Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial's implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model.

DESIGN

Our logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources.

SETTING

This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting.

METHODS

Data collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and post-training evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data.

RESULTS

We found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

These insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care-based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback.

Patient Perspectives on Communication with Primary Care Physicians about Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common health problem with challenges for providing satisfactory care. This study was undertaken to identify opportunities to improve key aspects of physicians' communications with CLBP-affected patients.

METHODS

A series of 3 focus groups, each with 7 to 11 patients with CLBP, were recruited from primary care settings and grouped by risk level of reduced function resulting from back pain, to elicit perspectives about interactions with their primary care physicians. Analysis of focus group transcripts used an iterative process based on a thematic approach and a priori concepts.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients participated in the focus groups. Patient comments about communicating with physicians around CLBP fit into themes of listening and empathy, validating pain experiences, conducting effective CLBP assessment, providing clear diagnosis and information, and collaboratively working on treatment. Patients shared that physicians can foster positive interactions with CLBP-affected patients by sharing personal experiences of chronic pain, being truthful about not having all the answers and being clear about how patients can benefit from referrals, reviewing the patient's previous treatments before beginning conversations about treatment options, providing follow-up instructions, giving patients a diagnosis beyond "chronic pain," and explaining the role of imaging in their care.

CONCLUSION

This study provides specific steps that physicians in the US can take to improve physician-patient interactions during primary care visits pertaining to CLBP. The findings could inform physician training, development of educational materials for patients, and future research.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Development and Validation of the EXPECT Questionnaire: Assessing Patient Expectations of Outcomes of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Treatments for Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Patient expectations may be associated with outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for chronic pain. However, a psychometrically sound measure of such expectations is needed.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a questionnaire to assess individuals' expectations regarding outcomes of CAM treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP), as well as a short form of the questionnaire.

METHODS

An 18-item draft questionnaire was developed through literature review, cognitive interviews with individuals with CLBP, CAM practitioners, and expert consultation. Two samples completed the questionnaire: (1) a community sample (n = 141) completed it via an online survey before or soon after starting a CAM treatment for CLBP, and (2) participants (n = 181) in randomized clinical trials evaluating CAM treatments for CLBP or fibromyalgia completed it prior to or shortly after starting treatment. Factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity were examined.

RESULTS

Based on factor analyses, 10 items reflecting expectations (used to create a total score) and three items reflecting hopes (not scored) were selected for the questionnaire. The questionnaire had high internal consistency, moderate test-retest reliability, and moderate correlations with other measures of expectations. A three-item short form also had adequate reliability and validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The Expectations for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Treatments (EXPECT) questionnaire can be used in research to assess individuals' expectations of treatments for chronic pain. It is recommended that the three hope questions are included (but not scored) to help respondents distinguish between hopes and expectations. The short form may be appropriate for clinical settings and when expectation measurement is not a primary focus.

Adjunctive naturopathic care for type 2 diabetes: patient-reported and clinical outcomes after one year

Background

Several small, uncontrolled studies have found improvements in self-care behaviors and reductions in clinical risk in persons with type 2 diabetes who received care from licensed naturopathic physicians. To extend these findings and determine the feasibility and promise of a randomized clinical trial, we conducted a prospective study to measure the effects of adjunctive naturopathic care (ANC) in primary care patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Forty patients with type 2 diabetes were invited from a large integrated health care system to receive up to eight ANC visits for up to one year. Participants were required to have hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values between 7.5-9.5 % and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor (i.e., hypertension, hyperlipidemia or overweight). Standardized instruments were administered by telephone to collect outcome data on self-care, self-efficacy, diabetes problem areas, perceived stress, motivation, and mood. Changes from baseline scores were calculated at 6- and 12-months after entry into the study. Six and 12-month changes in clinical risk factors (i.e., HbA1c, lipid and blood pressure) were calculated for the ANC cohort, and compared to changes in a cohort of 329 eligible, non-participating patients constructed using electronic medical records data. Between-cohort comparisons were adjusted for age, gender, baseline HbA1c, and diabetes medications. Six months was pre-specified as the primary endpoint for outcome assessment.

