Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work

Co-creating a Choosing Wisely leaflet supporting the reduction of imaging usage in low back pain management - A multi-method study

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to co-create an information resource in the form of a leaflet, to be distributed in clinical settings, websites or social media targeting people with low back pain.

METHODS

This multi-method study was conducted in four stages: literature search, input from practice consultants, program theory development, and think-aloud interviews with people experiencing low back pain. Each stage was followed by a consensus meeting in which the steering group refined the leaflet based on the emerging knowledge.

RESULTS

The literature search highlighted patients' need for easy-to-understand information about their back pain diagnosis, management strategies, social activities, work and solutions for supported self-management strategies. Practice consultants emphasized concise, relatable content. The program theory identified potential mechanisms for content creation, development, and implementation of the leaflet, such as addressing patient concerns, reducing diagnostic uncertainty, insights into management options, and validation. Think-aloud interviews with 18 people living with low back pain informed the iteration of the leaflet, enhancing language clarification and content comprehension.

CONCLUSIONS

We co-created a new Choosing Wisely leaflet, created with end-users in mind, specifically focused on reducing unnecessary imaging for low back pain.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This leaflet may support clinical settings in delivering evidence-based approaches and supporting self-management.

Appropriateness of lumbar spine imaging in patients presenting to the emergency department with low back pain in a Western Australian tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

The Australian Rheumatology Association identified the use of imaging in patients with low back pain without indication of serious pathology as a low-value practice.

AIMS

To determine the appropriateness of diagnostic lumbar spine imaging requests in patients with low back pain presenting to a Western Australian hospital's emergency department.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all adult patients (18 years and older) who presented with low back pain to the Fiona Stanley Hospital emergency department from 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020. The appropriateness of the imaging requests was judged using the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria. The number and proportion of appropriate and inappropriate lumbar spine imaging requests were reported overall and by imaging modality together with reasons for the judgements.

RESULTS

A total of 1459 patients were included. Three hundred eight patients (21.1%) received lumbar spine imaging requests, with 350 diagnostic imaging requests eligible for analysis. Two hundred eighty (80.0%) imaging requests were judged to be appropriate (194/253 (76.7%) plain radiographs, 57/66 (86.4%) computed tomography, 29/31 (93.5%) magnetic resonance imaging). The most common reasons for an appropriate imaging request were suspected vertebral fracture (n = 223, 79.6%), followed by malignancy (n = 26, 9.3%). Of the 70 inappropriate imaging requests, 62 (88.6%) requests occurred in the absence of alerting features and eight (11.4%) requests were the wrong choice of modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Four in five lumbar spine imaging requests for investigating low back pain were appropriate. Of the inappropriate requests, the most common reason was the absence of alerting features, while a small number were the incorrect imaging modality.

Paramedic Management of Non-Traumatic Back Pain in a Large Australian Ambulance Service: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Non-traumatic back pain commonly leads people to seek health care from paramedics via triple-zero (emergency phone number in Australia), yet the management approaches by providers of ambulance services remain unclear.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate paramedic management of non-traumatic back pain in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, including the call characteristics, provisional diagnoses, and the clinical care being delivered by paramedics.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of NSW Ambulance computer-aided dispatch and electronic medical records from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022. Adults who sought ambulance service with a chief complaint of back pain, were triaged as non-traumatic back pain, and subsequently received treatment by paramedics were included. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to explore factors associated with primary outcomes; ambulance transport, opioid use, and use of medication combinations were reported as odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

There were 73,128 calls to NSW Ambulance with a chief complaint of back pain that were triaged as non-traumatic back pain. Of these, 54,444 (74.4%) were diagnosed with spinal pain, of which 52,825 (97.1%) were categorized by the paramedic as back or neck pain, 1,573 (2.9%) as lumbar radicular pain, and 46 (0.1%) as serious spinal pathology. Eight out of ten patients with spinal pain were transported to emergency departments. The medicine most administered by a paramedic was an opioid (37.4% of patients with spinal pain). Older patients (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.44) were more likely to be transported to an emergency department. Patients with moderate (OR = 4.39; 95% CI, 4.00 to 4.84) and severe pain (OR = 18.90; 95% CI, 17.18 to 20.79) were more likely to be administered an opioid.

CONCLUSIONS

Paramedic management of non-traumatic back pain in NSW typically results in the administration of an opioid and transport to an emergency department.

Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Alternative care models seek to improve the quality or efficiency of care, or both, and thus optimise patient health outcomes. They provide the same health care but change how, when, where, or by whom health care is delivered and co-ordinated. Examples include care delivered via telemedicine versus in-person care or care delivered to groups versus individual patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of alternative models of evidenced-based care for people with non-specific low back pain on the quality of care and patient self-reported outcomes and to summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of these alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 14 June 2024, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing alternative care models to usual care or other care models. Eligible trials had to investigate care models that changed at least one domain of the Cochrane EPOC delivery arrangement taxonomy and provide the same care as the comparator arm. Participants were individuals with non-specific low back pain, regardless of symptom duration. Main outcomes were quality of care (referral for/receipt of lumbar spine imaging, prescription/use of opioids, referral to a surgeon/lumbar spine surgery, admission to hospital for back pain), patient health outcomes (pain, back-related function), and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was alternative models of care versus usual care at closest follow-up to 12 months.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-seven trials (29,578 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Trials were primarily set within primary care (18 trials) or physiotherapy practices (15 trials) in high-income countries (51 trials). Forty-eight trials compared alternative models of care to usual care. There was substantial clinical diversity across alternative care models. Alternative care models most commonly differed from usual care by altering the co-ordination/management of care processes (18 trials), or by utilising information and communication technology (10 trials). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models probably result in little difference in referral for or receipt of any lumbar spine imaging at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.98; I2 = 2%; 18 trials, 16,157 participants). In usual care, 232/1000 people received lumbar spine imaging compared to 213/1000 people who received alternative care models. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternative care models probably result in little or no difference in the prescription or use of opioid medication at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 13,185 participants). In usual care, 349 out of 1000 people used opioid medication compared to 332 out of 1000 people in alternative care models. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). We are uncertain if alternative care models alter referral for or use of lumbar spine surgery at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence was very low (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 4189 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to very serious imprecision (wide CIs) and serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). We are uncertain if alternative care models alter hospital admissions for non-specific low back pain at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care as the certainty of evidence was very low (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; I2 = 8%; 12 trials, 10,485 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement), serious publication bias (asymmetry of results), minor imprecision (wide CIs), and minor risk of bias (blinding of participants/personnel). High-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models result in a small but clinically unimportant improvement in pain on a 0 to 10 scale (mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.05; I2 = 68%; 36 trials, 9403 participants). Mean pain at follow-up closest to 12 months was 2.4 points on a 0 to 10 rating scale (lower score indicates less pain) with usual care compared to 2.2 points with alternative care models, a difference of 0.2 points better (95% CI 0.4 better to 0.0 better; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 0.5 to 1.5 points). High-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models result in a small, clinically unimportant improvement in back-related function compared with usual care (standardised mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; I2 = 66%; 44 trials, 13,688 participants). Mean back-related function at follow-up closest to 12 months was 6.4 points on a 0 to 24 rating scale (lower score indicates less disability) with usual care compared to 5.7 points with alternative care models, a difference of 0.7 points better (95% CI 1.2 better to 0.2 better; MCID 1.5 to 2.5 points). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence was very low (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 43%; 10 trials, 2880 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to serious risk of bias (blinding of participants/personnel), serious indirectness (variation in assumed risk), and serious inconsistency (substantial between-study heterogeneity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative care models for non-specific low back pain probably lead to little or no difference in the quality of care and result in small but clinically unimportant improvements in pain and back-related function. Whether alternative care models result in a difference in total adverse events compared to usual care remains unresolved.

