrey EL Individual and intervention-related factors associated with adherence to home exercise in chronic low back pain: a systematic review Spine J 2013 12 13 12 1940 50 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.027 24169445 S1529-9430(13)01474-5 Sluijs EM Kok GJ van der Zee J Correlates of exercise compliance in physical therapy Phys Ther 1993 11 73 11 771 86 10.1093/ptj/73.11.771 8234458 Essery R Geraghty AW Kirby S Yardley L Predictors of adherence to home-based physical therapies: a systematic review Disabil Rehabil 2017 03 39 6 519 34 10.3109/09638288.2016.1153160 27097761 Kamper SJ Logan G Copsey B Thompson J Machado GC Abdel-Shaheed C Williams CM Maher CG Hall AM What is usual care for low back pain? A systematic review of health care provided to patients with low back pain in family practice and emergency departments Pain 2020 04 161 4 694 702 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001751 31738226 00006396-202004000-00005 Elbert NJ van Os-Medendorp H van Renselaar W Ekeland AG Hakkaart-van Roijen L Raat H Nijsten TE Pasmans SG Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses J Med Internet Res 2014 04 16 16 4 e110 10.2196/jmir.2790 24739471 v16i4e110 PMC4019777 Lambert TE Harvey LA Avdalis C Chen LW Jeyalingam S Pratt CA Tatum HJ Bowden JL Lucas BR An app with remote support achieves better adherence to home exercise programs than paper handouts in people with musculoskeletal conditions: a randomised trial J Physiother 2017 07 63 3 161 7 10.1016/j.jphys.2017.05.015 28662834 S1836-9553(17)30067-X Bennell KL Marshall CJ Dobson F Kasza J Lonsdale C Hinman RS Does a web-based exercise programming system improve home exercise adherence for people with musculoskeletal conditions?: a randomized controlled trial Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2019 4 23 98 10 850 8 10.1097/phm.0000000000001204 Nicholl BI Sandal LF Stochkendahl MJ McCallum M Suresh N Vasseljen O Hartvigsen J Mork PJ Kjaer P Søgaard K Mair FS Digital support interventions for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic review J Med Internet Res 2017 05 21 19 5 e179 10.2196/jmir.7290 28550009 v19i5e179 PMC5466697 Wentzel J van der Vaart R Bohlmeijer E van Gemert-Pijnen JE Mixing online and face-to-face therapy: how to benefit from blended care in mental health care JMIR Ment Health 2016 02 09 3 1 e9 10.2196/mental.4534 26860537 v3i1e9 PMC4764785 Du S Liu W Cai S Hu Y Dong J The efficacy of e-health in the self-management of chronic low back pain: a meta analysis Int J Nurs Stud 2020 06 106 103507 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103507 32320936 S0020-7489(19)30314-1 Dario AB Moreti Cabral A Almeida L Ferreira M Refshauge K Simic M Pappas E Ferreira PH Effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions in the management of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis Spine J 2017 09 17 9 1342 51 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.008 28412562 S1529-9430(17)30142-0 Kloek CJ van Tilburg ML Staal JB Veenhof C Bossen D Development and proof of concept of a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain Physiotherapy 2019 12 105 4 483 91 10.1016/j.physio.2018.12.006 31031023 S0031-9406(19)30005-7 Koppenaal T Arensman R van Dongen JM Ostelo R Veenhof C Kloek C Pisters MF Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy in patients with non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020 04 22 21 1 265 10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z 32321492 10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z PMC7175532 Koppenaal T Pisters M Kloek C Arensman R Ostelo R Veenhof C The 3-month effectiveness of a stratified blended physiotherapy intervention in patients with nonspecific low back pain: cluster randomized controlled trial J Med Internet Res 2022 02 24 2 e31675 10.2196/preprints.31675 Staal JB Hendriks EJ Heijmans M Kiers H Rutten AM Tulder MW KNGF-richtlijn Lage rugpijn Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie 2020 2023-11-12 https://www.kngf.nl/kennisplatform/richtlijnen Hill JC Dunn KM Lewis M Mullis R Main CJ Foster NE Hay EM A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment Arthritis Rheum 2008 05 15 59 5 632 41 