Results

Participants made 3.9 ANC visits on average during the year, 78 % of which occurred within six months of entry into the study. At 6-months, significant improvements were found in most patient-reported measures, including glucose testing (P = 0.001), diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.02), mood (P = 0.001), self-efficacy (P = 0.0001) and motivation to change lifestyle (P = 0.003). Improvements in glucose testing, mood, self-efficacy and motivation to change lifestyle persisted at 12-months (all P < 0.005). For clinical outcomes, mean HbA1c decreased by −0.90 % (P = 0.02) in the ANC cohort at 6-months, a −0.51 % mean difference compared to usual care (P = 0.07). Reductions at 12-months were not statistically significant (−0.34 % in the ANC cohort, P = 0.14; -0.37 % difference compared to the usual care cohort, P = 0.12).

Conclusions

Improvements were noted in self-monitoring of glucose, diet, self-efficacy, motivation and mood following initiation of ANC for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Study participants also experienced reductions in blood glucose that exceeded those for similar patients who did not receive ANC. Randomized clinical trials will be necessary to determine if ANC was responsible for these benefits.

Complementary and alternative therapies for back pain II

BACKGROUND

Back and neck pain are important health problems with serious societal and economic implications. Conventional treatments have been shown to have limited benefit in improving patient outcomes. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies offer additional options in the management of low back and neck pain. Many trials evaluating CAM therapies have poor quality and inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and harms of acupuncture, spinal manipulation, mobilization, and massage techniques in management of back, neck, and/or thoracic pain.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched up to 2010; unpublished literature and reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. study selection: All records were screened by two independent reviewers. Primary reports of comparative efficacy, effectiveness, harms, and/or economic evaluations from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the CAM therapies in adults (age ≥ 18 years) with back, neck, or thoracic pain were eligible. Non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) comparing harms were also included. Reviews, case reports, editorials, commentaries or letters were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers using a predefined form extracted data on study, participants, treatments, and outcome characteristics.

RESULTS

265 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs were included. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain was associated with significantly lower pain intensity than placebo but only immediately post-treatment (VAS: -0.59, 95 percent CI: -0.93, -0.25). However, acupuncture was not different from placebo in post-treatment disability, pain medication intake, or global improvement in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Acupuncture did not differ from sham-acupuncture in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain immediately after treatment (VAS: 0.24, 95 percent CI: -1.20, 0.73). Acupuncture was superior to no treatment in improving pain intensity (VAS: -1.19, 95 percent CI: 95 percent CI: -2.17, -0.21), disability (PDI), functioning (HFAQ), well-being (SF-36), and range of mobility (extension, flexion), immediately after the treatment. In general, trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended to produce negative results (i.e., statistically non-significant) compared to trials that applied other types of placebo (e.g., TENS, medication, laser). Results regarding comparisons with other active treatments (pain medication, mobilization, laser therapy) were less consistent Acupuncture was more cost-effective compared to usual care or no treatment for patients with chronic back pain. For both low back and neck pain, manipulation was significantly better than placebo or no treatment in reducing pain immediately or short-term after the end of treatment. Manipulation was also better than acupuncture in improving pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Results from studies comparing manipulation to massage, medication, or physiotherapy were inconsistent, either in favor of manipulation or indicating no significant difference between the two treatments. Findings of studies regarding costs of manipulation relative to other therapies were inconsistent. Mobilization was superior to no treatment but not different from placebo in reducing low back pain or spinal flexibility after the treatment. Mobilization was better than physiotherapy in reducing low back pain (VAS: -0.50, 95 percent CI: -0.70, -0.30) and disability (Oswestry: -4.93, 95 percent CI: -5.91, -3.96). In subjects with acute or subacute neck pain, mobilization compared to placebo significantly reduced neck pain. Mobilization and placebo did not differ in subjects with chronic neck pain. Massage was superior to placebo or no treatment in reducing pain and disability only amongst subjects with acute/sub-acute low back pain. Massage was also significantly better than physical therapy in improving back pain (VAS: -2.11, 95 percent CI: -3.15, -1.07) or disability. For subjects with neck pain, massage was better than no treatment, placebo, or exercise in improving pain or disability, but not neck flexibility. Some evidence indicated higher costs for massage use compared to general practitioner care for low back pain. Reporting of harms in RCTs was poor and inconsistent. Subjects receiving CAM therapies reported soreness or bleeding on the site of application after acupuncture and worsening of pain after manipulation or massage. In two case-control studies cervical manipulation was shown to be significantly associated with vertebral artery dissection or vertebrobasilar vascular accident.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was of poor to moderate grade and most of it pertained to chronic nonspecific pain, making it difficult to draw more definitive conclusions regarding benefits and harms of CAM therapies in subjects with acute/subacute, mixed, or unknown duration of pain. The benefit of CAM treatments was mostly evident immediately or shortly after the end of the treatment and then faded with time. Very few studies reported long-term outcomes. There was insufficient data to explore subgroup effects. The trial results were inconsistent due probably to methodological and clinical diversity, thereby limiting the extent of quantitative synthesis and complicating interpretation of trial results. Strong efforts are warranted to improve the conduct methodology and reporting quality of primary studies of CAM therapies. Future well powered head to head comparisons of CAM treatments and trials comparing CAM to widely used active treatments that report on all clinically relevant outcomes are needed to draw better conclusions.

