Care For Back Pain Research Articles

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Receipt of Nonpharmacologic Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Medicare Beneficiaries With OUD

Nonpharmacologic treatments are important for managing chronic pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD), for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies may be particularly harmful. Racial and ethnic minority individuals with chronic pain and OUD are vulnerable to suboptimal pain management due to systemic inequities and structural racism, highlighting the need to understand their receipt of guideline-recommended nonpharmacologic pain therapies, including physical therapy (PT) and chiropractic care. To assess differences across racial and ethnic groups in receipt of PT or chiropractic care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) among persons with comorbid OUD. This retrospective cohort study used a 20% random sample of national Medicare administrative data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, to identify fee-for-service community-dwelling beneficiaries with a new episode of CLBP and comorbid OUD. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022, to July 30, 2023. Race and ethnicity as a social construct, categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and unknown or other. The main outcomes were receipt of PT or chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis. The time (in days) to receiving these treatments was also assessed. Among 69 362 Medicare beneficiaries analyzed, the median age was 60.0 years (IQR, 51.5-68.7 years) and 42 042 (60.6%) were female. A total of 745 beneficiaries (1.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 444 (0.6%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 9822 (14.2%), Black or African American; 4124 (5.9%), Hispanic; 53 377 (77.0%); non-Hispanic White; and 850 (1.2%), other or unknown race. Of all beneficiaries, 7104 (10.2%) received any PT or chiropractic care 3 months after a new CLBP episode. After adjustment, Black or African American (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.55) and Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.67) persons had lower odds of receiving chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis compared with non-Hispanic White persons. Median time to chiropractic care was longest for American Indian or Alaska Native (median, 8.5 days [IQR, 0-44.0 days]) and Black or African American (median, 7.0 days [IQR, 0-42.0 days]) persons and shortest for Asian or Pacific Islander persons (median, 0 days [IQR, 0-6.0 days]). No significant racial and ethnic differences were observed for PT. In this retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with comorbid CLBP and OUD, receipt of PT and chiropractic care was low overall and lower across most racial and ethnic minority groups compared with non-Hispanic White persons. The findings underscore the need to address inequities in guideline-concordant pain management, particularly among Black or African American and Hispanic persons with OUD.

The quality of care index for low back pain: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 1990–2017

Background. Low back pain is one of the major causes of morbidity worldwide. Studies on low back pain quality of care are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of care of low back pain worldwide and compare gender, age, and socioeconomic groups.Methods. This study used GBD data from 1990 to 2017 from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) website. Extracted data included low back pain incidence, prevalence, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and years lived with disability (YLDs). DALYs to prevalence ratio and prevalence to incidence ratio were calculated and used in the principal component analysis (PCA) to make a proxy of the quality-of-care index (QCI). Age groups, genders, and countries with different socioeconomic statuses regarding low back pain care quality from 1990 to 2017 were compared.ResultsThe proxy of QCI showed a slight decrease from 36.44 in 1990 to 35.20 in 2017. High- and upper-middle-income countries showed a decrease in the quality of care from 43.17 to 41.57 and from 36.37 to 36.00, respectively, from 1990 to 2017. On the other hand, low and low-middle-income countries improved, from a proxy of QCI of 20.99 to 27.89 and 27.74 to 29.36, respectively.Conclusion. Despite improvements in the quality of care for low back pain in low and lower-middle-income countries between 1990 and 2017, there is still a large gap between these countries and higher-income countries. Continued steps must be taken to reduce healthcare barriers in these countries.

Guideline adherence and socioeconomic factors in Danish patients referred to secondary care for low back pain: a cross sectional study

