Barriers to following imaging guidelines for the treatment and management of patients with low-back pain in primary care: a qualitative assessment guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework

Irish general practitioner (GP) perspectives on impact of direct access radiology on patient care in the community: results from a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Since winter 2020/21, general practitioners (GPs) in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) have been granted access to diagnostic imaging studies on a new publicly funded pathway, expediting access to services previously obtained via hospital-based doctors.

AIMS

Outline GP perspectives on imaging studies obtained via the new "GP Access to Community Diagnostics" initiative.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was employed. Referrals over the first six months of 2019 and 2021 were collated by a private imaging provider, and a randomly selected subset of 2021 studies (maximum 30 referrals per GP) was returned to participating GPs to provide detail on the impact on each patient's care. In-depth qualitative interviews were also conducted with participating GPs.

RESULTS

Eleven GPs supplied detailed information on 81 studies organized through the new initiative. GPs reported that the initiative had led to a large proportion of cases being managed solely in general practice, with an 81% reduction in referrals to acute hospital settings and a 58% reduction in referrals to secondary care clinics. GPs felt imaging studies improved patient care in 86% of cases and increased GP workload in 58% of cases. GP qualitative interviews revealed four key themes: improved patient care, increased GP workload, reduction in hospital referrals, and opinions on ongoing management of such initiatives, including guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs felt enhancing access to diagnostics improved patient care by expediting diagnosis, decision-making, and treatment and by reducing hospital referrals. GPs were generally positive about the initiative and made some suggestions on future management of the initiative.

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Narrative review.

RESULTS

NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

Telemedical Interdisciplinary Care Team Evaluation and Treatment of People With Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study

Objective

To evaluate the effects of an interdisciplinary care team (ICT) model delivered by telemedicine on patients with low back pain (LBP).

Design

Retrospective analysis of deidentified pre-existing data.

Setting

Retrospective observational study of patients presenting with LBP to a nationwide telemedicine practice using an ICT model.

Participants

Over a 9-month period all patients with a diagnosis related to LBP and who had an ICT evaluation (medical doctor, advanced practice provider, health coach, and physical therapist) were included in the study (n=36). A minimum of 2 follow-up physical therapy visits were required for inclusion.

Interventions

Patients were evaluated for LBP, received a diagnosis, and were offered a multidisciplinary treatment plan. Additional real-time audio visual medical, health coaching, registered dietician, and physical therapy services were received as deemed clinically appropriate.

Main Outcome Measures

Baseline, 30 day, and final pain (mean 81 day) measurements via numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Baseline and final Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-10 Global Mental/Physical domains.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Use of prescription medication, referral for imaging, need for injections, or surgery.

Results

36 patients met criteria. Pain levels included mild (n=6, 16.7%), moderate (n=19, 52.8%), and severe (n=11, 30.6%). Clinically significant pain improvements were noted in 83.3% (n=25) of those with moderate or severe pain. PROMIS Mental and Physical Health categorization from Fair/Poor to Good/Excellent significantly improved over time. The initial 20% (n=7) in Fair/Poor Mental Health improved to 6.3% (n=2) at finish, while the 80% (n=28) in Good/Excellent Mental Health at start improved to 93.8% (n=30) at finish. Regarding Physical Health, 51.4% (n=18) rated Fair/Poor at start and 31.3% (n=10) at finish, while the 48.6% (n=17) rated Good/Excellent at start improved to 68.8% (n=22) at finish. The need for prescription medication was low (n=6, 16.7%) and spinal imaging orders were negligible (n=1, 2.8%). Injections were warranted in 11.4% (n=4) of patients and surgical referral with operative treatment in 2.8% (n=1).

Conclusion

Interdisciplinary care delivered through telemedicine can significantly improve pain and support improved health-related quality of life in patients with LBP, with low rates of imaging, prescription, and interventional use.

A qualitative study exploring perceived barriers and enablers to fidelity of training and delivery for an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) commonly presents to primary care, where inappropriate use of imaging remains common despite guideline recommendations against its routine use. Little is known about strategies to enhance intervention fidelity (i.e., whether interventions were implemented as intended) for interventions developed to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to inform the development of an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging among general practitioners (GPs) and chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. The study objectives are: [1] To explore perceived barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity of training of GPs and chiropractors to deliver a proposed intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP and [2] To explore perceived barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity of delivery of the proposed intervention.

METHODS

An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted with GPs and chiropractors in NL. The interview guide was informed by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium fidelity checklist; data analysis was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Participant quotes were coded into TDF domains, belief statements were generated at each domain, and domains relevant to enhancing fidelity of provider training or intervention delivery were identified.

RESULTS

The study included five GPs and five chiropractors from urban and rural settings. Barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity to provider training related to seven TDF domains: [1] Beliefs about capabilities, [2] Optimism, [3] Reinforcement, [4] Memory, attention, and decision processes, [5] Environmental context and resources, [6] Emotion, and [7] Behavioural regulation. Barriers and enablers to enhancing fidelity to intervention delivery related to seven TDF domains: [1] Beliefs about capabilities, [2] Optimism, [3] Goals, [4] Memory, attention, and decision processes, [5] Environmental context and resources, [6] Social influences, and [7] Behavioural regulation.

CONCLUSION

The largest perceived barrier to attending training was time; perceived enablers were incentives and flexible training. Patient pressure, time, and established habits were perceived barriers to delivering the intervention as intended. Participants suggested enhancement strategies to improve their ability to deliver the intervention as intended, including reminders and check-ins with researchers. Most participants perceived intervention fidelity as important. These results may aid in the development of a more feasible and pragmatic intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for GPs and chiropractors in NL.

Healthcare professional behaviour: health impact, prevalence of evidence-based behaviours, correlates and interventions

Healthcare professional (HCP) behaviours are actions performed by individuals and teams for varying and often complex patient needs. However, gaps exist between evidence-informed care behaviours and the care provided. Implementation science seeks to develop generalizable principles and approaches to investigate and address care gaps, supporting HCP behaviour change while building a cumulative science. We highlight theory-informed approaches for defining HCP behaviour and investigating the prevalence of evidence-based care and known correlates and interventions to change professional practice. Behavioural sciences can be applied to develop implementation strategies to support HCP behaviour change and provide valid, reliable tools to evaluate these strategies. There are thousands of different behaviours performed by different HCPs across many contexts, requiring different implementation approaches. HCP behaviours can include activities related to promoting health and preventing illness, assessing and diagnosing illnesses, providing treatments, managing health conditions, managing the healthcare system and building therapeutic alliances. The key challenge is optimising behaviour change interventions that address barriers to and enablers of recommended practice. HCP behaviours may be determined by, but not limited to, Knowledge, Social influences, Intention, Emotions and Goals. Understanding HCP behaviour change is a critical to ensuring advances in health psychology are applied to maximize population health.