Unanticipated benefits of CAM therapies for back pain: an exploration of patient experiences

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this research was to provide insight into the full range of meaningful outcomes experienced by patients who participate in clinical trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies.

DESIGN

Data for this study were assembled from five randomized trials evaluating six different CAM treatments for back pain. A conventional qualitative content analysis was conducted on responses to open-ended questions asked at the end of telephone interviews assessing treatment outcomes.

SUBJECTS

A total of 884 study participants who received CAM therapies completed post-treatment interviews. Of these, 327 provided qualitative data used in the analyses.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified a range of positive outcomes that participants in CAM trials considered important but were not captured by standard quantitative outcome measures. Positive outcome themes included increased options and hope, increased ability to relax, positive changes in emotional states, increased body awareness, changes in thinking that increased the ability to cope with back pain, increased sense of well-being, improvement in physical conditions unrelated to back pain, increased energy, increased patient activation, and dramatic improvements in health or well-being. The first five of these themes were mentioned for all of the CAM treatments, while others tended to be more treatment specific. A small fraction of these effects were considered life transforming.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that standard measures used to assess the outcomes of CAM treatments fail to capture the full range of outcomes that are important to patients. In order to capture the full impact of CAM therapies, future trials should include a broader range of outcomes measures.

Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of acupuncture and dry-needling for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain.

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is usually a self-limiting condition that tends to improve spontaneously over time. However, for many people, back pain becomes a chronic or recurrent problem for which a large variety of therapeutic interventions are employed.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the searches from 1996 to February 2003 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also searched the Chinese Cochrane Centre database of clinical trials and Japanese databases to February 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture (that involved needling) or dry-needling for adults with nonspecific acute/subacute or chronic low back pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality (using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group) and extracted data. The trials were combined using meta-analysis methods or levels of evidence when the data reported did not allow statistical pooling.

RESULTS

Thirty-five randomized clinical trials were included: 20 were published in English, 7 in Japanese, 5 in Chinese, and 1 each in Norwegian, Polish, and German. There were only 3 trials of acupuncture for acute low back pain. These studies did not justify firm conclusions because of their small sample sizes and low methodologic quality. For chronic low back pain, there is evidence of pain relief and functional improvement for acupuncture compared to no treatment or sham therapy. These effects were only observed immediately after the end of the sessions and in short-term follow-up. There is also evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, the effects are only small. Dry-needling appears to be a useful adjunct to other therapies for chronic low back pain. No clear recommendations could be made about the most effective acupuncture technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The data do not allow firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low back pain. For chronic low back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodologic quality, there is a clear need for higher quality trials in this area.

Conceptualization and evaluation of an optimal healing environment for chronic low-back pain in primary care

This paper describes what a primary care-based optimal healing environment (OHE) might look like for chronic low-back pain, and presents a research protocol to evaluate the effect of such an environment on a variety of important patient and clinician outcomes. Such an environment may be conceived of as having three major components: (1) the health care environment in which the primary care team works; (2) the cognitive, technical, clinical and organizational skills of the team, and; (3) the "healing" skills of the team members, particularly the primary care physician. A variety of study designs available for evaluating the effects of an OHE on patient and clinical outcomes are described. Decisions about study site and population, appropriate outcome measures, required sample sizes, methods of patient recruitment, treatment protocol and analytic issues would need to be tailored to the specific requirements of the study. Because many elements of an OHE designed for chronic back pain seen in primary care settings would also be relevant for the other 98% of primary care visits, it is preferable to design, implement and evaluate an OHE for primary care practice in general than for only a specific condition.