BackgroundThe pre-referral history of patients with low back pain referred to secondary care is poorly documented, and it is unclear whether it complies with clinical guideline recommendations; specifically, whether they have received appropriate treatment in primary care. This study describes the patient population referred to a spine clinic at a Danish hospital and investigates whether they have received an adequate course of treatment in primary care before referral. Furthermore, a possible association between primary care treatment and socioeconomic factors is estimated.MethodsWe examined self-reported data from 1035 patients with low back pain of at least eight weeks duration referred to secondary care at a medical spine clinic using a cross-sectional design. As an approximation to national clinical guidelines, the definition of an adequate course of treatment in primary care was at least five visits to a physiotherapist or chiropractor prior to referral.ResultsPatients were on average 53 years old, and 56% were women. The average Oswestry Disability Index score was 36, indicating a moderate level of disability. Nearly half of the patients reported pain for over a year, and 75% reported pain below knee level.Prior to referral, 33% of the patients had not received an adequate course of treatment in primary care. Based on multiple logistic regression with the three socioeconomic variables, age and sex in the model, those who were unemployed had an odds ratio of 2.35 (1.15–4.79) for not receiving appropriate treatment compared to employed patients. Similarly, the odds ratio for patients without vs. with health insurance was 1.71 (1.17–2.50). No significant association was observed with length of education.ConclusionsDespite national clinical guidelines recommending management for low back pain in primary care, one third of the patients had not received an adequate course of treatment before referral to secondary care. Moreover, the high probability of not having received recommended treatment for patients who were unemployed or lacked health insurance indicates an economic obstacle to adequate care. Therefore, reconsidering the compensation structure for the treatment of back pain patients is imperative to mitigate health inequality within low back pain management.

Fostering equitable change in health services: Using critical reflexivity to challenge dominant discourses in low back pain care in Australia.

Justice and equity-focused practices in health services play a critical but overlooked role in low back pain (LBP) care. Critical reflexivity - the ability to examine and challenge power relations, and broader social issues embedded in everyday life - can be a useful tool to foster practices that are more socially just. No research has yet explored this approach in back pain health services. This study sought to understand how clinicians construct LBP in relation to broader socio-cultural-political aspects of care and explore if those constructions changed when clinicians engaged with critically reflexive dialogues with researchers. Using critical discourse analysis methods, this qualitative study explored institutionalised patterns of knowledge in the construction of LBP care. We conducted 22 critically reflexive dialogues with 29 clinicians from two health services in Australia - a private physiotherapy clinic and a public multidisciplinary pain clinic. Our analyses suggested that clinicians and services often constructed LBP care at an individual level. This dominant individualistic discourse constrained consideration of justice-oriented practices in the care of people with LBP. Through dialogues, discursive constructions of LBP care expanded to incorporate systems and health service workplace practices. This expansion fostered more equitable clinical and service practices - such as assisting patients to navigate health care systems, considering patients' socioeconomic circumstances when developing treatment plans, encouraging staff discussion of possible systemic changes to enhance justice, and fostering a more inclusive workplace culture. Although such expansions faced challenges, incorporating broader discourses enabled recommendations to address LBP care inequities. Critical reflexivity can be a tool to foster greater social justice within health services. By expanding constructions of LBP care beyond individuals, critical reflexive dialogues can foster discussion and actions towards more equitable workplace cultures, services and systems.

Factors influencing physiotherapists implementation of high value care in the management of nonspecific low back pain in Indian healthcare settings: A qualitative study

BackgroundNon-specific low back pain is a common musculoskeletal condition that often requires the involvement of physiotherapists for effective management. However, there is limited understanding of the factors influencing physiotherapists' implementation of high-value care in the management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), particularly in Indian healthcare settings. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of implementation of high-value care in managing NSLBP from the perspective of physiotherapists practicing in Indian healthcare settings. DesignDescriptive qualitative design. MethodsWe adopted a descriptive phenomenological approach and purposefully selected physiotherapists (N = 15) from diverse healthcare settings, encompassing varying years of clinical experience, to capture a broad range of perspectives. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted via the Zoom video conferencing platform. Each interview lasted on average for 30–45 min, and no follow-up interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. ResultsOur analysis revealed three major themes and seven sub-themes uncovering barriers and facilitators of implementation of high-value care. These themes include misconceptions about low back pain and its management among physiotherapists, their perceived lack of autonomy in clinical decision-making due to external influences, and the significance of aligning treatment plans with patient goals while considering evidence-based care. ConclusionThe study results provide insights into the unique challenges associated with implementation of high-value care for non-specific low back pain in Indian healthcare settings.

Patient Perspectives on Seeking Emergency Care for Acute Low Back Pain and Access to Physical Therapy in the Emergency Department.

