Low Back PainPRIME BackNCT07137065
A Multilevel Intervention for Low Back Pain Management in Primary Care
A study testing PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME) in people with Low Back Pain, run by Guillaume Christe at 2 sites in Switzerland.
Trial summary
Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and one of the main reasons for consulting in primary care. This project aims to improve the management of people with low back pain in primary care through an innovative intervention developed in collaboration with general practitioners, physiotherapists, and… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Low Back Pain
- What is being tested?
- PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 500 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 5 Feb 2026to 30 Jun 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients consulting their participating general practitioner for a primary concern of LBP (with or without leg pain)
- Above 18 years old
Who cannot join
- If they had consulted their general practitioner for a primary concern of LBP in the past 3 months, as care was already started prior to the study.
- Unable to give consent (eg. cognitive impairment)
- Unable to access comfortably an electronic device to answer the questionnaires (smartphone, computer)
- Unable to answer questionnaires in French
- Known pregnancy
- Have had back surgery in the last 6 months
- Any specific cause of LBP (e.g. inflammatory arthritis, malignancy, infection, fracture, cauda equina syndrome).
- a major strength deficit (M3 and below) due to radiculopathy or have to be referred directly to emergency or a specialist because of that. As specific causes of LBP may be unknown at the first consultation in primary care, patients with a confirmed diagnosis of specific LBP could be excluded post-allocation by an independent doctor that is part of the Data Monitoring Committee.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Switzerland2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Geneva
Geneva, Canton of Geneva, 1200
Stephane Genevay, Prof., stephane.genevay@hug.ch
- Recruiting
Vaud
Lausanne, Canton of Vaud, 1011
Guillaume Christe, PhD, 021 556 62 67, guillaume.christe@hesav.ch
About this study
Official title: A Multilevel Intervention for Low Back Pain Management in Primary Care: An Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Study
Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and one of the main reasons for consulting in primary care. This project aims to improve the management of people with low back pain in primary care through an innovative intervention developed in collaboration with general practitioners, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.
The main objective is to test the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention designed to improve the care pathway for individuals with low back pain consulting their general practitioner. The intervention supports healthcare professionals in adopting practices based on current guidelines, promotes patient education, and offers an interprofessional care pathway tailored to each person's needs and profile.
Read more
The study will include over 100 general practitioners in French-speaking Switzerland, randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (usual care). Around 500 patients will be followed according to their doctor's approach. Their progress will be monitored over 12 months using questionnaires and administrative data.
This project addresses an urgent need to improve the care pathway in primary care. It will rigorously assess the effectiveness of this new care approach and explore the barriers and facilitators to its integration into daily practice, taking into account the experiences of both healthcare professionals and the people concerned.
Read the detailed description
Using an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type I design, this study aims to test the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention in primary care for patients with LBP and investigate the implementation processes.
The primary objectives are to test the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention in primary care for patients with low back pain (PRIME: PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain) compared with usual care in terms of: (1.1) Cost-effectiveness (system-level) (1.2) Imaging prescription rate (practitioner-level); (1.3) Self-reported back-related disability (patient-level).
Secondary objectives are:
2.1 To evaluate the effectiveness of the PRIME intervention on opioid prescription rate and sick leave days prescription by general practitioners (practitioner-level) 2.2 To evaluate the effectiveness of the PRIME intervention on pain intensity, work participation, health-related quality of life, global perceived change, Pain Self-Efficacy, Fear Avoidance Beliefs, and beliefs about LBP (patient-level) 2.3 To evaluate the effectiveness of the training on clinicians' beliefs about LBP and confidence in treating patients with LBP (practitioner-level)
As an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design type 1 study, implementation process outcomes are secondary objectives. These include: (3.1) evaluating the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity and adoption of the multilevel intervention among general practitioners, physiotherapists and occupational therapists; (3.2) exploring barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the multilevel intervention among healthcare practitioners; (3.3) exploring the experience of a biopsychosocial 2-day experiential workshop among trained physiotherapists; (3.4) exploring the experience and acceptability of the multilevel intervention among patients.
