11 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
This study aims to compare the self-report functional outcome measures, medical readiness and healthcare utilization (overall cost of imaging, prescription medications for pain, and follow-up visits) of soldiers with musculoskeletal injuries first seen by a physical therapist versus primary care provider.
The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes and costs associated with two different management strategies for patients with acute low back pain who consult their primary care physician. The investigators hypothesize that management using a brief, standardized physical therapy intervention will result in better outcomes than management based on current practice guideline recommendations of watchful waiting for the first 4 weeks following consultation.
The goal of this study is to improve pain management and reduce opioid reliance for patients with chronic back pain in Utah Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). The study compares the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic pain treatments using telehealth to overcome access barriers. We will use automated EHR reminders for electronic referral to teleconsult services. Our project tests adaptive treatments and uses a hybrid type I design - focused on effectiveness outcomes while gathering implementation data to inform future efforts to scale effective strategies.
This study aims to examine patient outcomes following risk stratification for low back pain in Family Medicine combined with either matched physical therapy (PT - i.e., stratified-specific PT) treatments or current treatment in primary care across The University of Vermont Health Network.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether seeing a physical therapist first compared with seeing a physician first is more clinically and cost effective in an occupational setting for acute musculoskeletal conditions.
The primary purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two management strategies for patients with a recent onset of low back pain (LBP). One is based on usual care and the other is based on early access to physical therapy following a pragmatic treatment-based classification approach. The secondary purposes are to compare the subsequent healthcare utilization associated with two management strategies as well as to evaluate the importance of psychosocial factors on outcomes within both groups of treatment. The overall hypothesis guiding the study is that the additional initial treatment expense incurred by early implementation will result in superior short-term clinical effectiveness, and will be more cost-effective in the long-term due to reduced healthcare utilization. We will also explore the importance of psychosocial factors on outcomes within both treatment groups, which may provide insights for further improving treatment strategies.
Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem among US adults. Initial episodes tend to be self-limited ("acute"), but some people can progress to a state of persistent pain. Often termed "chronic" LBP (cLBP), this condition can cause prolonged difficulty with most daily activities, including job performance. This study will compare two approaches for preventing patients with acute LBP (aLBP) from developing cLBP using a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial. The first approach is to provide PCPs with information regarding a patient's risk of transitioning from aLBP to cLBP and to encourage PCPs to treat patients according to accepted clinical guidelines. The second approach is to provide the same risk information and have PCPs team up with physical therapists to deliver psychologically-informed physical therapy (PIPT) for those patients determined to be at high risk for transitioning to cLBP. The 1,860 patients expected to be enrolled at five regional sites (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Boston, Massachusetts; Baltimore, Maryland; Charleston, South Carolina; and Salt Lake City, Utah) will start the study when their LBP is in an acute phase. The study's primary aims are to compare the proportions of cLBP and measures of functional ability between the two groups at 6 months. Secondary aims are to measure the referrals to physical therapists and specialists, opioid prescriptions, LBP-related x-rays or MRIs, surgeries, and other medical procedures during a 12-month follow-up period.
This study is a randomized controlled trial conducted at two clinical sites. The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients with musculoskeletal injuries do better by seeing a primary care provider first versus seeing a physical therapist first. Target enrollment is 150 subjects.
Current practice guidelines for patients with acute low back pain (LBP) recommend a stepped care approach with initial treatment of education and advice to remain active. Referral to physical therapy is considered only when patients fail to recover after a few weeks. Recent research has led to the identification a subgroup of patients likely to experience rapid, pronounced, and sustained decreases in disability and pain with a brief manipulation and exercise intervention, suggesting it may be more cost-effective to manage this sub-group with early referral to physical therapy instead of the usual care approach. The integration of this evidence into routine practice has not been evaluated. We will assess the outcomes of integrating this evidence into the management of patients with low back pain. The study is a randomized trial, comparing management with early manipulation with the current care process model. Patients fitting the inclusion criteria will be randomized into one of two groups. One group will be managed with the current care process model. The other group will be managed consistent with the decision rule recommending early referral for a brief manipulation and exercise intervention during the first 4 weeks. Patients will be followed over 1 year. Outcomes will include measures of disability, pain, satisfaction, and direct medical costs. The study will examine the costs and effectiveness of integrating the alternative care model into practice.
The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of tailored lifestyle intervention in primary care by comparing changes in the primary measure of weight and body mass index (BMI) and secondarily: physical activity (PA), fat calories consumed, and fruit/vegetable servings within the two arms (intervention and control) of the study. It is hypothesized that the intervention cohort will demonstrate greater reductions in body weight, body neglect, and fat calories consumed and greater increases in physical activity and fruits/vegetable servings after two years compared to the control cohort. The study also aims to evaluate and compare the cost of intervention for purpose per each unit of measure lost between the two arms of the study as a secondary objective. The cost of intervention will be evaluated as it relates to study replication.
The PATRIOT study will evaluate a risk-based personalized behavioral intervention to improve foot self-care, self-monitoring, and modifiable risks for amputation such as blood glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol in order to prevent diabetic foot ulcers in patients at higher than normal risk for amputation. This novel intervention aims to improve self-care and early detection of foot abnormalities in at-risk patients with diabetes and poor foot self-care using advanced behavioral approaches to target adherence to multiple health behaviors, including foot self-care, self-monitoring, medication adherence, dietary adherence, and physical activity simultaneously. If this promising behavioral theory-driven approach delivered using common technology (phone) to the patient at home can work in a setting where improvements in foot care are so urgent, it will be an important scientific contribution.