10.1002/art.23563 18438893 Chiarotto A Terwee CB Ostelo RW Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2016 12 30 6 1003 20 10.1016/j.berh.2017.07.001 29103546 S1521-6942(17)30006-2 Fairbank JC Pynsent PB The Oswestry Disability Index Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000 11 15 25 22 2940 52 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 11074683 EuroQol Group EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life Health Policy 1990 12 16 3 199 208 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 10109801 0168-8510(90)90421-9 Herdman M Gudex C Lloyd A Janssen M Kind P Parkin D Bonsel G Badia X Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res 2011 12 20 10 1727 36 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x 21479777 PMC3220807 M Versteegh M M Vermeulen K M A A Evers S de Wit GA Prenger R A Stolk E Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D Value Health 2016 06 19 4 343 52 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003 27325326 S1098-3015(16)00009-7 Drummond MF Sculpher MJ Claxton K Stoddart GL Torrance GW Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 2015 Oxford, UK Oxford University Press Dworkin RH Turk D Wyrwich K Beaton D Cleeland C Farrar J Haythornthwaite JA Jensen MP Kerns RD Ader DN Brandenburg N Burke LB Cella D Chandler J Cowan P Dimitrova R Dionne R Hertz S Jadad AR Katz NP Kehlet H Kramer LD Manning DC McCormick C McDermott MP McQuay HJ Patel S Porter L Quessy S Rappaport BA Rauschkolb C Revicki DA Rothman M Schmader KE Stacey BR Stauffer JW von Stein T White RE Witter J Zavisic S Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations J Pain 2008 02 9 2 105 21 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 18055266 S1526-5900(07)00899-1 Horemans H Kooijmans H van den Berg-Emons R Bussmann H The Activ8 activity monitor: validation of posture and movement classification J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2020 7 2055668319890535 10.1177/2055668319890535 32206335 10.1177_2055668319890535 PMC7079304 Waddell G Newton M Henderson I Somerville D Main CJ A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability Pain 1993 02 52 2 157 68 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B 8455963 00006396-199302000-00005 Sullivan MJ Bishop SR Pivik J The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation Psychol Assess 1995 12 7 4 524 32 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524 Teeuw B Schwarzer R Jerusalem M Dutch Adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale 1994 2017-12-13 http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/dutch.htm Scholz U Dona BG Sud S Schwarzer R Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries Eur J Psychol Assess 2002 18 242 51 Rademakers J Nijman J van der Hoek L Heijmans M Rijken M Measuring patient activation in the Netherlands: translation and validation of the American short form Patient Activation Measure (PAM13) BMC Public Health 2012 07 31 12 577 10.1186/1471-2458-12-577 22849664 1471-2458-12-577 PMC3490810 Newman-Beinart NA Norton S Dowling D Gavriloff D Vari C Weinman JA Godfrey EL The development and initial psychometric evaluation of a measure assessing adherence to prescribed exercise: the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) Physiotherapy 2017 06 103 2 180 5 10.1016/j.physio.2016.11.001 27913064 S0031-9406(16)30480-1 Consumentenprijzen; prijsindex 2015=100 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2023 2021-09-13 https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/83131NED Kanters TA Bouwmans CA van der Linden N Tan SS Hakkaart-van Roijen L Update of the Dutch manual for costing studies in health care PLoS One 2017 12 11 e0187477 10.1371/journal.pone.0187477 29121647 PONE-D-16-29162 PMC5679627 van den DJ Schermer T Zorg door de fysiotherapeut. Jaarcijfers 2018 en trendcijfers 2014-2018 Utrecht: Nivel 2018 2021-09-13 https://www.nivel.nl/nl/publicatie/zorg-door-de-fysiotherapeut-jaarcijfers-2018-en-trendcijfers-2014-2018 Medicijnkosten.nl Zorginstituut Nederland 2021-09-13 https://www.medicijnkosten.nl/ Home page Zorginstituut Nederland 2023-11-12 https://www.medicijnkosten.nl/ Hakkaart-van Roijen L Tan SS Bouwmans CA Hakkaart-van