[Low back pain: Our greatest enemy? Brief advice on pain in primary care]

This article rewievs the available evidence on low back pain, one of the most prevalent conditions and the main cause of disability in most countries according to the latest Global Disease Burden 2021 study, which has led entities such as the WHO to recently publish recommendations on low back pain management. The causes and associated risk factors are analyzed, with more than 90% of low back pain cases being nonspecific and closely related to biopsychosocial context, as well as the role of imaging tests, whose findings have not been proven to be the source of low back pain. Finally, the effectiveness of the different treatments is analyzed, with non pharmacological being the first-line of treatment and pharmacological treatment having a very limited role, despite the excessive use we make of it.

How Is Chronic Pain Managed in Rural Australia? A Qualitative Study Exploring Rural Healthcare Professional and Consumer Experiences

INTRODUCTION

Guideline-based care for chronic pain is variably provided. Existing data on chronic pain management in Australia come primarily from metropolitan samples. As the initial investigations for a wider needs assessment, we sought to understand how chronic pain is managed in rural Australia, focused on investigating the gap between guideline-recommended care and provided care.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with rural healthcare professionals who treat patients with chronic pain and rural consumers affected by chronic pain. We asked healthcare professionals what treatments they deliver to patients with chronic pain. We asked consumers to describe the healthcare service providers they had accessed for pain care and the treatments they received from these providers. We utilised content analysis to gain an understanding of what care for chronic pain is being provided and compared these findings to guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 healthcare professionals and 27 consumers. Both healthcare professionas and consumers reported minimal use of most first-line management strategies. We also found differences between healthcare professional and consumer reports of pain care. Healthcare professionals frequently described delivering guideline-aligned pain care and consumers frequently described receiving care that contradicted guidelines. We identified challenges with rural access to pain care services, including minimal usage of telehealth services.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the identified gaps in care, future research may consider ways of improving rural access to pain care services, including investigating ways to increase uptake of telehealth services, and how to shift consumer expectations of pain care.

Guideline concordant care for acute low back pain: A mixed-methods analysis of determinants of implementation

INTRODUCTION

We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study to measure variation in the use of imaging and physical therapy (PT) for acute low back pain (LBP) and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in use across 22 EDs and 27 urgent cares in urban and rural locations within a community-based health system.

METHODS

We described the patient population and measured concordance with LBP guideline recommendations on imaging and PT referral from January-June 2023. We conducted key informant interviews with physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs), n = 30, from these 49 sites between July - September 2023 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants to guideline concordance.

RESULTS

From January-June 30, 2023, 1047 Intermountain Health employed or affiliated physicians and APPs at the 22 adult EDs and 27 adult UCs cared for 8047 patient encounters involving acute LBP with no red flags. 29% of acute LBP patient encounters included an imaging order (ED: 43%; UC: 18%) and 5% included a PT order (ED: 7%; UC: 4%). 17 ED and 13 UC physicians and APPs participated in semi-structured interviews. Their patient encounters represent 6% of the overall study population (ED: 5%; UC: 7%) with order rates and patient population characteristics similar to the full study population. ED and UC clinicians were generally familiar with LBP guideline recommendations but varied significantly in their knowledge and beliefs of the appropriate application of guidelines in evaluation and treatment plans.

DISCUSSION

Guideline concordance for use of imaging and PT varied substantially across physicians and advance practice providers providing care at EDs and UC centers within a community-based health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including varied understanding of the PT discipline, complex workflows for placing PT referrals, the medico-legal assurance that imaging provides, and the lack of feedback loops in ED and UC centers should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase concordance to LBP guidelines and minimize harm related to overuse of imaging and underuse of conservative first-line treatment approaches.

Diagnostics and treatment of acute non-specific low back pain: do physicians follow the guidelines?

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines for acute non-specific low back pain recommend avoiding imaging studies, refraining from strong opioids and invasive treatments, and providing information to patients to stay active. Despite these recommendations, many patients undergo diagnostic and therapeutic assessments that are not in line with the current evidence.

AIM

To assess the management of acute non-specific low back pain by Swiss general practitioners (GPs) and their adherence to guideline recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a survey using two clinical case vignettes of patients with acute non-specific low back pain without red flags or neurological deficits. The main differences between the vignettes were sex, age, profession, pain duration and medical history. GPs were asked about their management of those patients.

RESULTS

Of 1253 GPs, 61% reported knowing current clinical guidelines and 76% being aware of "Choosing Wisely" recommendations. Diagnostic evaluations included X-ray (18% for vignette 1, 32% for vignette 2) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (31% and 62%). For pain management, GPs recommended mostly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol and metamizole. Treatments with potential harm included muscle relaxants (78% and 77%), oral steroids (26% and 33%), long-acting opioids (8% and 11%) and spinal injections (28% and 42%). A very high proportion recommended activity restrictions (82% and 71%) and some recommended bed rest (3% and 2%).

CONCLUSION

Although GPs reported being aware of current guideline recommendations, management of acute non-specific low back pain was not in line with these recommendations. A substantial proportion of GPs considered imaging, treatments (e.g. muscle relaxants, long-acting strong opioids), and activity and work restrictions with potentially harmful consequences.

Low back pain trends attributable to high body mass index over the period 1990-2021 and projections up to 2036

Background

High body mass index (BMI) is a crucial determinant in low back pain (LBP) incidence and progression. However, the effect of increased BMI on LBP has been largely overlooked at the global, regional, and national levels. This research aimed to use data from the 2021 global burden of disease (GBD) study to determine trends associated with LBP due to high BMI from 1990 to 2021, thereby providing evidence for developing targeted policies.

Methods

Epidemiological data on the association between high BMI and LBP is obtained from the GBD 2021. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to high BMI-related LBP are stratified by year, age, country, and socio-demographic index (SDI). The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) was calculated to evaluate the trends from 1990 to 2021. A Bayesian age-period cohort (BAPC) model was used to assess the corresponding trends from 2022 to 2036. Additionally, statistical models, such as decomposition analysis and frontier analysis, were used.

Results

According to the GBD 2021, the number of DALYs caused by LBP attributed to high BMI reached 8,363,759 in 2021, which is an increase of 170.97% since 1990. The age-standardized rate of disability-adjusted life years (ASDR) for LBP caused by high BMI has been increasing from 1990 to 2021, with an EAPC of 1.14%. Among the five SDI regions, ASDR has increased. High-income North Americans exhibited the highest risk of LBP caused by high BMI, with Hungary being the most affected. Frontier analysis highlights the urgent need for intervention in countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. Finally, the burden of LBP related to high BMI will continue to rise from 2022 to 2036.

Conclusion

Between 1990 and 2021, there was a global increase in lower back pain due to high BMI, with a projected continuation of this trend. Monitoring BMI is crucial for developing region-specific and national strategies, and research emphasizes the urgency of reducing the health burden of high BMI and improving the quality of life for the global population.

