Patient Satisfaction With Care Is Associated With Better Outcomes in Function and Pain 1 Year After Lumbar Spine Surgery

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.

RESULTS

We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.

CONCLUSION

We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Preoperative risk factors for nonsatisfaction after lumbar interbody fusion

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of impaired quality of life and disability and studies regarding surgical management of patients with LBP show a high variation in patient-reported success rate.

Research question

To find valuable preoperative clinical risk factors and variables associated with a non-satisfactory patient-reported outcome following surgery.

Materials and methods

The Danish surgical spine database (DaneSpine) was used to collect eight years of pre- and postoperative data on patients undergoing single-level fusions with either posterior- (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF). The primary outcome was patient nonsatisfaction. We collected data on European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, pain intensity, duration of back pain, previous discectomy, and expectations regarding return to work after surgery at 2-year follow-up.

Results

The cohort included 453 patients of which 19% reported treatment nonsatisfaction. The nonsatisfaction group demonstrated higher preoperative VAS scores for back pain (75 ± 19 vs. 68 ± 21, p = 0.006) and leg pain (65 ± 25 vs. 58 ± 28, p = 0.004). The preoperative EQ-5D score was significantly lower in the nonsatisfaction group (0.203 + 0.262 vs. 0.291 ± 0.312, p = 0.016). There was no statistical significance between patient nonsatisfaction and preoperative ODI score, age, body mass index, duration of back pain or expectations regarding return to work after surgery.

Discussion and conclusion

Low preoperative EQ-5D scores and high VAS leg and back pain scores were statistically significant with patient nonsatisfaction following surgery and may prove to be valuable tools in the preoperative screening and alignment of patient expectations.

Multidisciplinary team-based management approach for secondary-care patients with severe and persistent low back pain: A mixed-method feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Persistent and severe low back pain is challenging to treat. Multidisciplinary care with systematic follow-up may be more effective than usual care. However, such a model has yet to be developed and tested.

OBJECTIVE

Our objectives were to develop and test the feasibility of a three-month multidisciplinary intervention with systematic follow-up in a specialized hospital spine center for patients with severe and persistent low back pain.

METHODS

Using the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research framework for the development and testing of complex interventions, we developed a multidisciplinary intervention with systematic follow-up and tested its feasibility, using a-priori-determined outcomes during three months for 24 patients seen at a regional diagnostic spine center unit. As part of the evaluation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with participants and a focus-group interview with clinicians.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patients included, only 17 completed the course of care and provided complete data for feasibility assessment. We failed to reach our a-priori feasibility outcomes, had difficulty with inclusion, and participants did not find the intervention effective or satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was not feasible as barriers existed on multiple levels (e.g., clinical, administrative, and patient). Excessive study moderations must be made before the intervention is feasible in a randomized trial.