The study is a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the unit of randomization being quality circles of general practitioners affiliated with a care network in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. A total of 20 quality circles will be randomized into intervention and control arms. Each quality circle includes multiple general practitioner practices, and approximately 100 general practitioners will participate in total.
General practitioners in the intervention group will receive a multilevel intervention including: general practitioners training, reminders, tools for patients education and a dedicated clinical pathway. The clinical pathway includes a gradual stratified care pathway based on risk factors for chronicity. The core interventions of this 3-step clinical pathway are education and self-management, individual sessions with a trained physiotherapist, and multidisciplinary group management. Physiotherapists providing individual sessions in the intervention group will all have participated in a two-day workshop to improve their knowledge of good clinical practice and develop their competence to manage risk factors of chronicity within a biopsychosocial framework. They will be trained to address unhelpful beliefs and avoidance behaviors through good communication and gradual exposure exercises, as improving unhelpful beliefs and reducing kinesiophobia are important mediators of successful rehabilitation. If general practitioners recommend multidisciplinary group management, patients will receive a comprehensive assessment of risk factors and tailored education by an experienced occupational therapist. If this confirms the need for multidisciplinary group management, patients will receive a structured outpatient multidisciplinary group rehabilitation for LBP that specifically targets physical and psychological factors.
The clinical pathway provides advice to general practitioners at three stages:
In the first consultation, general practitioners will screen for red flags, reassure and explain LBP to patients with the above-mentioned resources, and prescribe medication if needed. They will also decide whether the patient needs to immediately start physiotherapy sessions with a trained physiotherapist.
Ten days after the first consultation, patients will receive an SMS/email directing them to an online questionnaire that assesses risk factors of chronicity (Start Back Tool) and their ability to work. General practitioners will automatically receive via email a summary of the risk of chronicity (low, medium or high) and the patient ability to work. The email will only communicate the current state of the patient and the general practitioner is free to decide whether to follow the clinical pathway recommendation, as independence of practice is also important for implementation. If the patient has already been prescribed trained physiotherapy, it is suggested that nothing is changed at that time (10 days), independent of the level of risk. Coordination of care with the physiotherapist is strongly advised in this case. In case physiotherapy has not yet been prescribed, general practitioners are advised the following:
(i) If the patient is able to work normally and has a low risk of chronicity, he or she should continue to self-manage and the general practitioner should decide to organize a follow-up meeting based on the patient needs; (ii) If the patient has a medium or high risk of chronicity, or is still not able to work normally because of LBP, the general practitioner is advised to prescribe 6 sessions of trained physiotherapy (with the possibility to prescribe additional sessions in the future).
At 6 weeks after the first consultation, patients will receive another SMS/email with the same questionnaire to fill out, and general practitioners will receive the automated email again. At 6 weeks, general practitioners will be advised the following:
(i) If the patient is able to work normally and has a low risk of chronicity, it is probable that the patient has recovered. Therefore, no new treatment should be started and physical activity should be promoted. A follow-up consultation can be organized if needed.
(ii) If the patient is able to work normally and has a medium risk of chronicity, prescription of trained physiotherapy would be advised for 6 sessions if not yet started. If physiotherapy was already started and the patient is improving, 6 additional sessions could be offered at this stage based on patient and physiotherapist reports; (iii) If the patient is not able to work normally or has high risk of chronicity, general practitioners would be advised to offer a comprehensive assessment of risk factors and tailored education by a specialized occupational therapist. If this confirms the need for multidisciplinary treatment, multidisciplinary management could be started.
Importantly, for patients that have already started physiotherapy, physiotherapists and general practitioners are advised to work together to coordinate care, as interprofessional collaboration was highlighted to be a critical point in the pilot study.
The primary effectiveness outcomes include patient-reported back-related disability (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), the proportion of patients referred for spinal imaging within three months, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Secondary patient outcomes include pain intensity, health-related quality of life, work participation, pain self-efficacy, fear avoidance beliefs, general beliefs about LBP, and global perceived improvement. Practitioner-level outcomes include opioid and sick leave prescription rates, as well as changes in GP confidence and beliefs about LBP.