RL Tan S Bouwmans C Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg Coll Voor Zorgverzekeringen 2011 1 127 10.1007/s12508-012-0128-3 Koopmanschap MA Rutten FF van Ineveld B van Roijen L The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease J Health Econ 1995 06 14 2 171 89 10.1016/0167-6296(94)00044-5 10154656 0167629694000445 Koopmanschap MA PRODISQ: a modular questionnaire on productivity and disease for economic evaluation studies Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005 02 5 1 23 8 10.1586/14737167.5.1.23 19807557 Kregel J Vuijk P Descheemaeker F Keizer D van der Noord R Nijs J Cagnie B Meeus M van Wilgen P The Dutch Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI): factor analysis, discriminative power, and test-retest reliability Clin J Pain 2016 07 32 7 624 30 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000306 26418360 Hill JC Whitehurst DG Lewis M Bryan S Dunn KM Foster NE Konstantinou K Main CJ Mason E Somerville S Sowden G Vohora K Hay EM Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial Lancet 2011 10 378 1560 71 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.11.020 White IR Royston P Wood AM Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice Stat Med 2011 02 20 30 4 377 99 10.1002/sim.4067 21225900 Rubin DB Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys 1987 Hoboken, NJ John Wiley & Sons Goldstein H Multilevel statistical Models. 4th edition 2010 New York City, NY Halsted Press Zorginstituut Nederland Ziektelast in de praktijk De theorie en praktijk van het berekenen van ziektelast bij pakketbeoordelingen Diemen 2018 2023-11-12 https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/rapport/2018/05/07/ziektelast -in-de-praktijk Campbell MK Piaggio G Elbourne D Altman D CONSORT Group Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials BMJ 2012 09 04 345 e5661 10.1136/bmj.e5661 22951546 bmj.e5661 Fritz JM Irrgang J A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale Phys Ther 2001 02 81 2 776 88 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776 11175676 Resnik L Dobrzykowski E Guide to outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain syndromes J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2003 06 33 6 307 18 10.2519/jospt.2003.33.6.307 12839205 Apeldoorn AT Ostelo RW van Helvoirt H Fritz JM Knol DL van Tulder MW de Vet HC A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a classification-based system for subacute and chronic low back pain Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 07 15 37 16 1347 56 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824d9f2b 22333955 Vickers AJ How many repeated measures in repeated measures designs? Statistical issues for comparative trials BMC Med Res Methodol 2003 10 27 3 22 10.1186/1471-2288-3-22 14580266 1471-2288-3-22 PMC280679 Stark C Cunningham J Turner P Johnson M Bäcker HC App-based rehabilitation in back pain, a systematic review J Pers Med 2022 09 22 12 10 1558 10.3390/jpm12101558 36294697 jpm12101558 PMC9604788 Hancock MJ Hill JC Are small effects for back pain interventions really surprising? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016 05 46 5 317 9 10.2519/jospt.2016.0604 27133941 Foster NE Hill JC Knoop J Are we giving stratified care a fair trial? J Physiother 2023 04 69 2 65 7 10.1016/j.jphys.2023.02.014 36914522 S1836-9553(23)00015-2 Sandal LF Bach K Øverås CK Svendsen M Dalager T Stejnicher Drongstrup Jensen J Kongsvold A Nordstoga AL Bardal EM Ashikhmin I Wood K Rasmussen CD Stochkendahl MJ Nicholl BI Wiratunga N Cooper K Hartvigsen J Kjær P Sjøgaard G Nilsen TI Mair FS Søgaard K Mork PJ Effectiveness of app-delivered, tailored self-management support for adults with lower back pain-related disability: a selfBACK randomized clinical trial JAMA Intern Med 2021 10 01 181 10 1288 96 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4097 34338710 2782459 PMC8329791 Suman A Schaafsma F van Dongen JM Elders P Buchbinder R van Tulder MW Anema JR Effectiveness and cost-utility of a multifaceted eHealth strategy to improve back pain beliefs of patients with non-specific low back pain: a cluster randomised trial BMJ Open 2019 12 05 9 12 e030879 