Changes in Primary Care Health Care Utilization after Inclusion of Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine MR Imaging Reports for Uncomplicated Low Back Pain

Results of an International Survey on Spinal Imaging by the ASNR/ASSR/ESNR/ESSR "Nomenclature 3.0" Working Group

Our goal was to determine if "Nomenclature 2.0," the classification of lumbar disk pathology consensus, should be updated. We conducted a social media and e-mail-based survey on preferences regarding the use of classification on magnetic resonance spine reporting. Members of the European Society of Neuroradiology, European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, and American Society of Spine Radiology received a 15-question online survey between February and March 2022. A total of 600 responses were received from 63 countries. The largest number of responses came from Italy and the United States. We found that 71.28% of respondents used Nomenclature 2.0, Classification of Lumbar Disk Pathology. But classification on stenosis is used less often: 53.94% and 60% of respondents do not use any classification of spinal canal stenosis and foraminal stenosis, respectively. When queried about which part of Nomenclature needs improving, most respondents asked for a Structured Reporting Template (SRT), even though 58.85% of respondents do not currently use any template and 54% routinely use a clinical information questionnaire. These results highlight the importance of an updated Nomenclature 3.0 version that integrates the classifications of lumbar disk disease and spinal canal and foraminal stenosis. Further attention should also be directed toward developing a robust endorsed SRT.

Downstream activities after laboratory testing in primary care: an exploratory outcome of the ELMO cluster randomised trial (Electronic Laboratory Medicine Ordering with evidence-based order sets in primary care)

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the rate and type of downstream activities (DAs) after laboratory testing in primary care, with a specific focus on check-up laboratory panels, and to explore the effect of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for laboratory ordering on these DAs.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

72 primary care practices in Belgium, with 272 general practitioners (GPs), randomly assigned to the intervention arm or the control arm.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 10 270 lab panels from 9683 primary care patients (women 55.1%, mean age 56.5). All adult patients who consulted one of the participating GPs during the trial period and needed a laboratory exam were eligible for participation.

INTERVENTIONS

GPs in the intervention group used a CDSS integrated into their online laboratory ordering system, while GPs in the control arm used their lab ordering system as usual. The trial duration was 6 months, with another 6 months follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This publication reports on the exploratory outcome of DAs after an initial laboratory exam and the effect of the CDSS on these DAs.

RESULTS

19.7% of all laboratory panels resulted in further diagnostic procedures (95% CI 18.9% to 20.5%) and 19% (95% CI 18.2% to 19.7%) in treatment changes. Check-up laboratory exams showed similar rates of DAs, with 17.5% (95% CI 13.8% to 21.2%) diagnostic DAs and 18.9% (95% CI 13.9% to 23.9%) treatment changes. Using the CDSS resulted in a significant reduction in downstream referrals (-2.4%; 95% CI -4.2% to -0.6%; p=0008), imaging and endoscopies (-0.9%; 95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%; p=0026) and treatment changes (-5.4%; 95% CI -9.5% to -1.2%; p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study so far to examine DAs after laboratory testing. It shows that almost one in three laboratory exams leads to further DAs, even in check-up panels. Using a CDSS for laboratory orders may reduce the rate of some DAs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02950142.

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.

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.

Effects of Including Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports on Prescribing Non-Opioid Medications for Pain

BACKGROUND

Information on the prevalence of common imaging findings among patients without back pain in spine imaging reports might affect pain medication prescribing for patients with back pain. Prior research on inserting this text suggested a small reduction in opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of epidemiologic information in spine imaging reports on non-opioid pain medication prescribing for primary care patients with back pain.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology cluster-randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 170,680 patients aged ≥ 18 years from four healthcare systems who received thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging from 2013 to 2016 and had not received a prescription for non-opioid pain medication in the preceding 120 days.

INTERVENTION

Text of age- and modality-specific epidemiologic benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common findings in people without back pain inserted into thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging reports at intervention clinics.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcomes: any non-opioid prescription within 90 days after index imaging, overall, and by sub-class (skeletal muscle relaxants, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, duloxetine).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

count of non-opioid prescriptions within 90 days, overall, and by sub-class.

KEY RESULTS

The intervention was not associated with the likelihood of patients receiving at least one prescription for new non-opioid pain-related medications, overall (adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08) or by sub-class. The intervention was not associated with the number of prescriptions for any non-opioid medication (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04). However, the intervention was associated with more new prescriptions for NSAIDs (IRR, 1.12) and tricyclic antidepressants (IRR, 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Inserting epidemiologic text in spine imaging reports had no effect on whether new non-opioid pain-related medications were prescribed but was associated with the number of new prescriptions for certain non-opioid sub-classes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02015455.

What behaviour change techniques have been used to improve adherence to evidence-based low back pain imaging?