General practitioners in the control group will have no specific training or intervention and will treat patients according to their usual practice.
Implementation outcomes are evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative methods. These include the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, and fidelity of the intervention among general practitioners, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. The experience of the physiotherapists who complete a two-day biopsychosocial training workshop is also explored. Patient perspectives on the acceptability of the intervention will be collected through interviews or focus groups.
Patients data collection will occur at baseline and at 10 days, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Patients complete questionnaires online via REDCap at each time point. Administrative data and prescribing behavior are also collected to complement self-reported outcomes. General practitioners will complete questionnaires before and after training and at the end of the recruitment period. Focus groups and interviews with healthcare professionals and patients will be recorded, anonymized, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
The target sample size is at least 500 patients, with approximately 25 per cluster. Recruitment may exceed this number to ensure that a minimum of 200 patients per group complete the 6-month follow-up. The study has been powered to detect a minimal clinically important difference of 2.5 points on the Roland-Morris scale, assuming a standard deviation of 6 and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.05. Analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle, using linear and generalized linear mixed models to account for clustering. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both the healthcare payer and societal perspectives using the EQ-5D-5L.
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Being tested
- PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME), Usual Care
- Keywords
- Primary care, Guidelines implementation
- Medical subject headings
- Low Back Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME)Behavioural
Also called Healthcare professional training, Reminders, Patient education, Stratified care
The multilevel intervention includes four main components:
- GP training. GPs will receive training to improve their confidence in LBP guidelines, diagnostic triage and best practice. Furthermore, they will be trained to provide both general and cognitive reassurance to patients, use a stratified care strategy and improve interprofessional communication. 2. Reminders. GPs will receive regular reminders by email to reinforce the integration of high-value care into practice. 3. Patient education. GPs will reassure patients, help them understand their LBP in the initial consultation and target unhelpful beliefs about LBP. 4. Clinical pathway. The clinical pathway includes a gradual stratified care pathway based on risk factors for chronicity. The core interventions of this 3-step clinical pathway are education and self-management, individual sessions with a trained physiotherapist, and multidisciplinary group management. GPs remain free to make all clinical decisions.
Usual CareOther
In this arm, general practitioners will treat their patients as usual. They can prescribed any treatment or diagnostic tests to their patients.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME) | Experimental | For general practitioners in this arm, they will receive 2 x 1 hour of training, will have access to trained physiotherapists and will use a dedicated clinical pathway based on risk of chronicity. Receives: Behavioral: PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME) |
| Usual Care | Active comparator | General practitioners in this arm will continue to practice as usual. Receives: Other: Usual Care |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire
Primary system-level outcome measures will be the mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire from a healthcare payer and a societal perspective
Measured: 0-12 months period after enrolment
Back-related imaging rate (%) among patients with low back pain
The primary practitioner-level outcome measure will be the back-related imaging rate (%) among patients with LBP during 6 months after the primary consultation.
Measured: 0-6 months period after enrolment
Self-reported back-related disability measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire
The primary patient-level outcome will be self-reported back-related disability measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) six months after the initial general practitioner consultation
Measured: 6 months after enrolment
Secondary outcomes (18)
Pain intensity with the Numerical Rating Scale
Secondary patient-level outcome measures will be pain intensity with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Health-related quality of life (HRQL) with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire
Secondary patient-level outcome measures will be health-related quality of life (HRQL) with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire
Measured: 3, 6, 12 months after enrolment
Work participation with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI)
Work participation will be measured with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) (patient-level outcome)
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Pain Self-Efficacy with the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire short form (PSEQ-2)
Pain Self-efficacy will be measured by the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire short form (PSEQ-2) (patient-level outcome)
Measured: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Fear of movement
Fear of movement will be measured with the Brief Screening Questions on Fear of movement (Kent al. 2014) (patient level outcome)
Measured: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Catastrophization
Catastrophization will be measured with the Brief Screening Questions on Fear of movement (Kent al. 2014) (patient level outcome)
Measured: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Anxiety
Anxiety will be measured with the single question from the Orebro short form questionnaire (patient-level outcome)
Measured: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Depression
Depression will be measured with the single question from the Orebro short form questionnaire (patient-level outcome)
Measured: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Beliefs about back pain
Beliefs about back pain will be measured with the 10-item Back-PAQ questionnaire (patient-level outcome)
Measured: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Short question about confidence to perform activities people value
Based on the advice of our patient partner, we added this question (patient-level outcome):
How confident are you in your back's ability to support you in your daily activities?
