Providing information at the initial consultation to patients with low back pain across general practice, chiropractic and physiotherapy - a cross-sectorial study of Danish primary care

Does children's healthcare seeking change after participation in a musculoskeletal study? A register-based study

BACKGROUND

Participating in research studies often involves interactions with healthcare professionals, potentially influencing the participant's future help-seeking behaviour. We investigated whether participating in the Childhood Health Activity and Motor Performance School Study - Denmark (CHAMPS) (2008-2014), which involved telephone consultations and clinical assessments by healthcare professionals with participants experiencing musculoskeletal complaints, changed frequency of contacts with primary public healthcare services among participants over the subsequent five-years-period, compared to non-participating children.

METHODS

Using Danish health register data from 1998 to 2020, we compared CHAMPS participant's and two control group's contacts with private physiotherapists, chiropractors (outside hospitals), and general practitioners: a random 10% sample of children from Denmark (National Controls), and a secondary local control group (Local Controls) during three periods: Before (1998-31.10.2008), during (01.11.2008-20.06.2014), and after (21.06.2014-31.12.2019) the CHAMPS-study. Separate multivariable Poisson regression models were used to assess the differences between groups for the outcome variables: contacts with physiotherapists, chiropractors, and general practitioners, and overall contacts.

RESULTS

Compared to National Controls, the CHAMPS-Group had fewer physiotherapy contacts before the study with an estimated mean of 0.01 vs 0.02 per person-year, and after (0.13 vs 0.18 per person-year), corresponding to a crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.69 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.58-0.83) after the study period. However, they had more chiropractor contacts before (0.05 vs 0.03), and after (0.21 vs 0.09) the study, with a crude IRR of 2.29 (95% CI: 1.93-2.71) after the study period. General practice contacts were equal for the CHAMPS-group compared to national controls (5.84 vs 5.84) before the study but reduced during and after (3.21 vs 3.71), with a crude IRR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90) after the study. Comparable patterns of contacts changes from before to after the study were observed between the CHAMPS-group and the Local Controls except for physiotherapy which was equal between the two groups after the study.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that research studies involving systematic engagement with participants experiencing musculoskeletal complaints can influence subsequent healthcare-seeking behaviour. Future research should address the influence of health literacy, health education, and healthcare provider recommendations on healthcare decisions during such research studies.

Chronic Low Back Pain: Prevalence, Impact on Quality of Life, and Predictors of Future Disability

BACKGROUND

In primary healthcare settings, chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a widespread health issue with a great global impact.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 918 adults attending primary healthcare settings in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, to estimate the cLBP prevalence, its effect on health-related quality of life (QOL), and predictors of subsequent disability. The visual analog scale of pain (VAS), World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHO-QOL), and Oswestry low back pain disability index (ODI) were used to assess back pain severity, impact on QOL, and physical disability, respectively.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cLBP among adults attending primary care settings in Makkah City was 25.9%, and 88.6% of them had a limited range of motion of the spine. About 58.1% had abnormal radiological findings detected by MRI. Based on the VAS scale, most patients (83.8%) had mild pain. The median (IQR) QOL score was 70 (60-80). Minimal and moderate disability scores were prevalent among 16.2% and 65.7% of patients, respectively. Disability scores were independently predicted by a lower QOL score (beta = -0.39, 95%CI = -0.49 to -0.29, p < 0.001) and higher VAS scores (beta = 0.47, 95%CI = 0.38-0.56, p < 0.001). Furthermore, disability was independently associated with having post-void residual volume (PVRV) (beta = 5.84, 95%CI = 1.97-9.72, p = 0.004) and abnormal X-ray findings (beta = 7.10, 95%CI = 1.77-12.4, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

cLBP is common among adults attending primary care settings in Makkah City; it is associated with moderate disability and lower health-related QOL.

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors

OBJECTIVES

To explore the elements and composition of care provided by general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and chiropractors (DCs) to patients with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Primary care setting, Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care clinicians (GPs, PTs and DCs) in the Region of Southern Denmark were invited to register consecutive adult patient visits with LBP as the primary complaint.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinicians reported care elements provided to patients with LBP. Elements varied due to professional differences (eg, prescriptive rights). Data were descriptively analysed, on group and individual levels, for frequency and combination of care elements, and practice patterns were explored with latent class analysis.

RESULTS

The clinicians (33 GPs, 67 PTs and 43 DCs with a median experience of 15 years and 59% were females) registered 3500 patient visits. On average, the visits involved patients aged 51 years, and 51% were with females. The frequencies of common care elements across professions were information (42%-56% of visits between professions) and advice (56%-81%), while other common elements for GPs were pain medication (40%) and referrals to PTs (36%), for PTs, use of exercises (81%) and for DCs, use of manual therapy (96%). Substantial variation was observed within professions and distinct practice patterns, with different focuses of attention to information and advice versus exercise and manual therapy, were identified for PTs and DCs.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate substantial variation in the care elements provided by GPs, PTs and DCs to LBP patients. The compositions of care and practice patterns identified challenge the understanding of usual care as a uniform concept and professions as homogeneous groups. Strategic use of particular care elements in different parts of treatment courses is indicated. Longitudinal data and qualitative enquiry are needed to assess if or how care is tailored to individual patients.