Background

Despite international guideline recommendations, low back pain (LBP) imaging rates have been increasing over the last 20 years. Previous systematic reviews report limited effectiveness of implementation interventions aimed at reducing unnecessary LBP imaging. No previous reviews have analysed these implementation interventions to ascertain what behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have been used in this field. Understanding what techniques have been implemented in this field is an essential first step before exploring intervention effectiveness.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, Ovid (Medline), CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to February 1, 2021, as well as and hand-searched 6 relevant systematic reviews and conducted citation tracking of included studies. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extracted data on study and intervention characteristics. Study interventions were qualitatively analysed by three coders to identify BCTs, which were mapped to mechanisms of action from the theoretical domains framework (TDF) using the Theory and Techniques Tool.

Results

We identified 36 eligible studies from 1984 citations in our electronic search and a further 2 studies from hand-searching resulting in 38 studies that targeted physician behaviour to reduce unnecessary LBP imaging. The studies were conducted in 6 countries in primary (n = 31) or emergency care (n = 7) settings. Thirty-four studies were included in our BCT synthesis which found the most frequently used BCTs were ‘4.1 instruction on how to perform the behaviour’ (e.g. Active/passive guideline dissemination and/or educational seminars/workshops), followed by ‘9.1 credible source’, ‘2.2 feedback on behaviour’ (e.g. electronic feedback reports on physicians’ image ordering) and 7.1 prompts and cues (electronic decision support or hard-copy posters/booklets for the office). This review highlighted that the majority of studies used education and/or feedback on behaviour to target the domains of knowledge and in some cases also skills and beliefs about capabilities to bring about a change in LBP imaging behaviour. Additionally, we found there to be a growing use of electronic or hard copy reminders to target the domains of memory and environmental context and resources.

Conclusions

This is the first study to identify what BCTs have been used to target a reduction in physician image ordering behaviour. The majority of included studies lacked the use of theory to inform their intervention design and failed to target known physician-reported barriers to following LBP imaging guidelines.

Protocol Registation

PROSPERO CRD42017072518

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01136-w.

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

A classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - protocol for a benchmarking controlled trial

Background

Guidelines recommend a biopsychosocial framework for low back pain (LBP) management and the avoidance of inappropriate imaging. In clinical practice, care strategies are often inconsistent with evidence and guidelines, even though LBP is the most common disabling health condition worldwide. Unhelpful beliefs, attitudes and inappropriate imaging are common. LBP is understood to be a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon with many known multidimensional risk factors (symptom- and lifestyle-related, psychological and social) for persistent or prolonged disability, which should be identified and addressed by treatment. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was developed for early identification of individual risk factors of LBP to enable targeted care. Stratified care according SBT has been shown to improve the effectiveness of care in a primary care setting. A biopsychosocially-oriented patient education booklet, which includes imaging guidelines and information, is one possible way to increase patients’ understanding of LBP and to reduce inappropriate imaging. Premeditated pathways, education of professionals, written material, and electronic patient registry support in health care organizations could help implement evidence-based care.

Methods

We will use a Benchmarking Controlled Trial (BCT) design in our study. We will prospectively collect data from three health care regions before and after the implementation of a classification-based approach to LBP in primary care. The primary outcome will be change in PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) (short form 20a) over 12-month follow-up.

Discussion

The implementation of a classification-based biopsychosocial approach can potentially improve the care of LBP patients, reduce inappropriate imaging without increasing health-care costs, and decrease indirect costs by reducing work disability. Using the BCT we will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the improvement strategy for the entire care pathway.

Trial registration

ISRCTN,ISRCTN13273552, retrospectively registered 13/05/2019.

An online investigation into the impact of adding epidemiological information to imaging reports for low back pain

Degenerative changes commonly feature on spinal images and are often identified in the imaging reports of pain-free individuals. Many of these findings relate to "normal" age-related characteristics, however are frequently interpreted as implying abnormality and may adversely influence patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of adding epidemiological information to lumbar imaging reports in a general adult population. This study was an online, scenario-based, randomised experiment. Participants were presented with a "virtual patient" scenario via an online survey and then randomly allocated to either receive a standard imaging report or a standard report with additional epidemiological information. The primary outcome was a composite "back-related perceptions" (BRP) score. Data from 247 participants (72% female) were included in the analysis. There was a small effect of group on BRP [F(12,444) = 6.75, p = 0.010] with participants who received the additional epidemiological information demonstrating more positive perceptions. Including epidemiological information in spinal imaging reports positively impacted "virtual-patient" perceptions in an online scenario-based study. This finding suggests that implementing a simple imaging reporting strategy may be reassuring and should be further considered for its potential to positively impact patient outcomes. Further research is warranted in clinical populations.