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Short question about capacity to perform activities people value
Based on the advice of our patient partner, we added this question (patient-level outcome):
To what extent can you perform the daily activities you value?
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Number of patients receiving an opioid prescription
To collect data on opioid prescription rate, we will ask if they had been prescribed opioid for their LBP. In addition, we will ask patients in the informed consent the possibility to request healthcare costs to their insurance, including prescription rate of opioid.
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Dose of opioid prescription per patient
For opioids, we will also determine the differences between groups in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME) per patient (practitioner-level outcome).
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Back-specific imaging rate over 12 months
Back-related imaging rate (%) among patients with LBP during 12 months after the primary consultation.
Measured: 0-12 months periods after enrolment
Total number of imaging exams between groups
We will compare the total number of imaging exams between groups
Measured: 0-6 months period
Medication prescription
We will collect the number of medication prescribed (practitioner-level outcome)
Measured: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Confidence in treating patients with LBP
Confidence in treating patients with LBP will be measured with four questions from Smucker et al. 1998 (practitioner-level outcome)
Measured: Baseline, directly after healthcare practitioner training (average of 3 months after baseline), 6 months after healthcare practitioner training (average of 9 months after baseline).
Beliefs about back pain
Belief about back pain will be measured with the 10-item Back-PAQ questionnaire (practitioner-level outcome)
Measured: Baseline, directly after healthcare practitioner training (average of 3 months after baseline), 6 months after healthcare practitioner training (average of 9 months after baseline).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Aug 2025
- Study start5 Feb 2026
- Primary completion31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This study uses an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design (type 1), which prioritizes the evaluation of clinical effectiveness while collecting detailed information on the implementation process. The study is a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the unit of randomization being quality circles of general practitioners (GPs) affiliated with a care network in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. A total of 20 quality circles will be randomized into intervention and control arms. Each quality circle includes multiple GP practices, and approximately 100 GPs will participate in total.
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 500 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Guillaume Christe
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud (HESAV), Lausanne, Switzerland, University of Geneva, Switzerland
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Guillaume Christe, Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud
- Investigators
- Guillaume Christe, PhD, Principal investigator, Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07137065
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PRIME_2025_08_08
- Other IDs
- PT0043_222873
- Acronym
- PRIME Back
- Status last verified
- Feb 2026
- First submitted
- 8 Aug 2025
- Last updated
- 12 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: All data that can be shared (informed consent, ethical aspects) will be shared. These data will be made public at the end of project on the Swiss-based data management portal OLOS. The data set will be assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier (PID) to make it easily findable. The data set will be thoroughly described, including description of the metadata, the protocol and procedures to collect the data, the license of the data and how it can be (re)used. The documents describing the data set and data will always have the PID of the data set and will be fully accessible.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Multilevel Intervention for Low Back Pain Management in Primary Care: An Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07137065
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PRIME Back / PRIME_2025_08_08
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Keywords
- Primary care, Guidelines implementation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 500 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Guillaume ChristeUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud (HESAV), Lausanne, Switzerland, University of Geneva, Switzerland
- Study start
- 5 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and one of the main reasons for consulting in primary care. This project aims to improve the management of people with low back pain in primary care through an innovative intervention developed in collaboration with general practitioners, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.
The main objective is to test the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention designed to improve the care pathway for individuals with low back pain consulting their general practitioner. The intervention supports healthcare professionals in adopting practices based on current guidelines, promotes patient education, and offers an interprofessional care pathway tailored to each person's needs and profile.
The study will include over 100 general practitioners in French-speaking Switzerland, randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (usual care). Around 500 patients will be followed according to their doctor's approach. Their progress will be monitored over 12 months using questionnaires and administrative data.