Comparing the Hip and Lumbar Joint Range of Motion in Patients With Lower Lumbar Disc Herniation and Healthy Subjects

BACKGROUND

One possible factor contributing to low back pain is hip range of motion (ROM). However, there is inconstancy in published studies, which may be due to the heterogeneity of patients. Therefore, the present study focuses on the relationship between hip ROM and lower lumbar disc herniation (LLDH).

METHOD

A cross-sectional study involved 52 participants between 18 and 65 years old. Two digital inclinometers were utilized to measure the ROM of the lumbar and hip joints in all study participants. For each outcome, 2 measurements were conducted, and the mean of the 2 measurements was utilized for analysis. The level of statistical significance was established at P ≤ .05.

RESULTS

The difference in all ROM between the 2 groups is significant except for dominant hip flexion (P < .05). Lumbar flexion was reduced in LLDH compared with healthy individuals (P = .003). The findings manifested a significant correlation between right lumbar rotation and nondominant hip abduction (P = .05, R = .388) and between left lumbar lateral bending and nondominant hip flexion (P = .008, R = .510).

CONCLUSION

Patients with LLDH have reduced hip ROM and lumbar flexion compared with healthy individuals. The study showed correlations between hip and lumbar ROM and emphasized the significance of evaluating hip ROM in LLDH for assessment and treatment planning.

A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare

BACKGROUND

To address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.

METHODS

MEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

RESULTS

Eleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).

Assessing the knowledge of low back pain among physiotherapists in Spain: A cohort study with pre- and post-educational course evaluation

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder worldwide and physiotherapists are among the primary healthcare professionals assessing and treating the condition. However, scientific knowledge regarding the management of LBP amongst physiotherapists is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the level of evidence-based knowledge among Spanish physiotherapists in LBP management and assess knowledge enhancement following the completion of an e-learning course.

DESIGN

Single-arm cohort study with pre-post evaluation.

METHODS

This single-arm pre-post study involved 1350 physiotherapists practicing in Spain. Initially, participants underwent a 22-question test on evidence-based LBP knowledge, covering socio-economic impact, characteristics of LBP, rehabilitation goals, psychosocial factors, and high- and low-value interventions. After completing the course, participants took a final test with the same 22 questions in randomized order.

RESULTS

Out of the 1350 physiotherapists enrolled, 857 completed the course. The initial responses demonstrated that almost half of the participants considered medical imaging essential before starting physiotherapy treatment, perceived glucocorticoids as recommended for chronic low back pain, and considered ergonomic adjustments crucial for managing the condition. Individuals who completed their education more than 10 years ago showed a minor improvement in evidence-based knowledge compared to those who recently finished their university degree. Following the course, participants displayed improved knowledge, narrowing prior disparities in error percentages across questions.

CONCLUSION

Due to existing gaps in physiotherapists' evidence-based knowledge of LBP, particularly among those who have worked longer time as physiotherapists, e-learning initiatives may be a feasible approach to support continuous training of physiotherapists.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Chiropractors' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Radiography is commonly used in the assessment of spinal disorders, despite a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes or additional benefit to the patient. There is disagreement amongst chiropractors regarding the appropriate use of radiography for clinical management. This study aims to qualitatively explore chiropractors' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice with respect to how they determine when to order radiographs; and how they use radiographs to inform clinical management.

METHODS

Online qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 Australian chiropractors who currently manage patients with spinal disorders. Convienence, snowball, and purposive sampling strategies were used to ensure an appropriate breadth and depth of participant characterisitcs and beliefs. Interview data were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were developed to describe how chiropractors determined when to order radiographs. These themes included specific findings from the clinical encounter that may inform clinical management, their perceptions of radiation risk, and the influence of clinical experience/intuition. Three themes and four subthemes were developed for how chiropractors use radiographs to inform their management. These themes explored the use of radiography for the application of chiropractic technique, as well as the role of radiographs in predicting patient prognosis, and as an educational tool to provide reassurance.

CONCLUSION

Australian chiropractors' decision-making around spinal radiography is diverse and can be influenced by a number of clinical and external factors. Previously unexplored uses of spinal radiography in clinical practice were highlighted. Some chiropractors reported potential benefits of radiography that are currently not supported by research evidence. Future research should address how radiographic findings are reported to patients with spinal disorders and how this could be optimised to improve patient outcomes.

Audit and feedback to change diagnostic image ordering practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of diagnostic imaging (DI) tests may be unnecessary, leading to increased healthcare costs and the possibility of patient harm. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of audit and feedback (AF) interventions directed at healthcare providers on reducing image ordering. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of AF on the appropriateness of DI ordering.

METHODS

Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registry on December 22nd, 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized control trials (RCTs), targeted healthcare professionals, and studied AF as the sole intervention or as the core component of a multi-faceted intervention. Risk of bias for each study was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were completed using RevMan software and results were displayed in forest plots.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs enrolling 4311 clinicians or practices were included. AF interventions resulted in 1.5 fewer image test orders per 1000 patients seen than control interventions (95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -2.6 to -0.4, p-value = 0.009). The effect of AF on appropriateness was not statistically significant, with a 3.2% (95% CI -1.5 to 7.7%, p-value = 0.18) greater likelihood of test orders being considered appropriate with AF vs control interventions. The strength of evidence was rated as moderate for the primary objective but was very low for the appropriateness outcome because of risk of bias, inconsistency in findings, indirectness, and imprecision.

CONCLUSION

AF interventions are associated with a modest reduction in total DI ordering with moderate certainty, suggesting some benefit of AF. Individual studies document effects of AF on image order appropriateness ranging from a non-significant trend toward worsening to a highly significant improvement, but the weighted average effect size from the meta-analysis is not statistically significant with very low certainty.

Temporal Trends in Spinal Imaging in Ontario (2002-2019) and Manitoba (2001-2011), Canada

Background Several studies have reported the overuse of spinal imaging, which, in Canada, led to several provincial pathways aimed at optimizing the use of imaging. We assessed temporal trends in spine imaging in two Canadian provinces. Methods We explored the use of X-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine regions among adults in Ontario (April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2019) and in Manitoba, Canada (April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2011) using linked Ontario Health Insurance Plan administrative databases and data from Manitoba Health. We calculated the age- and sex-adjusted rates of spinal X-ray, CT, and MRI examinations by dividing the number of imaging studies by the population of each province for each year and estimated the use of each imaging modality per 100,000 persons. Results The total cost of spine imaging in Ontario increased from $45.8 million in 2002/03 to $70.3 million in 2018/19 (a 54% increase), and in Manitoba from $2.2 million in 2001/02 to $5 million in 2010/11 (a 127% increase). In Ontario, rates of spine X-rays decreased by 12% and spine CT scans decreased by 28% over this time period, while in Manitoba, rates of spine X-rays and CT scans remained constant. Age- and sex-adjusted utilization of spinal MRI scans per 100,000 persons markedly increased over time in both Ontario (277%) and Manitoba (350%). Conclusion Despite efforts to reduce the use of inappropriate spinal imaging, both Ontario and Manitoba have greatly increased utilization of spine MRI in the past two decades.

Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care

INTRODUCTION

Models of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were conducted.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible records included MoCs implemented for adult LBP patients in primary healthcare settings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.

