Review ArticleWhich interventions are cost-effective for the management of whiplash-associated and neck pain-associated disorders? A systematic review of the health economic literature by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration
Introduction
Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) are prevalent health concerns that impose a significant economic burden on health-care systems [1], [2], [3]. Whiplash-associated disorders affect 83% of persons involved in traffic collisions, whereas the 12-month prevalence of NAD in the general population ranges from 30% to 50% [3], [4]. Recovery from these conditions can be prolonged and associated with high health resource use [5]. Costs related to managing these conditions are substantial because of medical costs and costs associated with productivity changes [6], [7].
Health economic evidence on the management of WAD and NAD is sparse. A 2008 systematic review by the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (NPTF) identified only three economic evaluations of interventions for NAD and none for WAD [8]. This gap in the health economic evidence prompted the NPTF to recommend cost-effectiveness analyses of WAD and NAD interventions as important research priorities [9].
For the management of NAD in adults, the NPTF found that
- •
Acupuncture added to routine medical care appeared to be cost-effective [10];
- •
Manual therapy appeared to be cost-effective [11];
- •
Psychological care consisting of self-management using cognitive-behavioral therapy principles appeared to be cost-effective [12]; and
- •
Multimodal care by a physiotherapist or physician appeared not to be cost-effective [10], [11], [12].
Increasing health resource use has led governments to identify the appropriate management of WAD as a health policy priority [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. An updated overview of the health economic literature is needed to inform imminent health-care policy decisions and guidelines. Accordingly, the aim of our systematic review was to determine the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive interventions for the treatment of grades I–III WAD and NAD.
Section snippets
Methods
We conducted and reported this review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [18], [19].
Study selection
Our search identified 1,616 citations (Fig. 1). From these, six met our eligibility criteria and had a low risk of bias (Table 3) [10], [11], [12], [35], [36], [37]. Three of these six studies were previously included in the NPTF's review of non-invasive interventions [10], [11], [12]. Inter-rater agreement for screening citations for relevant studies was k=0.92 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.00). The percentage agreement for the independent critical appraisal of studies was 100%.
All six economic evaluations
Discussion
Since the NPTF review was published in 2008, the literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for WAD and NAD has advanced. Our systematic search identified the first economic evaluation of interventions for grades I–III WAD in adults [36], and a further two economic evaluations of interventions for grades I–II NAD in adults [35], [37]. Collectively, these provide evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture, education, manual therapy, pulsed shortwave diathermy, and selected
Conclusions
Our review identified new evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for WAD and NAD, including the first economic evaluation of interventions for grades I–III WAD in adults. Obtaining more robust health economic evidence on the efficiency of non-invasive interventions for WAD and NAD in children and adults is an essential research priority.
References (42)
- et al.
Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996
Pain
(1999) - et al.
Health resource utilisation costs in acute patients with persistent midline cervical tenderness following road trauma
Injury
(2012) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic neck pain
Pain
(2006) Best-evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis
J Clin Epidemiol
(1995)- et al.
The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond
Value Health
(2008) - et al.
Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response
J Clin Epidemiol
(1992) The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies
J Health Econ
(1999)- et al.
Emergency department treatments and physiotherapy for acute whiplash: a pragmatic, two-step, randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2013) - et al.
Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management
Spine
(1995) - et al.
A new conceptual model of neck pain: linking onset, course, and care: the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
Spine
(2008)
The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
Spine
The effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury
NEJM
Course and prognostic factors of neck pain in the general population. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
Spine
Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
Spine
Research priorities and methodological implications. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
Spine
Cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, manual therapy, and general practitioner care for neck pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial
Br Med J
Randomized trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: cost-effectiveness analysis
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
Early aggressive care and delayed recovery from whiplash: isolated finding or reproducible result?
