United Kingdom Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) Randomised Trial: Cost Effectiveness of Physical Treatments for Back Pain in Primary Care
1,287 Patients, £3,800 Per QALY
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15556954/
REFERENCE
9
NICE
REFERENCE
123
organisation
British Medical Journal
TITLE
United Kingdom Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) Randomised Trial: Cost Effectiveness of Physical Treatments for Back Pain in Primary Care
1,287 Patients, £3,800 Per QALY
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15556954/
DISC COMMENTARY
This is the cost-effectiveness arm of the UK BEAM trial, which compared standard GP care against adding exercise classes, spinal manipulation, or manipulation followed by exercise, for back pain in primary care. The trial involved 1,287 patients across UK general practices.
What was studied?
The study measured the extra cost of each treatment against the extra quality-adjusted life years gained, comparing standard care with the three active treatments over 12 months among patients recruited across UK general practices.
What did they find?
Manipulation combined with exercise offered the best value overall, at around 3,800 pounds per additional quality-adjusted life year. Manipulation alone also compared well, while exercise alone was the least cost-effective of the three active options.
Why it matters
It is not just whether a treatment works, but whether it represents good value for the health service and patients. Adding manual therapy, with or without exercise, proved a cost-effective way to improve outcomes.
Why we included it
It adds an economic dimension to a wider principle: treatments should be judged not only on whether they work, but on the value they offer patients and health services relative to standard care.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
The study measured the extra cost of each treatment against the extra quality-adjusted life years gained, comparing standard care with the three active treatments over 12 months among patients recruited across UK general practices.
What did they find?
Manipulation combined with exercise offered the best value overall, at around 3,800 pounds per additional quality-adjusted life year. Manipulation alone also compared well, while exercise alone was the least cost-effective of the three active options.
Why it matters
It is not just whether a treatment works, but whether it represents good value for the health service and patients. Adding manual therapy, with or without exercise, proved a cost-effective way to improve outcomes.
Why we included it
It adds an economic dimension to a wider principle: treatments should be judged not only on whether they work, but on the value they offer patients and health services relative to standard care.