Dataset Information

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore the elements and composition of care provided by general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and chiropractors (DCs) to patients with low back pain (LBP).

Design

Observational study.

Setting

Primary care setting, Denmark.

Participants

Primary care clinicians (GPs, PTs and DCs) in the Region of Southern Denmark were invited to register consecutive adult patient visits with LBP as the primary complaint.

Primary outcome measures

Clinicians reported care elements provided to patients with LBP. Elements varied due to professional differences (eg, prescriptive rights). Data were descriptively analysed, on group and individual levels, for frequency and combination of care elements, and practice patterns were explored with latent class analysis.

Results

The clinicians (33 GPs, 67 PTs and 43 DCs with a median experience of 15 years and 59% were females) registered 3500 patient visits. On average, the visits involved patients aged 51 years, and 51% were with females. The frequencies of common care elements across professions were information (42%-56% of visits between professions) and advice (56%-81%), while other common elements for GPs were pain medication (40%) and referrals to PTs (36%), for PTs, use of exercises (81%) and for DCs, use of manual therapy (96%). Substantial variation was observed within professions and distinct practice patterns, with different focuses of attention to information and advice versus exercise and manual therapy, were identified for PTs and DCs.

Conclusions

These data indicate substantial variation in the care elements provided by GPs, PTs and DCs to LBP patients. The compositions of care and practice patterns identified challenge the understanding of usual care as a uniform concept and professions as homogeneous groups. Strategic use of particular care elements in different parts of treatment courses is indicated. Longitudinal data and qualitative enquiry are needed to assess if or how care is tailored to individual patients.

SUBMITTER: Madsen SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10471879 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors.

Madsen Simon Dyrløv SD Morsø Lars L Vach Werner W Andersen Merethe Kirstine MK Lykkegaard Jesper J Schiøttz-Christensen Berit B Stochkendahl Mette Jensen MJ

BMJ open 20230830 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>To explore the elements and composition of care provided by general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and chiropractors (DCs) to patients with low back pain (LBP).<h4>Design</h4>Observational study.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care setting, Denmark.<h4>Participants</h4>Primary care clinicians (GPs, PTs and DCs) in the Region of Southern Denmark were invited to register consecutive adult patient visits with LBP as the primary complaint.<h4>Primary outcome measures</h4>Clin ...[more]

PMID: 37648390

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain (LBP) recommend using stratified care approaches. To date, no study has assessed barriers and facilitators for health professionals in using stratified care approaches for managing non-specific LBP in the Canadian primary care setting. This study aimed to identify and contrast barriers and facilitators to using the stratified care approaches for non-specific LBP among Canadian physiotherapists and chiropractors.MethodsIndividual telephone interviews, underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), explored beliefs and attitudes about, and identified barriers and facilitators to the use of stratified care approaches for managing non-specific LBP in a purposive sample of 13 chiropractors and 14 physiotherapists between September 2015 and June 2016. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent assessors using directed content analysis.ResultsThree and seven TDF domains were identified as likely relevant for physiotherapists and chiropractors, respectively. Shared key beliefs (and relevant domains of the TDF) for both physiotherapists and chiropractors included: lack of time, cost, and expertise (Environmental Context and Resources); and consulting more experienced colleagues and chronic patients with important psychological overlay (Social Influences). Unique key domains were identified among physiotherapists: incompatibility with achieving other objectives (Goals), and chiropractors: confidence in using stratified care approaches (Beliefs about Capabilities); intention to use stratified care approaches (Intentions); awareness and agreement with stratified care approaches (Knowledge); assessment of readiness for change and intentional planning behaviour (Behavioural Regulation); and improving the management of non-specific LBP patients and the uptake of evidence-based practice (Beliefs about Consequences).ConclusionsSeveral shared and unique barriers and facilitators to using the stratified care approaches for non-specific LBP among Canadian physiotherapists and chiropractors were identified. Findings may help inform the design of tailored theory-based knowledge translation interventions to increase the uptake of stratified care approaches in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundAcute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors' and physiotherapists' adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective.MethodsPhysiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months).ResultsA total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI - 0.48, 1.21, scale 0-24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74).ConclusionsIntervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 . Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009.