A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature

Clinicians are bombarded by reports of new diagnostic tests or treatments for patients with spine problems. To provide the best possible patient care, clinicians need to be able to critically appraise the results of such studies for validity and relevance to patient care. Important questions to be asked of any description of diagnostic or treatment studies are the following questions: 1) Are the patients described in detail so that you can decide whether they are comparable to those that you see in your practice? 2) Are the treatments or assessments described well enough so that you could provide the same for your patients? 3) Was a clinically relevant endpoint measured? 4) Is there an appropriate comparison group? 5) Are potential sources of bias appropriately attended to? 6) Are the results clinically significant?

Effects of practice style in managing back pain

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of a practice style of back pain management consistent with self-care (infrequent prescribing of pain medications and bed rest) on long-term functional outcomes, costs of care, and patient satisfaction.

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental observational study in which primary care physicians (n = 44) were categorized according to one of three practice style groups defined by a low, moderate, or high frequency of prescribing pain medications and bed rest for many patients (average, 24 patients per physician).

SETTING

Primary care practices of a large, staff model health maintenance organization, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with back or neck pain of participating primary care physicians. Patients were interviewed 1 month (n = 1071) and 1 year and 2 years (n = 911) after their index visits.

RESULTS

Patients in the three practice style groups rated similarly the quality of medical care received for back pain. Patients treated by physicians who infrequently prescribed pain medications and bed rest were more satisfied with education about back pain. On a scale of 0 to 10, the mean rating of agreement with the statement, "After your visit the doctor, you fully understood how to take care of your back problem," was 5.6 +/- 3.6 among patients of physicians who frequently prescribed medication and rest and was 6.6 +/- 3.5) among those who infrequently prescribed medication and bed rest. At 1 month, 30% of patients of physicians who infrequently prescribed medications and bed rest were graded as having moderate to severe activity limitation because of back pain, whereas 37% of patients in the moderate group had this grading, and 46% of patients of physicians who frequently prescribed were graded as having moderate to severe activity limitation. Differences in activity limitation by practice style group were no longer evident at 1 or 2 years of follow-up. The total 1-year costs of back care were higher among patients seen by physicians who frequently prescribed bed rest and pain medications (cost, $768 +/- $1592) than among those seen by physicians who infrequently prescribed (cost, $428 +/- $665), due largely to differences in inpatient and specialty care costs. The adjusted difference in costs, after controlling for case-mix variables, was $277 (95% Cl, $85.50 to $471.32).

CONCLUSIONS

A practice style consistent with back pain self-care yielded similar long-term pain and functional outcomes at lower cost and was associated with higher satisfaction with patient education compared with a practice style characterized by more frequent prescribing of pain medications and bed rest.

Back pain in primary care. Outcomes at 1 year

Outcomes of primary care back pain patients (N = 1128) were studied at 1 year after seeking care. Changes in depression depending on outcome, and predictors of poor outcome were evaluated. Less than one back pain patient in five reported recent onset (first onset within the previous 6 months). One year after seeking care, the large majority of both recent and nonrecent-onset patients reported having back pain in the previous month (69% vs. 82%). A significant minority of both recent and nonrecent-onset patients had either a poor functional outcome (14% vs. 21%) or continuing high intensity pain without appreciable disability (10% vs. 16%). Predictors of poor outcome included pain-related disability, days in pain, lower educational attainment, and female gender. Among initially dysfunctional patients with persistent pain, one half were improved and one third had a good outcome at the 1-year follow-up. Among initially dysfunctional patients who experienced a good outcome, elevated depressive symptoms improved to normal levels at follow-up. The outcome of back pain was predicted by pain-related disability and days in pain rather than by recency of onset, so it may be more meaningful to distinguish characteristic levels of pain intensity, pain-related disability, and pain persistence than to classify patients as acute or chronic.