Low back pain is a common reason for visiting the emergency department (ED), yet little is known about patient motivations for seeking emergency care. The purpose of this study was to explore patient perspectives on visiting the ED for low back pain to inform a more patient-centered approach to emergency care. We conducted focus group discussions and individual interviews among patients visiting an urban academic ED for acute low back pain. We recruited participants from an ongoing prospective study of 101 patients receiving either ED-initiated physical therapy or usual care. We conducted discussions, and interviews using an a priori developed discussion guide. We audio recorded, transcribed, and iteratively content analyzed the data using a consensual qualitative approach until thematic saturation was reached. We conducted 4 focus group discussions among 18 participants (median age 46.5 years, 66.7% women, 61.1% Black) and individual interviews with 27 participants (median age 45 years, 55.6% women, 44.4% White). No new themes emerged during the fourth and final focus group. We identified 5 summary themes: (1) the decision to seek emergency care for low back pain is motivated by severe pain, resulting disability, and fears about a catastrophic diagnosis, (2) participants sought various goals from their ED visit but emphasized the primacy of pain control, (3) participants were reluctant to use pain medications but also acknowledged their benefit, (4) participants perceived a number of benefits from direct access to an ED physical therapist in the ED, and (5) participation in physical therapy ultimately facilitated recovery, but the pain was a barrier to performing exercises. These patient perspectives and resulting themes may be used to inform a more patient-centered emergency care experience and contextualize quantitative research findings on ED care for low back pain.

External validation and updating of prognostic prediction models for nonrecovery among older adults seeking primary care for back pain.

Prognostic prediction models for 3 different definitions of nonrecovery were developed in the Back Complaints in the Elders study in the Netherlands. The models' performance was good (optimism-adjusted area under receiver operating characteristics [AUC] curve ≥0.77, R2 ≥0.3). This study aimed to assess the external validity of the 3 prognostic prediction models in the Norwegian Back Complaints in the Elders study. We conducted a prospective cohort study, including 452 patients aged ≥55 years, seeking primary care for a new episode of back pain. Nonrecovery was defined for 2 outcomes, combining 6- and 12-month follow-up data: Persistent back pain (≥3/10 on numeric rating scale) and persistent disability (≥4/24 on Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). We could not assess the third model (self-reported nonrecovery) because of substantial missing data (>50%). The models consisted of biopsychosocial prognostic factors. First, we assessed Nagelkerke R2 , discrimination (AUC) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large [CITL], slope, and calibration plot). Step 2 was to recalibrate the models based on CITL and slope. Step 3 was to reestimate the model coefficients and assess if this improved performance. The back pain model demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.79), and R2 was 0.23. The disability model demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.85), and R2 was 0.35. Both models had poor calibration (CITL <0, slope <1). Recalibration yielded acceptable calibration for both models, according to the calibration plots. Step 3 did not improve performance substantially. The recalibrated models may need further external validation, and the models' clinical impact should be assessed.

Measuring the determinants of implementation behavior in multiprofessional rehabilitation.

The Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) measures facilitators or barriers of healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors based on the current implementation research on practice and policy. The DIBQ covers 18 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework and consists of 93 items. A previously tailored version (DIBQ-t) covering 10 domains and 28 items focuses on implementing best-practice low back pain care. To tailor a shortened version of DIBQ to multiprofessional rehabilitation context with cross-cultural adaptation to Finnish language. A two-round Delphi study. National-level online survey. Purposively recruited experts in multiprofessional rehabilitation (N.=25). Cross-cultural translation of DIBQ to Finnish was followed by a two-round Delphi survey involving diverse experts in rehabilitation (physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, nursing scientists, social scientists). In total, 25 experts in Round 1, and 21 in Round 2 evaluated the importance of DIBQ items in changing professionals' implementation behavior by rating on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) of including each item in the final scale. Consensus to include an item was defined as a mean score of ≥4 by ≥75% of Delphi participants. Open comments were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Items with agreement of ≤74% were either directly excluded or reconsidered and modified depending on qualitative judgements, amended with experts' suggestions. After completing an analogous second-round, a comparison with DIBQ-t was performed. Lastly, the relevance of each item was indexed using content validity index on item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI/Ave). After Round 1, 17 items were included and 48 excluded by consensus whereas 28 items were reconsidered, and 20 items added for Round 2. The open comments were categorized as: 1) "modifying"; 2) "supportive"; and 3) "critical". After Round 2, consensus was reached regarding all items, to include 21 items. After comparison with DIBQ-t, the final multiprofessional DIBQ (DIBQ-mp) covers 11 TDF domains and 21 items with I-CVIs of ≥0.78 and S-CVI/Ave of 0.93. A Delphi study condensed a DIBQ-mp with excellent content validity for multiprofessional rehabilitation context. A potential tool for evaluating determinants in implementing evidence-based multiprofessional rehabilitation interventions.