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030879 31811006 bmjopen-2019-030879 PMC6924789 Miyamoto GC Lin C Cabral C van Dongen JM van Tulder MW Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of non-specific neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis Br J Sports Med 2019 02 53 3 172 81 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098765 29678893 bjsports-2017-098765 Carr JL Klaber Moffett JA Howarth E Richmond S Torgerson D Jackson D Metcalfe CJ A randomized trial comparing a group exercise programme for back pain patients with individual physiotherapy in a severely deprived area Disabil Rehabil 2005 08 19 27 16 929 37 10.1080/09638280500030639 16096246 T2476Q6602265425 Chuang LH Soares MO Tilbrook H Cox H Hewitt CE Aplin J Semlyen A Trewhela A Watt I Torgerson DJ A pragmatic multicentered randomized controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: economic evaluation Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 08 15 37 18 1593 601 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182545937 22433499 van der Roer N van Tulder M van Mechelen W de Vet H Economic evaluation of an intensive group training protocol compared with usual care physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 02 15 33 4 445 51 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318163fa59 18277878 00007632-200802150-00016 WHO guideline: recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening: evidence and recommendation World Health Organization 2019 2023-10-31 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550505 Achten JP Mooren-van der Meer S Pisters MF Veenhof C Koppenaal T Kloek CJ Self-management behaviour after a physiotherapist guided blended self-management intervention in patients with chronic low back pain: a qualitative study Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2022 12 62 102675 10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102675 36332333 S2468-7812(22)00175-8 Chiarotto A Koes BW Nonspecific low back pain N Engl J Med 2022 05 05 386 18 1732 40 10.1056/NEJMcp2032396 35507483 Hayden JA van Tulder MW Malmivaara A Koes BW Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 07 20 2005 3 CD000335 10.1002/14651858.CD000335.pub2 16034851 PMC10068907 Kloek CJ Bossen D de Vries HJ de Bakker DH Veenhof C Dekker J Physiotherapists' experiences with a blended osteoarthritis intervention: a mixed methods study Physiother Theory Pract 2020 05 36 5 572 9 10.1080/09593985.2018.1489926 29952687 Collins JJ Baase CM Sharda CE Ozminkowski RJ Nicholson S Billotti GM Turpin RS Olson M Berger ML The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers J Occup Environ Med 2005 06 47 6 547 57 10.1097/01.jom.0000166864.58664.29 15951714 00043764-200506000-00005 Allen D Hines EW Pazdernik V Konecny LT Breitenbach E Four-year review of presenteeism data among employees of a large United States health care system: a retrospective prevalence study Hum Resour Health 2018 11 09 16 1 59 10.1186/s12960-018-0321-9 30413168 10.1186/s12960-018-0321-9 PMC6234777 Bergström G Bodin L Hagberg J Lindh T Aronsson G Josephson M Does sickness presenteeism have an impact on future general health? Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2009 11 82 10 1179 90 10.1007/s00420-009-0433-6 19504117 Brouwer WB van Exel NJ Baltussen RM Rutten FF A dollar is a dollar is a dollar--or is it? Value Health 2006 09 9 5 341 7 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00123.x 16961552 S1098-3015(10)60443-3 Versteegh M Knies S Brouwer W From good to better: new Dutch guidelines for economic evaluations in healthcare Pharmacoeconomics 2016 11 34 11 1071 4 10.1007/s40273-016-0431-y 27613159 10.1007/s40273-016-0431-y Kloek CJ van Dongen JM de Bakker DH Bossen D Dekker J Veenhof C Cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomized controlled trial BMC Public Health 2018 08 31 18 1 1082 10.1186/s12889-018-5975-7 30170586 10.1186/s12889-018-5975-7 PMC6119267 Aboagye E Karlsson ML Hagberg J Jensen I Cost-effectiveness of early interventions for non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled study investigating medical yoga, exercise therapy and self-care advice J Rehabil Med 2015 02 47 2 167 73 10.2340/16501977-1910 25403347