Arthritis Rheum
A consultation on arrangements concerning whiplash injuries in England and Wales
Does multidiscliplinary rehabilitation benefit whiplash recovery? Results of a population-based incidence cohort study
Spine
Whiplash claimants health outcomes and costs pre and post the 1999 NSW CTP legislative reforms
Cited by (21)
External validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with neck pain
2021, Brazilian Journal of Physical TherapyDeep tissue massage, strengthening and stretching exercises, and a combination of both compared with advice to stay active for subacute or persistent non-specific neck pain: A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Stockholm Neck trial (STONE)
2020, Musculoskeletal Science and PracticeCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, exercises provided alone (Hollinghurst et al., 2008) or in combination with advice (Velde et al., 2016) are cost-effective for neck pain. In addition, one session of education is cost-effective for whiplash associated disorders (Velde et al., 2016). An economic evaluation of these types of therapies for disabling non-specific neck pain is warranted.
Acute effect of Korean hand acupuncture on neck pain: A randomized controlled preliminary study
2019, European Journal of Integrative MedicineCitation Excerpt :When we considered the differences between the results of ROM at T1 vs T0 for each group, we observed that the comparison between groups also shown statistically significant differences (p = 0.001) with a significant improvement of movement in the experimental group. Different studies suggest that acupuncture may be a cost-effective intervention in the management of a number of painful conditions, including headache, neck pain, and back pain [7,28,29]. In contemporary acupuncture practice, many alternative models are available to treat any particular presentation.
Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review
2018, Journal of PhysiotherapyCitation Excerpt :High baseline neck pain intensity and disability scores have been identified as predictors for poor outcome in people with neck pain.4 Cost-effectiveness and short-term beneficial effects of non-invasive primary care treatment have been reported, while long-term effects are still limited.5–8 Subgrouping of people with neck pain based on their prognosis may enhance treatment outcomes by enabling tailored treatment and management strategies.9–11
A slap on the back and a pat on the head
2016, Spine JournalEvidence-Based Nonpharmacologic Strategies for Comprehensive Pain Care: The Consortium Pain Task Force White Paper
2018, ExploreCitation Excerpt :A curious and compelling finding in a large trial performing a one to one propensity score match (a statistical matching technique that attempts to estimate the effects of a treatment by accounting for the covariates that predict receiving the treatment) of 58,899 patients who received acupuncture for fibromyalgia to 58,899 who did not have acupuncture found the cumulative incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) was significantly lower in the acupuncture cohort independent of age, sex, comorbidities or statins used.453 Systematic reviews have shown manual therapy is a cost-effective treatment for adults with whiplash-associated and neck pain-associated disorders320 and is also more cost-effective for improving low back and shoulder pain than general practice care that included exercise, stabilization and/or advice.321 An inclusive review of effective nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic low back pain (33 studies) found cost-effectiveness for combined physical and psychological treatments, medical yoga, information and education programs, acupuncture therapy and spinal manipulation.211
FDA device/drug status: Not applicable.
Author disclosures: GV: Nothing to disclose. HY: Nothing to disclose. MP: Nothing to disclose. PC: Grants: Ontario Ministry of Finance (I, Paid directly to institution/employer), pertaining to the submitted work; Consulting: Canadian Chiropractic Protective Association (B); Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: National Judicial Institute (A), Societe des Medecins Experts du Quebec (A); Trips/Travel: European Spine Society (B, Paid directly to institution/employer); Grants: Canada Research Chair—Canadian Institutes of Health Research (F, Paid directly to institution/employer), outside the submitted work. SV: Nothing to disclose. HMS: Nothing to disclose. JJW: Nothing to disclose. KR: Nothing to disclose. DaS: Nothing to disclose. SM: Consulting Fee or Honorarium: MIG Project (B, Guideline Expert Panel member), pertaining to the submitted work. DeS: Nothing to disclose. CJ: Nothing to disclose. ATV: Nothing to disclose.
The disclosure key can be found on the Table of Contents and at www.TheSpineJournalOnline.com.
This study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Finance (RFP# No.: OSS_00267175) and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. The funding agency was not involved in the collection of data, data analysis, interpretation of data, or drafting of the paper. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program (#950-228941).
Systematic Review Registration Number: CRD42013004354.