New Zealanders with low back pain seeking health care: a retrospective descriptive analysis of Accident Compensation Corporation-funded low back pain healthcare service usage

Introduction Most New Zealanders experience low back pain (LBP) at least once throughout their lifetime and many seek help from the large range of health providers in primary care. Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) funds a significant proportion of those claims, but which services are they funding and what are the costs? Method This was a retrospective audit and descriptive analysis of ACC-funded, non-public hospital healthcare service use by people with LBP in New Zealand (NZ). Outcome measures were the healthcare services accessed by people with ACC-funded LBP,the claims (all occurrences for a service that has generated a payment/year), single contact (with a service), and costs (NZ$) for services between 2009 and 2020. Results The number of claims for services were 129 000 for physiotherapy, 105 000 for general practitioner and 59 000 for radiology services. Per single contact, elective surgery and radiology services were the most expensive. During 2009-2020, there were 3.3 million ACC claims for LBP with a total cost of NZ$4 billion. Over this time, there was an increase in claims, costs and single contacts. Costs decreased slightly during 2010 due to changes in healthcare funding and in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion Consumers have considerable choice in where they access health care for ACC-funded LBP services. This study shows the services they use most frequently and the cost to NZ for those services. These data can inform service planning for ACC-funded LBP health care in NZ.

The care pathway of individuals with spinal disorders in a Health Care Network in the Federal District, Brazil: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the care pathway is essential to identify how to effectively treat spinal disorders. However, there is no specific data on the pathway of these individuals in the Health Care Networks (HCN) in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the pathway of individuals with non-specific spinal disorders (NSD) in the HCN in the Federal District, Brazil, and verify the interventions adopted, and to test whether sociodemographic and clinical variables predict the number of imaging tests, prescribed medication, and the first HCN access.

METHODS

Retrospective study that analysed electronic records of 327 individuals with NSD between 2012 and 2018. Generalized linear models estimated the association between sociodemographic and clinical data and number of drugs prescribed and imaging tests requested. Multinomial logistic regression estimated the association between clinical and demographic variables and setting of first access.

RESULTS

The median age was 57 years, and 75.5% were women. Emergency Department (ED) was the most accessed setting (43.7%), and back pain was the most prevalent condition (84.5%). Most individuals underwent imaging tests (60%) and drug prescriptions (86%). Physical exercises were prescribed to 13%, and 55% were referred to physical therapy. Women were more likely to first access the ED.

CONCLUSION

The ED was the most used setting by people with NSD. Few participants received exercise prescriptions and half were referred to physical therapists. Individuals who used outpatient clinics and primary care received less drug prescriptions, and women were more likely to first access the ED. Increasing age was associated with greater chance of first accessing Outpatient Clinics.

Management of acute non-specific low back pain in the emergency department: do emergency physicians follow the guidelines? Results of a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Clinical guidelines for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) recommend avoiding imaging studies or invasive treatments and to advise patients to stay active. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of acute non-specific LBP in the emergency departments (ED).

SETTING

We invited all department chiefs of Swiss EDs and their physician staff to participate in a web-based survey using two clinical case vignettes of patients with acute non-specific LBP presenting to an ED. In both cases, no neurological deficits or red flags were present. Guideline adherence and low-value care was defined based on current guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

In total, 263 ED physicians completed at least one vignette, while 212 completed both vignettes (43% residents, 32% senior/attending physicians and 24% chief physicians). MRI was considered in 31% in vignette 1 and 65% in vignette 2. For pain management, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol and metamizole were mostly used. A substantial proportion of ED physicians considered treatments with questionable benefit and/or increased risk for adverse events such as oral steroids (vignette 1, 12% and vignette 2, 19%), muscle relaxants (33% and 38%), long-acting strong opioids (25% and 33%) and spinal injections (22% and 43%). Although guidelines recommend staying active, 72% and 67% of ED physicians recommended activity restrictions.

CONCLUSION

Management of acute non-specific LBP in the ED was not in agreement with current guideline recommendations in a substantial proportion of ED physicians. Overuse of imaging studies, the use of long-acting opioids and muscle relaxants, as well as recommendations for activity and work restrictions were prevalent and may potentially be harmful.

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care.

DESIGN

A qualitative study.

METHODS

The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods.

RESULTS

Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Use of Decision-Analytic Modelling to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Imaging of the Spine, Shoulder, and Knee: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence is available on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic imaging for back, neck, knee, and shoulder complaints. Decision analytic modelling may be an appropriate method to synthesise evidence from multiple sources, and overcomes issues with trial-based economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to describe the reporting of methods and objectives utilised in existing decision analytic modelling studies that assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic imaging for back, neck, knee, and shoulder complaints.

METHODS

Decision analytic modelling studies investigating the use of any imaging modality for people of any age with back, neck, knee, or shoulder complaints were included. No restrictions on comparators were applied, and included studies were required to estimate both costs and benefits. A systematic search (5 January 2023) of four databases was conducted with no date limits imposed. Methodological and knowledge gaps were identified through a narrative summary.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included. Methodological issues were identified relating to the poor reporting of methods, and measures of effectiveness did not incorporate changes in quantity and/or quality of life (cost-utility analysis in only ten of 18 studies). Included studies, particularly those investigating back or neck complaints, focused on conditions that were of low prevalence but have a serious impact on health (i.e. cervical spine trauma, cancer-related back pain).

CONCLUSIONS

Future models should pay particular attention to the identified methodological and knowledge gaps. Investment in the health technology assessment of these commonly utilised diagnostic imaging services is needed to justify the current level of utilisation and ensure that these services represent value for money.

An investigation into chiropractic intern adherence to radiographic guidelines in clinical decisions with a descriptive comparison to clinical practitioners

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess chiropractic interns' knowledge and adherence to radiographic clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and compare their clinical decisions to previous surveys of established practitioners in Canada and Australia.

METHODS

A clinical decision-making survey was administered to 88 interns. The survey contained clinical scenarios and vignettes with inquiries regarding indications for radiographic referral, the likelihood of referral, and the application of CPGs.

RESULTS

Forty-four percent (43.75%) of the interns were aware of CPGs, 38.75% were unsure, and 17.5% were not aware. When asked specific questions about the appropriateness of diagnostic imaging, the interns' responses were similar to those of practitioners in Canada and Australia. When interns evaluated a clinical vignette, there was lower compliance with CPGs.

CONCLUSION

The interns' clinical decisions regarding the use of diagnostic radiography did not significantly differ from those of practitioners who were surveyed in other related studies. Interns were inconsistent in applying their decision making in clinical cases. Notwithstanding the similarities with practitioners, some deviation from the guidelines indicates the need for further intern education to improve the implementation of CPGs for optimal cost-effective and clinically appropriate care.

[Modern aspects to the diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of low back pain]

Low back pain is one of the most common complaints in primary care. This pain is usually nonspecific and musculoskeletal. However, identification and exclusion of specific causes of pain as early as possible are important for specialists since their underestimation can sometimes lead to life-threatening consequences. The authors analyze literature data on the key facts of anamnesis («red flags»), management of patients with low back pain with emphasis on modern concepts and recommendations for diagnostics, identifying the dominant nature and cause of pain, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic significance of neuroimaging. Special attention is paid to existing options for conservative (drug and non-drug therapy) and interventional treatment methods, which have become increasingly popular in recent years.

