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

Effectiveness of a classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - a benchmarking controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of classification-based approach for low back pain care in Finnish primary care.

DESIGN

A benchmarking controlled trial design was used.

SUBJECTS/PATIENTS

Three primary healthcare areas and 654 low back pain patients with or without sciatica.

METHODS

Classification-based care (using the STarT Back Tool) was implemented using organizational-, healthcare professional-, and patient-level interventions. The primary outcome was change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Physical Function (PROMIS PF-20) from baseline to 12 months.

RESULTS

No difference was found between the intervention and control in change in PROMIS PF-20 over the 12-month follow-up (mean difference 0.33 confidence interval -2.27 to 2.9, p = 0.473). Low back pain-related healthcare use, imaging, and sick leave days were significantly lower in the intervention group. Reduction in intensity of low back pain appeared to be already achieved at the 3-month follow-up (mean difference -1.3, confidence interval -2.1 to -0.5) in the intervention group, while in the control group the same level of reduction was observed at 12 months (mean difference 0.7, confidence interval -0.2 to 1.5, treatment*time p = 0.003).  Conclusion: Although classification-based care did not appear to influence physical functioning, more rapid reductions in pain intensity and reductions in healthcare use and sick leave days were observed in the intervention group.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively).

RESULTS

27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

Patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care who want diagnostic imaging are more likely to receive referral for imaging: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if the use of imaging for low back pain (LBP) is impacted by patient beliefs. This study aimed to: (1) describe beliefs about the importance of imaging and whether patients wanted imaging when presenting for chiropractic care for LBP; (2) describe associations between baseline patient characteristics and imaging beliefs and whether patients wanted imaging; and (3) determine whether patients who believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP, or who wanted to receive imaging, were more likely to receive an imaging referral.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational data was collected between November 2016 to December 2019 from 10 primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Consecutive patients aged 18 or older and presenting with a new episode of LBP were included (N = 2818). Beliefs about the importance of imaging (two questions) and whether imaging was wanted (one question) were collected at the initial visit, together with baseline participant characteristics and whether an imaging referral was provided. Associations between imaging beliefs/desire to receive imaging and participant characteristics were explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The relationships between imaging beliefs and desire to receive imaging with subsequent imaging referral were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for pre-selected confounder variables.

RESULTS

Approximately one third of participants believed imaging to be important for the management of LBP (29.5% (95%CI 27.8, 31.3) or 41.5% (95%CI 39.6, 43.3) depending on the two imaging beliefs questions). Approximately one quarter (26.1%, 95%CI 24.5, 27.7) of participants wanted to receive an imaging referral. Participants were more likely to believe in the importance of imaging or want an imaging referral if they had a longer duration of LBP, history of previous imaging for LBP, or a lower completed education level. Participants who wanted imaging at the initial consult were more likely to receive an imaging referral (Odds ratio; 95%CI 1.6; 1.2, 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one third of patients presenting for chiropractic care in Denmark believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP. One quarter wanted imaging at the initial consult. Patients' desire for imaging appeared to impact the use of diagnostic imaging.

Reducing Low-Value Imaging for Low Back Pain: Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals in low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 14, 2021, as well as Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews published in the last 10 years. We conducted forward and backward citation tracking.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled or clinical trials in adults with low back pain to improve imaging referrals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Of the 2719 identified records, 8 trials were included, with 6 studies eligible for meta-analysis (participants: N = 170 460). All trials incorporated clinician education; 4 included audit and/or feedback components. Comparators were no-intervention control and passive dissemination of guidelines. Five trials were rated as low risk of bias, and 2 trials were rated as having some concerns. There was low-certainty evidence that implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals had no effect (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.72, 1.05]; I² = 0%; studies: n = 6). The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

We found low-certainty evidence that interventions to reduce imaging referrals or use in low back pain had no effect. Education interventions are unlikely to be effective. Organizational- and policy-level interventions are more likely to be effective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):175-191. Epub 05 Feb 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10731.