Project description:BackgroundA new model of care enables French physiotherapists (PT) working in collaboration with family physicians (FP) to expand their usual scope of practice for patients with acute low back pain (LBP). The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of this new first-contact physiotherapy (FCP) advanced practice model compared to usual FP care.MethodsA multicentre pragmatic non-inferiority cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted in six multidisciplinary primary healthcare centres in France. Patients from 20 to 55 years old with acute LBP consulted either the PT or the FP. PT independently assessed and managed patients including medication prescription. The primary outcome measure was disability at six weeks (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, range 0-24). Secondary outcomes include pain, risk disability prognosis, satisfaction with care, healthcare resources use and wait times. Data were collected at baseline, six and twelve weeks. Outcomes across arms were compared using mixed models regression analysis. Except for non-inferiority analysis of the primary outcome measure, other analyses were performed with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.ResultsSixty patients were recruited (PT: 32, FP: 28). The adjusted mean difference between groups for disability at 6 weeks was 0.39 in favour of the FP group (95%CI: -2.03; 2.81, p = 0.753). Considering a 5 points minimal clinically important difference, the FCP-led model of care was not inferior to usual FP care for the primary outcome. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in disability at 3 months and pain at 6 weeks and 3 months. PTs prescribed significantly less medications than FPs (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found for other healthcare resource use outcomes, patients' satisfaction and wait times.ConclusionThis is the first RCT to evaluate the impact of a FCP advanced practice model of care including medical delegated acts in a primary care setting. Our results suggest that the FCP-led model of care is not inferior to usual FP care regarding disability at 6 weeks. The FCP model could result in possible benefits in terms of healthcare resources use. Further adequate powered studies with larger sample size are needed to draw stronger conclusions.Trial registrationThe study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05200533) on the 20th of January 2022.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe spinal pain patients referred by their treating general practitioners to physiotherapy care, examine to which extent physiotherapy interventions proposed by general practitioners and physiotherapists were compliant to evidence based recommendations, and evaluate concordance between providers in terms of diagnosis and contraindications to physiotherapy interventions.MethodsThis study included spinal pain patients recruited from a random sample of sixty French physiotherapists. Physiotherapists were asked to supply patients' physiotherapy records and characteristics from the general practitioner's physiotherapy referral for the five new consecutive patients referred to physiotherapy. General practitioner's physiotherapy referral and physiotherapists' clinical findings characteristics were analyzed and compared to evidence-based recommendations using Chi-squared tests. Cohen's kappas were calculated for diagnosis and contraindications to physiotherapy interventions.ResultsThree hundred patients with spinal pain were included from sixty physiotherapists across France. The mean age of the patients was 48.0 ± 7.2 years and 53% were female. The most common spinal pain was low back pain (n = 147). Diagnoses or reason of referral formulated by general practitioners were present for 27% of all patients (n = 82). Compared to general practitioners, physiotherapists recommended significantly more frequently recommended interventions such as education, spinal exercises or manual therapy. General practitioners prescribed significantly more frequently passive physiotherapy approaches such as massage therapy and electrotherapy. The overall proportion of agreement beyond chance for identification of a diagnosis or reason of referral was 41% with a weak concordance (κ = 0.19; 95%CI: 0.08-0.31). The overall proportion of compliant physiotherapists was significantly higher than for general practitioners (76.7% vs 47.0%; p<0.001).ConclusionsWe found that information required for the referral of spinal pain patients to physiotherapy is often incomplete. The majority of general practitioners did not conform to evidence-based recommendations in terms of prescribed specific physiotherapy care; in contrast to a majority of physiotherapists.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04177121.