Interprofessional Active Learning for Chronic Pain: Transforming Student Learning From Recall to Application

Chronic pain (CP) affects over 50 million Americans daily and represents a unique challenge for healthcare professionals due to its complexity. Across all health professions, only a small percentage of the curriculum is devoted to treating patients with CP. Unfortunately, much of the content is delivered passively via lecture without giving students an opportunity to practice the communication skills to effectively treat patients in the clinic. An interprofessional team of health educators identified 5 essential messages that students frequently struggle to convey to patients with CP. Those messages were based on interprofessional and profession-specific competencies to treat patients with CP from the International Association for the Study of Pain. The 5 messages highlighted the importance of (1) therapeutic alliance, (2) consistent interdisciplinary language, (3) patient prognosis, (4) evidence for pain medicine, surgery, and imaging, and (5) early referral to the interprofessional team. For each message, the team summarized relevant research supporting the importance of each individual message that could serve as a foundation for didactic content. The team then developed active learning educational activities that educators could use to have students practice the skills tied to each message. Each learning activity was designed to be delivered in an interprofessional manner.

Feasibility of testing the effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

General medical practitioner (GP) recruitment and subsequent data collection in clinical practice are challenging and may limit successful completion of a large-scale trial. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial to test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain in general medical practice.

METHODS

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was performed, with recruitment of GPs and randomisation of GP clinics. All GPs attended a training session and were asked to record low back pain codes in electronic medical records for any low back pain presentations. Intervention group GPs were trained in the use of a patient education booklet to be used during low back pain patient visits. Control group GPs provided usual care. Outcomes for the proposed trial were collected to determine feasibility. GP recruitment was assessed as the proportion of GPs approached who consented to participate. Low back pain imaging outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (counts of patients presenting with low back pain) and from Australian healthcare administrative (Medicare) data (counts of imaging use). GP compliance with study procedures was assessed and qualitative data reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-four GP clinics were approached, with four participating (12%). At these clinics, 13/19 (68%) GPs consented to participate, and 10/19 (53%) started the study. Outcome data were collected from medical records for all GPs. Three GPs (30%) withdrew consent to access Medicare data, limiting reporting of imaging outcome measures. Three GPs (30%) self-reported low compliance entering low back pain codes.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the feasibility of many aspects of a full-scale effectiveness study, while also identifying a number of challenges that need to be resolved. Recommendations related to GP recruitment, study compliance, data collection, and outcome measures were made to increase the success of a future trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR), Trial ID: ACTRN12619000991112; Registered 11 July 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376973.

Avoiding nocebo and other undesirable effects in chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy: An invitation to reflect

INTRODUCTION

While the placebo effect is increasingly recognised as a contributor to treatment effects in clinical practice, the nocebo and other undesirable effects are less well explored and likely underestimated. In the chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions, some aspects of historical models of care may arguably increase the risk of nocebo effects.

PURPOSE

In this masterclass article, clinicians, researchers, and educators are invited to reflect on such possibilities, in an attempt to stimulate research and raise awareness for the mitigation of such undesirable effects.

IMPLICATIONS

This masterclass briefly introduces the nocebo effect and its underlying mechanisms. It then traces the historical development of chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy, arguing that there was and continues to be an excessive focus on the patient's body. Next, aspects of clinical practice, including communication, the therapeutic relationship, clinical rituals, and the wider social and economic context of practice are examined for their potential to generate nocebo and other undesirable effects. To aid reflection, a model to reflect on clinical practice and individual professions through the 'prism' of nocebo and other undesirable effects is introduced and illustrated. Finally, steps are proposed for how researchers, educators, and practitioners can maximise positive and minimise negative clinical context.

General practitioner experiences using a low back pain management booklet aiming to decrease non-indicated imaging for low back pain

Background

Imaging is overused in the management of low back pain, resulting in overdiagnosis, increased healthcare utilisation, and increased costs. Few effective interventions to decrease inappropriate use have been developed and have typically not been developed using behaviour change theory. An intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain was developed using behavioural change theory, incorporating a novel low back pain management booklet to facilitate patient education and reassurance. The aim of this study was to assess the adoption and feasibility of use of the developed intervention within clinical practice and to determine appropriate implementation strategies to address identified barriers to use.

Methods

Fourteen general medical practitioners were recruited and trained to use the booklet with low back pain patients over a minimum 5-month period. Quantitative data on use of the booklet were collected and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on use of the booklet and training session were collected in general medical practitioner interviews and thematically analysed. Barriers to use were identified and mapped to suitable implementation strategies using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

Results

Practitioners used the booklet with 73 patients. The booklet was used with 63% of patients presenting with low back pain. Facilitators for using the booklet included patient’s requesting imaging and lower practitioner confidence in managing low back pain. Barriers included accessible storage and remembering to use the booklet. Implementation strategies were identified to increase adoption and feasibility of use, including development of a digital version of the booklet.

Conclusions

General medical practitioners reported that the low back pain management booklet and training were useful for clinical practice, particularly with patients requesting imaging. Barriers to use were identified and implementation strategies to address these barriers will be incorporated into future effectiveness studies. This study forms one of a series of studies to thoroughly develop and test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain; a successful intervention would decrease healthcare costs and improve patient management.

Primary Investigation of Low Back Pain among Saudi Arabians: A Cross-Sectional Study

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent disease that affects all ages and is a symptom that induces immobility. Patients' beliefs may influence LBP management, and adjusting detrimental beliefs is required to improve treatment outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence of LBP within the Saudi population and beliefs regarding LBP, physical activity, rest, imaging, and medication. People with LBP were targeted with a questionnaire containing sections on demographic information and the validated Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ), in addition to questions regarding imaging, physical activity, rest and medication. A total of 651 responses were received, 559 of them (86%) experienced LBP. The most common age group was those aged 18-21 (n = 221), 80% from females. The average BBQ score was 27.8 (SD = 5.58). The majority of the respondents held the following beliefs, which are contrary to the best available evidence: back pain must be rested (77.1%) and X-rays or scans are required to gain the best medical care for LBP (73.2%). The Saudi population holds unhelpful beliefs that may affect their quality of life. Healthcare professionals working with patients with LBP have an important role in changing detrimental beliefs and behaviors about the condition.

An exploration of low back pain beliefs in a Northern America based general population

BACKGROUND

Prior research has demonstrated that people across different populations hold beliefs about low back pain (LBP) that are inconsistent with current evidence. Qualitative research is needed to explore current LBP beliefs in Northern America (NA).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a primarily qualitative cross-sectional online survey to assess LBP beliefs in a NA population (USA and Canada).

METHODS

Participants were recruited online using social media advertisements targeting individuals in NA over the age of 18 with English speaking and reading comprehension. Participants answered questions regarding the cause of LBP, reasons for reoccurrence or persistence of LBP, and sources of these beliefs. Responses were analyzed using conventional (inductive) content analysis.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

62 participants were included with a mean age of 47.6 years. Most participants reported multiple causes for LBP as well as its persistence and reoccurrence, however, these were biomedically focused with minimal to no regard for psychological or environmental influences. The primary cited source of participants' beliefs was healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings align with prior research from other regions, demonstrating a need for updating clinical education and public messaging about the biopsychosocial nature of LBP.

Patients' self-reported medical care for low back pain: a nationwide population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of medical care-seeking among adults with low back pain (LBP) and to characterise and compare use of diagnostic procedures and medical management between primary and secondary care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Data from the EpiReumaPt, a nationwide population-based study conducted in Portugal including a representative sample of non-institutionalised adults (n=10 661) stratified by administrative territorial units was analysed.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals who self-reported history of LBP within the previous 12 months (n=6434) and sought medical care for this problem in the same period (n=2618).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' self-reported diagnostic workup and management procedures performed by medical care for LBP collected through a structured questionnaire. Medical care procedures were stratified by level of care.