This project addresses an urgent need to improve the care pathway in primary care. It will rigorously assess the effectiveness of this new care approach and explore the barriers and facilitators to its integration into daily practice, taking into account the experiences of both healthcare professionals and the people concerned.
Detailed description
Using an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type I design, this study aims to test the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention in primary care for patients with LBP and investigate the implementation processes.
The primary objectives are to test the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention in primary care for patients with low back pain (PRIME: PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain) compared with usual care in terms of: (1.1) Cost-effectiveness (system-level) (1.2) Imaging prescription rate (practitioner-level); (1.3) Self-reported back-related disability (patient-level).
Secondary objectives are:
2.1 To evaluate the effectiveness of the PRIME intervention on opioid prescription rate and sick leave days prescription by general practitioners (practitioner-level) 2.2 To evaluate the effectiveness of the PRIME intervention on pain intensity, work participation, health-related quality of life, global perceived change, Pain Self-Efficacy, Fear Avoidance Beliefs, and beliefs about LBP (patient-level) 2.3 To evaluate the effectiveness of the training on clinicians' beliefs about LBP and confidence in treating patients with LBP (practitioner-level)
As an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design type 1 study, implementation process outcomes are secondary objectives. These include: (3.1) evaluating the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity and adoption of the multilevel intervention among general practitioners, physiotherapists and occupational therapists; (3.2) exploring barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the multilevel intervention among healthcare practitioners; (3.3) exploring the experience of a biopsychosocial 2-day experiential workshop among trained physiotherapists; (3.4) exploring the experience and acceptability of the multilevel intervention among patients.
The study is a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the unit of randomization being quality circles of general practitioners affiliated with a care network in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. A total of 20 quality circles will be randomized into intervention and control arms. Each quality circle includes multiple general practitioner practices, and approximately 100 general practitioners will participate in total.
General practitioners in the intervention group will receive a multilevel intervention including: general practitioners training, reminders, tools for patients education and a dedicated clinical pathway. The clinical pathway includes a gradual stratified care pathway based on risk factors for chronicity. The core interventions of this 3-step clinical pathway are education and self-management, individual sessions with a trained physiotherapist, and multidisciplinary group management. Physiotherapists providing individual sessions in the intervention group will all have participated in a two-day workshop to improve their knowledge of good clinical practice and develop their competence to manage risk factors of chronicity within a biopsychosocial framework. They will be trained to address unhelpful beliefs and avoidance behaviors through good communication and gradual exposure exercises, as improving unhelpful beliefs and reducing kinesiophobia are important mediators of successful rehabilitation. If general practitioners recommend multidisciplinary group management, patients will receive a comprehensive assessment of risk factors and tailored education by an experienced occupational therapist. If this confirms the need for multidisciplinary group management, patients will receive a structured outpatient multidisciplinary group rehabilitation for LBP that specifically targets physical and psychological factors.
The clinical pathway provides advice to general practitioners at three stages:
In the first consultation, general practitioners will screen for red flags, reassure and explain LBP to patients with the above-mentioned resources, and prescribe medication if needed. They will also decide whether the patient needs to immediately start physiotherapy sessions with a trained physiotherapist.
Ten days after the first consultation, patients will receive an SMS/email directing them to an online questionnaire that assesses risk factors of chronicity (Start Back Tool) and their ability to work. General practitioners will automatically receive via email a summary of the risk of chronicity (low, medium or high) and the patient ability to work. The email will only communicate the current state of the patient and the general practitioner is free to decide whether to follow the clinical pathway recommendation, as independence of practice is also important for implementation. If the patient has already been prescribed trained physiotherapy, it is suggested that nothing is changed at that time (10 days), independent of the level of risk. Coordination of care with the physiotherapist is strongly advised in this case. In case physiotherapy has not yet been prescribed, general practitioners are advised the following:
(i) If the patient is able to work normally and has a low risk of chronicity, he or she should continue to self-manage and the general practitioner should decide to organize a follow-up meeting based on the patient needs; (ii) If the patient has a medium or high risk of chronicity, or is still not able to work normally because of LBP, the general practitioner is advised to prescribe 6 sessions of trained physiotherapy (with the possibility to prescribe additional sessions in the future).
