TY - JOUR
T1 - Is a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline more effective than general practitioner education or preferred-provider rehabilitation in promoting recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial
AU - Côté, Pierre
AU - Boyle, Eleanor
AU - Shearer, Heather M.
AU - Stupar, Maja
AU - Jacobs, Craig
AU - Cassidy, John David
AU - Carette, Simon
AU - Van Der Velde, Gabrielle
AU - Wong, Jessica J.
AU - Hogg-Johnson, Sheilah
AU - Ammendolia, Carlo
AU - Hayden, Jill Alison
AU - Van Tulder, Maurits
AU - Frank, John W.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. Design Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Setting Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. Participants 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: Government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. Primary and secondary outcome measures Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. Results The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (X 2 =3.96; 2 df: P=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. Conclusions Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.
AB - Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. Design Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Setting Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. Participants 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: Government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. Primary and secondary outcome measures Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. Results The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (X 2 =3.96; 2 df: P=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. Conclusions Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.
KW - activation
KW - physician education
KW - physiotherapy
KW - randomized controlled trial
KW - treatment
KW - whiplash-associated disorders
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060547445&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060547445&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021283
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021283
M3 - Article
C2 - 30679283
AN - SCOPUS:85060547445
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 9
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 1
M1 - e021283
ER -