The impact of aggregate positive lifestyle behaviors on low back pain resilience and care seeking

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLow back pain (LBP) is a global issue, and the high associated costs are mainly attributed to a small proportion of people with LBP who seek care. Importantly, the impact of aggregate positive lifestyle behaviors on LBP resilience and care seeking is not known. PURPOSEThis study aimed to evaluate the relationship between positive lifestyle behaviors and LBP resilience. STUDY DESIGNThis study was a prospective longitudinal cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLEData was collected as part of the AUstralian Twin BACK Study (AUTBACK). Participants who reported a lifetime previous history of LBP at baseline were included in this analysis (n = 340). OUTCOME MEASURESThe outcomes of interest were the number of weeks without activity limiting LBP and total number of days of healthcare usage, health practitioner care, self-management care, and medication intake. METHODSA lifestyle behavior score was built using variables of body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep quality. Negative binomial regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between the positive lifestyle behavior score and the count outcomes of number of weeks without activity limiting LBP and number of days participants used care. RESULTSAfter adjusting for covariates, no association was found between participants’ positive lifestyle behavior score and their number of weeks without activity limiting LBP (IRR: 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.05). There was a statistically significant relationship between higher positive lifestyle behavior scores and fewer number of days of participants’ total healthcare usage (IRR:0.69, 95% CI 0.56–0.84), healthcare practitioner visits (IRR:0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.84), use of self-management strategies (IRR:0.74, 95% CI 0.60–0.91), and use of pain medication (IRR:0.55, 95% CI 0.44–0.68). CONCLUSIONPeople who adopt optimal lifestyle behaviors, such as engaging in adequate physical activity, achieving optimal quality sleep, maintaining an ideal BMI, and not smoking, may not experience less time suffering from activity limiting LBP, but are less likely to use healthcare and pain medication for their LBP.

Effect of an Artificial Intelligence–Based Self-Management App on Musculoskeletal Health in Patients With Neck and/or Low Back Pain Referred to Specialist Care

Self-management is a key element in the care of persistent neck and low back pain. Individually tailored self-management support delivered via a smartphone app in a specialist care setting has not been tested. To determine the effect of individually tailored self-management support delivered via an artificial intelligence-based app (SELFBACK) adjunct to usual care vs usual care alone or nontailored web-based self-management support (e-Help) on musculoskeletal health. This randomized clinical trial recruited adults 18 years or older with neck and/or low back pain who had been referred to and accepted on a waiting list for specialist care at a multidisciplinary hospital outpatient clinic for back, neck, and shoulder rehabilitation. Participants were enrolled from July 9, 2020, to April 29, 2021. Of 377 patients assessed for eligibility, 76 did not complete the baseline questionnaire, and 7 did not meet the eligibility criteria (ie, did not own a smartphone, were unable to take part in exercise, or had language barriers); the remaining 294 patients were included in the study and randomized to 3 parallel groups, with follow-up of 6 months. Participants were randomly assigned to receive app-based individually tailored self-management support in addition to usual care (app group), web-based nontailored self-management support in addition to usual care (e-Help group), or usual care alone (usual care group). The primary outcome was change in musculoskeletal health measured by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included change in musculoskeletal health measured by the MSK-HQ at 6 weeks and 6 months and pain-related disability, pain intensity, pain-related cognition, and health-related quality of life at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Among 294 participants (mean [SD] age, 50.6 [14.9] years; 173 women [58.8%]), 99 were randomized to the app group, 98 to the e-Help group, and 97 to the usual care group. At 3 months, 243 participants (82.7%) had complete data on the primary outcome. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 3 months, the adjusted mean difference in MSK-HQ score between the app and usual care groups was 0.62 points (95% CI, -1.66 to 2.90 points; P = .60). The adjusted mean difference between the app and e-Help groups was 1.08 points (95% CI, -1.24 to 3.41 points; P = .36). In this randomized clinical trial, individually tailored self-management support delivered via an artificial intelligence-based app adjunct to usual care was not significantly more effective in improving musculoskeletal health than usual care alone or web-based nontailored self-management support in patients with neck and/or low back pain referred to specialist care. Further research is needed to investigate the utility of implementing digitally supported self-management interventions in the specialist care setting and to identify instruments that capture changes in self-management behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04463043.