At 6 weeks after the first consultation, patients will receive another SMS/email with the same questionnaire to fill out, and general practitioners will receive the automated email again. At 6 weeks, general practitioners will be advised the following:
(i) If the patient is able to work normally and has a low risk of chronicity, it is probable that the patient has recovered. Therefore, no new treatment should be started and physical activity should be promoted. A follow-up consultation can be organized if needed.
(ii) If the patient is able to work normally and has a medium risk of chronicity, prescription of trained physiotherapy would be advised for 6 sessions if not yet started. If physiotherapy was already started and the patient is improving, 6 additional sessions could be offered at this stage based on patient and physiotherapist reports; (iii) If the patient is not able to work normally or has high risk of chronicity, general practitioners would be advised to offer a comprehensive assessment of risk factors and tailored education by a specialized occupational therapist. If this confirms the need for multidisciplinary treatment, multidisciplinary management could be started.
Importantly, for patients that have already started physiotherapy, physiotherapists and general practitioners are advised to work together to coordinate care, as interprofessional collaboration was highlighted to be a critical point in the pilot study.
The primary effectiveness outcomes include patient-reported back-related disability (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), the proportion of patients referred for spinal imaging within three months, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Secondary patient outcomes include pain intensity, health-related quality of life, work participation, pain self-efficacy, fear avoidance beliefs, general beliefs about LBP, and global perceived improvement. Practitioner-level outcomes include opioid and sick leave prescription rates, as well as changes in GP confidence and beliefs about LBP.
General practitioners in the control group will have no specific training or intervention and will treat patients according to their usual practice.
Implementation outcomes are evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative methods. These include the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, and fidelity of the intervention among general practitioners, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. The experience of the physiotherapists who complete a two-day biopsychosocial training workshop is also explored. Patient perspectives on the acceptability of the intervention will be collected through interviews or focus groups.
Patients data collection will occur at baseline and at 10 days, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Patients complete questionnaires online via REDCap at each time point. Administrative data and prescribing behavior are also collected to complement self-reported outcomes. General practitioners will complete questionnaires before and after training and at the end of the recruitment period. Focus groups and interviews with healthcare professionals and patients will be recorded, anonymized, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
The target sample size is at least 500 patients, with approximately 25 per cluster. Recruitment may exceed this number to ensure that a minimum of 200 patients per group complete the 6-month follow-up. The study has been powered to detect a minimal clinically important difference of 2.5 points on the Roland-Morris scale, assuming a standard deviation of 6 and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.05. Analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle, using linear and generalized linear mixed models to account for clustering. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both the healthcare payer and societal perspectives using the EQ-5D-5L.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This study uses an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design (type 1), which prioritizes the evaluation of clinical effectiveness while collecting detailed information on the implementation process. The study is a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the unit of randomization being quality circles of general practitioners (GPs) affiliated with a care network in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. A total of 20 quality circles will be randomized into intervention and control arms. Each quality circle includes multiple GP practices, and approximately 100 GPs will participate in total.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME) | Experimental | Behavioral: PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME)For general practitioners in this arm, they will receive 2 x 1 hour of training, will have access to trained physiotherapists and will use a dedicated clinical pathway based on risk of chronicity. |
| Usual Care | Active comparator | Other: Usual CareGeneral practitioners in this arm will continue to practice as usual. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patients consulting their participating general practitioner for a primary concern of LBP (with or without leg pain)
- Above 18 years old
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- If they had consulted their general practitioner for a primary concern of LBP in the past 3 months, as care was already started prior to the study.