RESULTS

The prevalence of medical care-seeking for LBP was 38.0% (95% CI 35.9% to 40.1%). Primary care in isolation (45.3%) was the most sought level of care. Emergency departments (25.9%) and orthopaedics (19.4%) were the most sought secondary medical specialties. Several pathoanatomical diagnoses were used, supported by laboratory or imaging tests (91.1%). Disc herniation (20.4%) and osteoarthritis (19.7%) were the most frequent diagnoses, and X-ray (63.7%) was the most frequent diagnostic procedure self-reported by individuals. Most (75.1%) reported being treated for LBP: 80.4% with oral medication and 49.9% with injectables. The mean duration of pharmacological treatment was 104.24 (SD, 266.80) days. The use of pathoanatomical diagnoses, laboratory or imaging tests, and pharmacological treatments were generally more frequent for secondary care (p<0.05). Approximately one-quarter of individuals (24.5%) reported seeking care from additional healthcare providers, physiotherapists (66.9%) were the most frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical care for LBP is frequent and associated with high levels of pathoanatomical diagnoses, imaging and laboratory tests and pharmacological therapy in both primary and secondary care settings. Funding and delivery actions should be prioritised to assure appropriate care for LBP.

Implementing a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for low back pain: a qualitative study of patient and primary care team perspectives

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for primary care visits and is the leading contributor to years lived with disability worldwide. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of patients and primary care team members related to their experiences with a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP.

Methods

We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study. Data were collected using a combination of semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included adults (> 18 years of age) with LBP and primary care team members who participated in a physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Results

We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with patients with LBP (10 women; median age of 52) as well as three focus group discussions with a total of 20 primary care team members representing three teams. Four themes (each with sub-themes) were constructed: 1) enhanced primary care delivery for LBP (improved access and engagement in physiotherapy care, improved communication and care integration between the physiotherapist and primary care team, less inappropriate use of healthcare resources); 2) positive patient experiences and perceived outcomes with the new model of care (physiotherapist built therapeutic alliance, physiotherapist provided comprehensive care, improved confidence in managing LBP, decreased impact of pain on daily life); 3) positive primary care team experiences with the new model of care (physiotherapist fit well within the primary care team, physiotherapist provided expertise on LBP for the primary care team, satisfaction in being able to offer a needed service for patients); and 4) challenges implementing the new model of care (challenges with prompt access to physiotherapy care, challenges making the physiotherapist the first contact for LBP, and opportunities to optimize communication between the physiotherapist and primary care team).

Conclusions

A new physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP was described by patients and primary care team members as contributing to positive experiences and perceived outcomes for patients, primary care team members, and potentially the health system more broadly. Results suggest that this model of care may be a viable approach to support integrated and guideline adherent management of LBP in primary care settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01817-5.

Effect of diagnostic labelling on management intentions for non-specific low back pain: A randomized scenario-based experiment

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic labels may influence treatment intentions. We examined the effect of labelling low back pain (LBP) on beliefs about imaging, surgery, second opinion, seriousness, recovery, work, and physical activities.

METHODS

Six-arm online randomized experiment with blinded participants with and without LBP. Participants received one of six labels: 'disc bulge', 'degeneration', 'arthritis', 'lumbar sprain', 'non-specific LBP', 'episode of back pain'. The primary outcome was the belief about the need for imaging.

RESULTS

A total of 1375 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.7 years [18.4 years]; 748 women [54.4%]) were included. The need for imaging was rated lower with the labels 'episode of back pain' (4.2 [2.9]), 'lumbar sprain' (4.2 [2.9]) and 'non-specific LBP' (4.4 [3.0]) compared to the labels 'arthritis' (6.0 [2.9]), 'degeneration' (5.7 [3.2]) and 'disc bulge' (5.7 [3.1]). The same labels led to higher recovery expectations and lower ratings of need for a second opinion, surgery and perceived seriousness compared to 'disc bulge', 'degeneration' and 'arthritis'. Differences were larger amongst participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care. No differences were found in beliefs about physical activity and work between the six labels.

CONCLUSIONS

'Episode of back pain', 'lumbar sprain' and 'non-specific LBP' reduced need for imaging, surgery and second opinion compared to 'arthritis', 'degeneration' and 'disc bulge' amongst public and patients with LBP as well as reducing the perceived seriousness of LBP and enhancing recovery expectations. The impact of labels appears most relevant amongst those at risk of poor outcomes (participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care).

Psychosocial factors associated with disability in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Chronic low back pain is the main cause of disability worldwide, generating high costs for society. To evaluate the prevalence of disability in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and associated factors, including the impacts of low back pain and psychosocial factors linked to kinesiophobia, catastrophism, anxiety, and depression.

PATIENTS

A cross-sectional study was carried out with 108 adult individuals who had non-specific chronic low back pain. The patients answered previously validated questionnaires, namely the Brief Pain Inventory, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

RESULTS

The prevalence of disability observed was 65.7%, with the mean disability score being 15.7±5.3 points in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Although pain intensity and other domains of the Brief Pain Inventory, like anxiety, depression, and severe kinesiophobia were significant in the bivariate analyses, they were not associated with disability in the multivariate analysis. Only catastrophic thoughts (prevalence ratio [PR]=1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.32), and the 'walking' domain (PR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.03-1.14) remained statistically associated with disability.

CONCLUSION

Pain catastrophization and impact on gait were associated with disability in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain. Motor control thoughts and behaviors during functional activities were considered to be relevant aspects for the better assessment and treatment of these patients.

Guideline-concordant utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in adults receiving chiropractic manipulative therapy vs other care for radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (LMRI) is often performed early in the course of care, which can be discordant with guidelines for non-serious low back pain. Our primary hypothesis was that adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for incident radicular low back pain (rLBP) would have reduced odds of early LMRI over 6-weeks' follow-up compared to those receiving other care (a range of medical care, excluding CSMT). As a secondary hypothesis, CSMT recipients were also expected to have reduced odds of LMRI over 6-months' and 1-years' follow-up.

METHODS

A national 84-million-patient health records database including large academic healthcare organizations (TriNetX) was queried for adults age 20-70 with rLBP newly-diagnosed between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2022. Receipt or non-receipt of CSMT determined cohort allocation. Patients with prior lumbar imaging and serious pathology within 90 days of diagnosis were excluded. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with LMRI utilization (e.g., demographics). Odds ratios (ORs) of LMRI over 6-weeks', 6-months', and 1-years' follow-up after rLBP diagnosis were calculated.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 12,353 patients per cohort (mean age 50 years, 56% female), with a small but statistically significant reduction in odds of early LMRI in the CSMT compared to other care cohort over 6-weeks' follow-up (9%, 10%, OR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.81-0.96] P = 0.0046). There was a small but statistically significant increase in odds of LMRI among patients in the CSMT relative to the other care cohort over 6-months' (12%, 11%, OR [95% CI] 1.10 [1.02-1.19], P < 0.0174) and 1-years' follow-up (14%, 12%, OR [95% CI] 1.21 [1.13-1.31], P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that patients receiving CSMT for newly-diagnosed rLBP are less likely to receive early LMRI than patients receiving other care. However, CSMT recipients have a small increase in odds of LMRI over the long-term. Both cohorts in this study had a relatively low rate of early LMRI, possibly because the data were derived from academic healthcare organizations. The relationship of these findings to other patient care outcomes and cost should be explored in a future randomized controlled trial.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/t9myp ).