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

BackgroundThe 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. DesignA qualitative study. MethodsThe 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. ResultsNon-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). ConclusionsImproving 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.

What guides back pain care? A content analysis of low back pain directives in the Australian context

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies?MethodsWe used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes.ResultsEighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups.ConclusionDirectives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

Introducing Australia's clinical care standard for low back pain.

Introducing Australia's clinical care standard for low back pain.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol

BackgroundChronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis.MethodsWe have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10–12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients’ intervention assignment.DiscussionBy targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Management of low back pain in Australian emergency departments for culturally and linguistically diverse populations from 2016 to 2021

BackgroundDisparate care in the ED for minority populations with low back pain is a long-standing issue reported in the USA. Our objective was to compare care delivery for low back...

Mapping guideline-informed care for chronic non-specific low back pain with the biopsychosocial approach: A rapid review.

Current evidence favors a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial approach to the management of chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP). However, it is unclear whether such an approach is facilitated by current clinical guidelines. This rapid review set out to examine the extent to which clinical guideline recommendations for managing CLBP address domains of the biopsychosocial approach. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the gray literature were searched for any clinical guidelines targeting the management of CLBP, published within the last 6 years. Title/abstract and full-text screening were undertaken by two reviewers using the accelerated approach. Data extraction and critical appraisal were completed by two reviewers, independently. Extracted data were synthesized in narrative form. Fifteen guidelines met the review inclusion criteria. One-half of the guidelines were considered to be of medium quality. All guidelines provided management recommendations addressing the biological domain of the biopsychosocial approach; 13 (87%) guidelines reported recommendations addressing the psychological domain, and 8 (53%) guidelines presented recommendations addressing the social domain. Only 53% (8/15) of guidelines reported recommendations addressing all three domains of the biopsychosocial approach. Guideline recommendations both across and within the biopsychosocial domains were varied and inconsistent. The CLBP clinical guidelines included in this review provided detailed guidance on the biological domain, yet limited attention and detail were afforded to the psychological and social domains. Several recommendations are presented on how to improve the quality of future CLBP guidelines, and to help foster the provision of a biopsychosocial approach to CLBP management.

Patient Satisfaction With Medical Care for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Research Registry Study.

The process and outcomes of delivering medical care for chronic low back pain might affect patient satisfaction. We aimed to determine the associations of process and outcomes with patient satisfaction. We conducted a cross-sectional study of patient satisfaction among adult participants with chronic low back pain in a national pain research registry using self-reported measures of physician communication, physician empathy, current physician opioid prescribing for low back pain, and outcomes pertaining to pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life. We used simple and multiple linear regression models to measure factors associated with patient satisfaction, including a subgroup of participants having both chronic low back pain and the same treating physician for >5 years. Among 1,352 participants, only physician empathy (standardized β, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.588-0.688; t = 25.14; P < .001) and physician communication (standardized β, 0.182; 95% CI, 0.133-0.232; t = 7.22; P < .001) were associated with patient satisfaction in the multivariable analysis that controlled for potential confounders. Similarly, in the subgroup of 355 participants, physician empathy (standardized β, 0.633; 95% CI, 0.529-0.737; t = 11.95; P < .001) and physician communication (standardized β, 0.208; 95% CI, 0.105-0.311; t = 3.96; P < .001) remained associated with patient satisfaction in the multivariable analysis. Process measures, notably physician empathy and physician communication, were strongly associated with patient satisfaction with medical care for chronic low back pain. Our findings support the view that patients with chronic pain highly value physicians who are empathic and who make efforts to more clearly communicate treatment plans and expectations.