The impact of physician attitudes on patient satisfaction with care for low back pain

We wished to determine whether patient satisfaction was related to physicians' confidence in their abilities to effectively manage low back pain, and to examine their attitudes about patients with back pain. The confidence and attitudes of primary care providers were determined using self-administered questionnaires. Patient satisfaction with care was assessed during telephone interviews conducted 3 weeks after a clinic visit for low back pain. The study was conducted in a primary care clinic of a large health maintenance organization. Completed surveys were obtained from 21 primary care providers (18 physicians and three physician assistants) and 270 of their patients with low back pain. Three satisfaction scales specific to low back pain were used to measure patient satisfaction with regard to information received from provider, caring, and effectiveness of treatment. The results showed that the providers' attitudes about patients with low back pain were not associated with any of the patient satisfaction measures. However, patients of more confident providers were significantly more satisfied with the information they received than were patients of less confident providers. These differences could not be explained by years in practice, length of visit, patient demographics, or the severity and duration of low back pain. These findings suggest that providers who have more confidence in their abilities to effectively manage low back pain may in fact be more effective patient educators.

Evaluation of a physician education intervention to improve primary care for low-back pain. I. Impact on physicians

In an effort to improve the cost-effectiveness of primary care for low-back pain, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a physician education intervention. The program was designed to provide family physicians with specific information, tools, and techniques that our previous studies and the literature suggested should be associated with more satisfying and cost-effective care for low-back pain. The in-clinic educational intervention included feedback of the findings of our previous studies of care for back pain (comparing family physicians and chiropractors), an up-to-date summary of scientific knowledge relevant to the management of back pain in primary care, a videotape contrasting ineffective and effective patient encounters, and a clinical assessment form for low-back pain. The back pain-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of 15 primary care providers in a large health maintenance organization clinic and of 14 family physicians in six group practices were assessed before and after the intervention. Significant increases were noted in the proportions of providers who felt confident they knew how to manage low-back pain, who believed their patients were satisfied, and who claimed they reassured patients that they did not have serious disease. The intervention, however, had little impact on the prevalence of negative feelings about patients with back pain or frustration with patients who wanted their doctor to "fix" their problem. The intervention had a similar impact on health maintenance organization and fee-for-service physicians.

Evaluation of a physician education intervention to improve primary care for low-back pain. II. Impact on patients

A physician education intervention was previously found to have significantly improved perceived physician knowledge, confidence, and patient-reassuring behavior in the treatment of low-back pain. This study examined whether this intervention, presented in a health maintenance organization clinic, had an effect on patient outcomes. Outcomes of care for 148 patients seen for low-back pain before the intervention were compared with outcomes of care for 157 patients seen after the intervention. Patients were telephoned 2-4 weeks after their back-pain visit and were asked about symptom improvement, amount of disability, and satisfaction with care. Satisfaction was measured with a three-dimensional instrument for low-back pain developed specifically for this study, which was found to be valid and reliable. The preintervention and postintervention patient cohorts were similar in terms of key baseline variables. Despite its apparent benefit to physicians, the intervention did not result in significant improvements in any patient outcomes, even for the subset of patients whose physicians had perceived the greatest benefit.

Family physicians' views of chiropractors: hostile or hospitable?

Family physicians in the State of Washington were surveyed about their knowledge and views about chiropractors; 79 per cent (476) responded. Sixty-six per cent indicated discomfort with what they believed chiropractors do while acknowledging their effectiveness for some patients; 25 per cent viewed chiropractors as an excellent source of care for some musculoskeletal problems and only 3 per cent dismissed chiropractors as quacks that patients should avoid; 57 per cent admitted having encouraged patients to see a chiropractor. These views are less negative than those of organized medicine.

Effect of oral contraceptive cycle on dry socket (localized alveolar osteitis)

Use of oral contraceptives was associated with a significant increase in the frequency of dry socket after extraction of mandibular third molars. The probability of dry socket increases with the estrogen dose in the oral contraceptive. The risk of dry socket associated with oral contraceptives can be minimized by performing extractions during days 23 through 28 of the tablet cycle.

An evaluation of the American Medical Association's Physician masterfile as a data source--one state's experience

An evaluation of the American Medical Association's (AMA) Physician Masterfile is presented here on a state level. Both completeness and reliability of the AMA data were assessed for physicians licensed and living in Washington State. Comparison of the AMA data with state -LICENsure data indicated excellent agreement, with only a small proportion of license physicians "missing" from the AMA Masterfile. Their absence was due largely to differences in the manner in which the two systems updated their files. The reliability of the AMA data was checked by comparing it with similar, independently gathered survey data on birth date, birthplace, medical school, type of practice, specialty, board certifications, and employer. In general, despite some minor deficiencies, the AMA data were shown to be highly reliable.