Models of care for low back pain patients in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition worldwide and it is responsible for high healthcare costs and resources consumption. It represents a challenge for primary care services that struggle to implement evidence-based practice. Models of care (MoCs) are arising as effective solutions to overcome this problem, leading to better health outcomes. Although there is growing evidence regarding MoCs for the management of LBP patients, an analysis of the existing body of evidence has not yet been carried out. Therefore, this scoping review aims to identify and map the current evidence about the implementation of MoCs for LBP in primary healthcare. Findings from this study will inform policy makers, health professionals and researchers about their characteristics and outcomes, guiding future research and best practice models.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidelines for scoping reviews. Studies that implemented an MoC for LBP patients in primary healthcare will be included. Searches will be conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, grey literature databases and relevant organisations websites. This review will consider records from 2000, written in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Two researchers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles and abstract data. Data extracted will include the identification of the MoC, key elements of the intervention, organisational components, context-specific factors and patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As a secondary analysis, this study does not require ethical approval. It will provide a comprehensive understanding on existing MoCs for LBP, outcomes and context-related challenges that may influence implementation in primary healthcare, which is meaningful knowledge to inform future research in this field. Findings will be disseminated through research papers in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at relevant conferences and documentation for professional organisations and stakeholders.

Characteristics and Effectiveness of Interventions That Target the Reporting, Communication, or Clinical Interpretation of Lumbar Imaging Findings: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians may misinterpret the clinical importance of imaging findings in patients with low back pain, leading to potential harm related to overdiagnosis.

PURPOSE

Our aims were to qualitatively summarize the characteristics of tested interventions that target the reporting, communication, or clinical interpretation of lumbar imaging findings and determine whether interventions are effective in improving low back pain-related health outcomes, health care use, or health care costs.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 20, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

The search retrieved 4394 articles, nine articles (seven studies) met the inclusion criteria to summarize intervention characteristics. Five of these studies had an adequate design for evaluating intervention effectiveness.

DATA ANALYSES

Intervention characteristics were summarized using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Effectiveness data were extracted from short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up points. Studies were assessed for risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to determine the certainty of the evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four studies investigated the insertion of prevalence information into imaging reports. Single studies investigated withholding diagnostic information, education, and reassurance. Moderate-quality evidence (from 1 study) suggests that inserting prevalence information into imaging reports probably does not change the overall health care use in the long-term but may reduce opioid prescribing.

LIMITATIONS

The available evidence is limited, and a meta-analysis was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is required to develop and test interventions that target the reporting, communication, and clinical interpretation of lumbar imaging findings that may reduce overdiagnosis and improve the management of low back pain.

Prevalence, Predictors and Wage Replacement Duration Associated with Diagnostic Imaging in Australian Workers with Accepted Claims for Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objectives To determine in Australian workers with an accepted workers' compensation claim for low back pain (LBP) (1) the prevalence of diagnostic imaging of the spine and factors associated with its use, and (2) the association between spinal diagnostic imaging events and wage replacement duration. Methods Workers with accepted workers' compensation claims for LBP longer than 2 weeks were grouped by whether workers' compensation funded no, single, or multiple diagnostic spinal imaging in the 2 years since reported LBP onset. Ordinal logistic regression was used to define the demographic, occupational and social factors associated with each group. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine the association between spinal imaging and wage replacement duration. Results In the sample of 30,530 workers, 9267 (30.4%) received single spinal imaging and 6202 (20.3%) received multiple spinal imaging. Male workers and workers from the state of Victoria had significantly higher odds of multiple imaging. Socioeconomically advantaged workers and workers from remote Australia had significantly lower odds of multiple imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was the most common imaging modality. Workers with single spinal imaging (median duration 17.0 weeks; HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.9, 2.1) and multiple spinal imaging (median duration 49.0 weeks; HR 4.0, 95% CI 3.9, 4.1) had significantly longer wage replacement duration than those with no imaging (median duration 6.1 weeks). Conclusions Over half of Australian workers with an accepted workers' compensation claim for LBP longer than 2 weeks received diagnostic spinal imaging. Receipt of diagnostic imaging, particularly multiple imaging, was associated with longer wage replacement duration.

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulation Reduces Escalation of Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries

STUDY DESIGN

We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare longterm outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain.

METHODS

We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP.

RESULTS

SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 2.64-2.69, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.

Cross-Sectional Trends in Potentially Low-Value Services for Commercially Insured Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

This cross-sectional study characterizes trends in services for commercially insured patients with chronic low back pain from 2011 to 2019.

Association of Lumbar MRI Findings with Current and Future Back Pain in a Population-based Cohort Study

STUDY DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

We examined associations between common lumbar degenerative changes observed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and present or future low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The association between lumbar MRI degenerative findings and LBP is unclear. Longitudinal studies are sparse.

METHODS

Participants (n = 3369) from a population-based cohort study were imaged at study entry, with LBP status measured at baseline and 6-year follow-up. MRI scans were reported on for the presence of a range of MRI findings. LBP status was measured on a 0 to 10 scale. Regression models were used to estimate the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between individual and multiple MRI findings and LBP severity. Separate longitudinal analyses were conducted for participants with and without baseline pain.

RESULTS

MRI findings were present in persons with and without back pain at baseline. Higher proportions were found in older age groups. 76.4% of participants had a least one MRI finding and 8.3% had five or more different MRI findings. Cross-sectionally, most MRI findings were slightly more common in those with LBP and pain severity was slightly higher in those with MRI findings (ranging from 0.06 for high intensity zone to 0.83 for spondylolisthesis). In the longitudinal analyses, we found most MRI findings were not associated with future LBP-severity regardless of the presence or absence of baseline pain. Compared to zero MRI findings, having multiple MRI findings (five or more) was associated with mildly greater pain-severity at baseline (0.84; 0.50-1.17) and greater increase in pain-severity over 6 years in those pain free at baseline (1.21; 0.04-2.37), but not in those with baseline pain (-0.30; -0.99 to 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the MRI degenerative findings we examined, individually or in combination, do not have clinically important associations with LBP, with almost all effects less than one unit on a 0 to 10 pain scale.Level of Evidence: 3.

The Role of Diagnostic Injections in Spinal Disorders: A Narrative Review

Neck and back pain is increasingly prevalent, and has increased exponentially in recent years. As more resources are dedicated to the diagnosis of pain conditions, it is increasingly important that the diagnostic techniques used are as precise and accurate as possible. Traditional diagnostic methods rely heavily upon patient history and physical examination to determine the most appropriate treatments and/or imaging studies. Though traditional means of diagnosis remain a necessity, in many cases, correlation with positive or negative responses to injections may further enhance diagnostic specificity, and improve outcomes by preventing unnecessary treatments or surgeries. This narrative review aims to present the most recent literature describing the diagnostic validity of precision injections, as well as their impact on surgical planning and outcomes. Diagnostic injections are discussed in terms of facet arthropathy, lumbar radiculopathy, discogenic pain and discography, and sacroiliac joint dysfunction. There is a growing body of evidence supporting the use of diagnostic local anesthetic injections or nerve blocks to aid in diagnosis. Spinal injections add valuable objective information that can potentially improve diagnostic precision, guide treatment strategies, and aid in patient selection for invasive surgical interventions.