- Unable to give consent (eg. cognitive impairment)
- Unable to access comfortably an electronic device to answer the questionnaires (smartphone, computer)
- Unable to answer questionnaires in French
- Known pregnancy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME)Also: Healthcare professional training, Reminders, Patient education, Stratified careThe multilevel intervention includes four main components: 1. GP training. GPs will receive training to improve their confidence in LBP guidelines, diagnostic triage and best practice. Furthermore, they will be trained to provide both general and cognitive reassurance to patients, use a stratified care strategy and improve interprofessional communication. 2. Reminders. GPs will receive regular reminders by email to reinforce the integration of high-value care into practice. 3. Patient education. GPs will reassure patients, help them understand their LBP in the initial consultation and target unhelpful beliefs about LBP. 4. Clinical pathway. The clinical pathway includes a gradual stratified care pathway based on risk factors for chronicity. The core interventions of this 3-step clinical pathway are education and self-management, individual sessions with a trained physiotherapist, and multidisciplinary group management. GPs remain free to make all clinical decisions. | Behavioural | PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME) |
| Usual CareIn this arm, general practitioners will treat their patients as usual. They can prescribed any treatment or diagnostic tests to their patients. | Other | Usual Care |
Primary outcome
Mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire
Time frame: 0-12 months period after enrolment
Primary system-level outcome measures will be the mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire from a healthcare payer and a societal perspective
Back-related imaging rate (%) among patients with low back pain
Time frame: 0-6 months period after enrolment
The primary practitioner-level outcome measure will be the back-related imaging rate (%) among patients with LBP during 6 months after the primary consultation.
Self-reported back-related disability measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire
Time frame: 6 months after enrolment
The primary patient-level outcome will be self-reported back-related disability measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) six months after the initial general practitioner consultation
18 secondary outcomes
Pain intensity with the Numerical Rating Scale
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Health-related quality of life (HRQL) with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire
Time frame: 3, 6, 12 months after enrolment
Work participation with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI)
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Pain Self-Efficacy with the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire short form (PSEQ-2)
Time frame: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Fear of movement
Time frame: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Catastrophization
Time frame: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Anxiety
Time frame: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Depression
Time frame: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Beliefs about back pain
Time frame: 6 weeks and 6 months after enrolment
Short question about confidence to perform activities people value
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Short question about capacity to perform activities people value
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Number of patients receiving an opioid prescription
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Dose of opioid prescription per patient
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Back-specific imaging rate over 12 months
Time frame: 0-12 months periods after enrolment
Total number of imaging exams between groups
Time frame: 0-6 months period
Medication prescription
Time frame: 10 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months after enrolment
Confidence in treating patients with LBP
Time frame: Baseline, directly after healthcare practitioner training (average of 3 months after baseline), 6 months after healthcare practitioner training (average of 9 months after baseline).
Beliefs about back pain
Time frame: Baseline, directly after healthcare practitioner training (average of 3 months after baseline), 6 months after healthcare practitioner training (average of 9 months after baseline).
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Feb 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. All data that can be shared (informed consent, ethical aspects) will be shared. These data will be made public at the end of project on the Swiss-based data management portal OLOS. The data set will be assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier (PID) to make it easily findable. The data set will be thoroughly described, including description of the metadata, the protocol and procedures to collect the data, the license of the data and how it can be (re)used. The documents describing the data set and data will always have the PID of the data set and will be fully accessible.
Related trials for Low Back Pain
Recruiting
Effects of Virtual Reality Exergames Versus Spinal Manipulation in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Chronic Nonspecific Low-back Pain, CNSLBP
Recruiting
Trans-arterial Embolization for the Treatment of Facet Pain Due to Facet Arthropathy
Facet Joint Arthropathy, Pain
Not yet recruiting
Radiofrequency and Pelvic Floor-Core Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain in Women With Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Chronic Low Back Pain, Urinary Incontinence
Recruiting
Meditation for Older Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain
Chronic Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparison of High-Intensity and Conventional Physical Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders
Low Back Pain, Radicular Syndrome
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Guillaume Christe, PhD principal investigator
Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PRImary care MultilEvel intervention for low back pain (PRIME) in people with Low Back Pain, run by Guillaume Christe at 2 sites in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Feb 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Guillaume Christe, PhD (+41 21 556 62 67, guillaume.christe@hesav.ch), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (time frame: 0-12 months period after enrolment). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Feb 2026.