A Systems Approach for Assessing Low Back Pain Care Quality in Veterans Health Administration Chiropractic Visits: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to explore a systemwide process for assessing components of low back pain (LBP) care quality in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) chiropractic visits using electronic health record (EHR) data. MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional quality improvement project. We randomly sampled 1000 on-station VHA chiropractic initial visits occurring from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, for patients with no such visits within the prior 12 months. Characteristics of LBP visits were extracted from VHA national EHR data via structured data queries and manual chart review. We developed quality indicators for history and/or examination and treatment procedures using previously published literature and calculated frequencies of visits meeting these indicators. Visits meeting our history and/or examination and treatment indicators were classified as “high-quality” visits. We performed a regression analysis to assess associations between demographic/clinical characteristics and visits meeting our quality criteria. ResultsThere were 592 LBP visits identified. Medical history, physical examination, and neurologic examination were documented in 76%, 77%, and 63% of all LBP visits, respectively. Recommended treatments, such as any manipulation, disease-specific education/advice, and therapeutic exercise, occurred in 75%, 69%, and 40% of chronic visits (n = 383), respectively. In acute/subacute visits (n = 37), any manipulation (92%), manual soft tissue therapy (57%), and disease-specific advice/education (54%) occurred most frequently. Female patients and those with a neck pain comorbid diagnosis were significantly less likely to have a “high-quality” visit, while other regression associations were non-significant. ConclusionThis study explored a systemwide process for assessing components of care quality in VHA chiropractic visits for LBP. These results produced a potential framework for uniform assessment of care quality in VHA chiropractic visits for LBP and highlight potential areas for improvements in LBP care quality assessments.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment of patients with chronic low back pain in the United States: a retrospective cohort study.

The practice of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) varies substantially across nations. Much of this variability may be attributed to disparate international educational, licensing, and regulatory environments that govern the practice of osteopathy by nonphysicians. This is in contrast with the United States, where osteopathic physicians are trained to integrate OMT as part of comprehensive patient management. This study will analyze the factors associated with OMT use and its outcomes when integrated within the overall medical care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) provided by osteopathic physicians in the United States. A retrospective cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through April 2022 to study the effectiveness of OMT integrated within medical care provided by osteopathic physicians. The outcome measures, which included pain intensity, pain impact, physical function, and health-related quality of life, were assessed with the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. A total of 1,358 adults with CLBP entered the cohort (mean age, 53.2 years; 74.4% female), 913 completed the finalquarterly encounter, 348 were in various stages of follow-up, and 97 had withdrawn. Blacks (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.63; p<0.001), cigarette smokers (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; p=0.02), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.81; p=0.001) were less likely to have utilized OMT in the multivariable analysis. Mean between-group differences among 753 participants with no OMT crossover and complete follow-up favored OMT: 1.02 (95% CI, 0.63-1.42; p<0.001) for pain intensity; 5.12 (95% CI, 3.09-7.16; p<0.001) for pain impact; 3.59 (95% CI, 2.23-4.95; p<0.001) for physical function, and 2.73 (95% CI, 1.19-4.27; p<0.001) for health-related quality of life. Analyses involving propensity-score adjustment and inclusion of participants with missing data yielded similar conclusions. None of 12 prespecified participant characteristics demonstrated an OMT interaction effect. OMT integrated within medical care provided by osteopathic physicians for CLBP was associated with improved pain and related outcomes. Its use may be facilitated by the growing osteopathic physician workforce in the United States and adherence to relevant clinical practice guidelines.

Does pain medication influence outcomes in elderly people seeking care for back pain? BACE cohort study.

Back pain is common among older adults resulting in the high societal and economic burden of persistent pain and disability. Pain medications are frequently prescribed for back pain, especially among older patients, but the efficacy of analgesics on back pain in this patient population remains under debate. In the present study, we investigated the outcomes (i.e. pain intensity and disability) of pain medication use in older people with back pain participating in a prospective cohort study. A total of 669 patients aged >55 years consulting a general practitioner for a new episode of back complaints were included in this study. The association between pain medication use and outcomes (pain intensity and disability) was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Pain medication users were observed to experience more pain and disability at baseline compared with non-users. At 3-month follow-up, patients from all subgroups (e.g. pain medication users versus non-users) improved over time. Yet medication users had higher pain intensity and poorer disability scores compared with non-users. Patients who de-escalated or stopped pain medication had lower pain and disability than non-users. When comparing different types of medications (i.e. paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids), none of the groups showed better scores regarding pain and disability in users compared with non-users. Opioid users displayed the highest levels of pain and disability. In the present study, although patients who de-escalated or stopped analgesics had less pain and disability, pain medication overall does not result in better outcomes in older people with back pain. Older patients taking pain medication did not report better outcomes than the ones who did not, except for those who de-escalated or stopped pain medication. Caution should be taken in prescribing pain medication for older patients with back pain in primary care.