Only one fifth of young Australian adults have beliefs about medical imaging for low back pain that align with current evidence: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patients' perceptions/expectations may be a factor behind medical imaging referral rates. Few studies have investigated the beliefs that might drive expectations of medical imaging.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether beliefs of young Australian adults with and without impactful low back pain (LBP) concerning medical scans for LBP align with current evidence. It also investigated if these beliefs were associated with clinical factors (history of impactful LBP, history of previous medical scans, LBP-related disability and the presence of leg pain) or sociodemographic factors (sex, education, income).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

METHODS

78 participants from the Raine Study with a history of impactful LBP and 85 participants with no history of impactful LBP completed a study-specific questionnaire with five statements concerning beliefs about medical imaging for LBP. All statements were not aligned with current evidence about the use of medical imaging in LBP management.

RESULTS

Only 15-21% (n = 24-34) of the participants held beliefs that were aligned with current evidence. Participants with a university education had slightly more aligned beliefs compared to those whose highest education was completing secondary school. There was no difference in the beliefs of participants based on their history of impactful LBP, or other clinical or sociodemographic factors.

CONCLUSION

As beliefs are likely to drive care-seeking behavior, it is notable that most participants' views about the role of medical imaging for LBP were not aligned with current evidence. Therefore, this suggests a need for community education, especially for those with lower education.

The association between early MRI and length of disability in acute lower back pain: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guideline recommendations are against early magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) within the first 4 to 6 weeks of conservative management of acute low back pain (LBP) without "clinical suspicion" of serious underlying conditions (red flags). There is some limited evidence that a significant proportion of patients with LBP receive eMRI non- indicated by clinical guidelines, which could be associated with increased length of disability (LOD). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether eMRI for acute LBP without red flags is associated with increased LOD. The LOD was defined as the number of disability days (absence from work).

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL bibliographic databases were searched from inception until June 5, 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and extracted data for the review. The search identified 324 records, in which seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the included studies used the same study population. Owing to between-study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis of results was used.

RESULTS

All included studies were of good methodological quality and consistently reported that patients with acute LBP without red flags who received eMRI had increased LOD compared to those who did not receive eMRI. Three retrospective cohort studies reported that the eMRI groups had a higher mean LOD than the no eMRI groups ranging from 9.4 days (95% CI 8.5, 10.2) to 13.7 days (95% CI 13.0, 14.5) at the end of 1-year follow-up period. The remaining studies reported that the eMRI groups had a higher hazard ratio of work disability ranging between 1.75 (95% CI 1.23, 2.50) and 3.57 (95% CI 2.33, 5.56) as compared to the no eMRI groups.

CONCLUSION

eMRI is associated with increased LOD in patients with acute LBP without red flags. Identifying reasons for performing non-indicated eMRI and addressing them with quality improvement interventions may improve adherence to clinical guidelines and improve disability outcomes among patients with LBP.

Design of the Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure Trial (SPINE CARE) study: Methods and lessons from a multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back and neck pain (together, spine pain) are among the leading causes of medical visits, lost productivity, and disability. For most people, episodes of spine pain are self-limited; nevertheless, healthcare spending for this condition is extremely high. Focusing care on individuals at high-risk of progressing from acute to chronic pain may improve efficiency. Alternatively, postural therapies, which are frequently used by patients, may prevent the overuse of high-cost interventions while delivering equivalent outcomes.

METHODS

The SPINE CARE (Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure) trial is a cluster-randomized multi-center pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and healthcare utilization of two interventions for primary care patients with acute and subacute spine pain. The study was conducted at 33 primary care clinics in geographically distinct regions of the United States. Individuals ≥18 years presenting to primary care with neck and/or back pain of ≤3 months' duration were randomized at the clinic-level to 1) usual care, 2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary approach called the Identify, Coordinate, and Enhance (ICE) care model, or 3) Individualized Postural Therapy (IPT), a standardized postural therapy method of care. The trial's two primary outcomes are change in function at 3 months and spine-related spending at one year. 2971 individuals were enrolled between June 2017 and March 2020. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021.

DISCUSSION

The SPINE CARE trial will determine the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of two interventions for patients with spine pain presenting to primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03083886.

Consumer understanding of terms used in imaging reports requested for low back pain: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To investigate (1) self-reported societal comprehension of common and usually non-serious terms found in lumbar spine imaging reports and (2) its relationship to perceived seriousness, likely persistence of low back pain (LBP), fear of movement, back beliefs and history and intensity of LBP.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey of the general public.

SETTING

Five English-speaking countries: UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (age >18 years) with or without a history of LBP recruited in April 2019 with quotas for country, age and gender.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported understanding of 14 terms (annular fissure, disc bulge, disc degeneration, disc extrusion, disc height loss, disc protrusion, disc signal loss, facet joint degeneration, high intensity zone, mild canal stenosis, Modic changes, nerve root contact, spondylolisthesis and spondylosis) commonly found in lumbar spine imaging reports. For each term, we also elicited worry about its seriousness, and whether its presence would indicate pain persistence and prompt fear of movement.

RESULTS

From 774 responses, we included 677 (87.5%) with complete and valid responses. 577 (85%) participants had a current or past history of LBP of whom 251 (44%) had received lumbar spine imaging. Self-reported understanding of all terms was poor. At best, 235 (35%) reported understanding the term 'disc degeneration', while only 71 (10.5%) reported understanding the term 'Modic changes'. For all terms, a moderate to large proportion of participants (range 59%-71%), considered they indicated a serious back problem, that pain might persist (range 52%-71%) and they would be fearful of movement (range 42%-57%).

CONCLUSION

Common and usually non-serious terms in lumbar spine imaging reports are poorly understood by the general population and may contribute to the burden of LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619000545167.

Patient education booklet to support evidence-based low back pain care in primary care - a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate imaging and low-value care for low back pain (LBP) are common. A new patient-education booklet was created to overcome identified barriers to the delivery of recommended care, including the use of inappropriate imaging. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of this booklet as part of primary care for LBP patients in comparison to usual care.

METHODS

A cluster-randomized trial was performed. The intervention involved providing practitioners with the new patient-education booklet and a 30-min training session on its use. The booklet was provided during the clinical consult to all consenting LBP patients in the intervention group. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients presenting with LBP who underwent imaging examinations during the first three months of follow-up and PROMIS PF-20 (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 20-item physical functioning short form) change between baseline and three-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes, including sick leave and imaging examinations at 12 months, were investigated. Logistic regression using GEE-estimation was used for dichotomous outcomes, Poisson regression using GEE-estimation for count outcomes, and linear mixed models for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

Using the patient education booklet appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of LBP patients who underwent an imaging examination at three months, but the result was not statistically significant (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.27 to 1.22). At 12 months, the effect was slightly larger and statistically significant (OR 0.50, 95%Cl 0.30 to 0.83, p = 0.008). No difference was observed in the PROMIS PF-20 T-score change between baseline and 3 months or 12 months (p = 0.365 and p = 0.923, respectively). The number of sick leave days in the intervention group was less than that in the control group at 3 months (RR 0.47, 95%Cl 0.26 to 0.83, p = 0.010) and at 12 months (RR 0.36, 95%Cl 0.18 to 0.72, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The booklet appeared to be effective in reducing the proportion of LBP patients who underwent imaging examinations over 12 months. The intervention had no discernible effect on the PROMIS PF20 T-score change. The number of sick leave days was substantially lower in the intervention group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN14389368 , Registered 4 April 2019-Retrospectively registered.