Project description:BackgroundThe inappropriate use of lumbar spine imaging remains common in primary care despite recommendations from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to avoid imaging in the absence of red flags. This study aimed to explore factors influencing ordering behaviours and adherence to radiographic guidelines for low back pain (LBP) in chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada.MethodsWe conducted two focus groups in December 2018 with chiropractors in different regions of NL (eastern, n = 8; western, n = 4). An interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) served to identify perceived barriers to, and enablers of, target behaviours of guideline adherence and managing LBP without X-rays. We conducted thematic analysis of chiropractors' statements into relevant theoretical domains, followed by grouping of similar statements into specific beliefs. Domains key to changing radiographic guideline adherence, LBP imaging behaviours, and/or informing intervention design were identified by noting conflicting beliefs and their reported influence on the target behaviours.ResultsSix of the 14 TDF domains were perceived to be important for adherence to radiographic guidelines and managing non-specific LBP without imaging. Participating chiropractors reported varying levels of knowledge and awareness of guidelines for LBP imaging (Knowledge). Many chiropractors based their decision for imaging on clinical presentation, but some relied on "gut feeling" (Memory, attention, and decision processes). While chiropractors thought it was their role to manage LBP without imaging, others believed ordering imaging was the responsibility of other healthcare providers (Social/professional role and identity). Contrasting views were found regarding the negative consequences of imaging or not imaging LBP patients (Beliefs about consequences). Communication was identified as a skill required to manage LBP without imaging (Skills) and a strategy to enable appropriate imaging ordering behaviours (Behavioural regulation). Chiropractors suggested that access to patients' previous imaging and a system that facilitated better interprofessional communication would likely improve their LBP imaging behaviours (Behavioural regulation).ConclusionWe identified potential influences, in six theoretical domains, on participating chiropractors' LBP imaging behaviours and adherence to radiographic guidelines. These beliefs may be targets for theory-informed behaviour change interventions aimed at improving these target behaviours for chiropractors in NL.

Project description:BackgroundPain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP.DesignQualitative study with in-depth interviews.SettingAustralian primary care.ParticipantsWe interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes.Data analysisWe summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making.ResultsGPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process.ConclusionsWe identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

Project description:BackgroundAmong chiropractors the use of long-term treatment is common, often referred to as "maintenance care". Although no generally accepted definition exists, the term has a self-explanatory meaning to chiropractic clinicians. In public health terms, maintenance care can be considered as both secondary and tertiary preventive care. The objective of this study was to explore what factors chiropractors consider before recommending maintenance care to patients with low back pain (LBP).MethodStructured focus group discussions with Swedish chiropractors were used to discuss pre-defined cases. A questionnaire was then designed on the basis of the information obtained. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to grade the importance of several factors when considering recommending maintenance care to a patient. The grading was done on a straight line ranging from "Very important" to "Not at all important". All members of the Swedish Chiropractors' Association (SCA) were invited to participate in the discussions and in the questionnaire survey.ResultsThirty-six (22%) of SCA members participated in the group discussions and 129 (77%) returned the questionnaires. Ninety-eight percent of the questionnaire respondents claimed to believe that chiropractic care can prevent future relapses of back pain. According to the group discussions tertiary preventive care would be considered appropriate when a patient improves by 75% or more. According to the results of the questionnaire survey, two factors were considered as "very important" by more than 70% of the respondents in recommending secondary preventive care, namely frequency past year and frequency past 10 years of the low back pain problem. Eight other factors were considered "very important" by 50-69% of the respondents, namely duration (over the past year and of the present attack), treatment (effect and durability), lifestyle, work conditions, and psychosocial factors (including attitude).ConclusionThe vast majority of our respondents believe that chiropractic treatment can prevent relapses of back pain. When recommending secondary preventive care, past frequency of the problem is considered. For tertiary preventive care, the patient needs to improve considerably before a recommendation of maintenance care is made.

Project description:BackgroundWe report on a multidisciplinary focus group project related to the appropriate care of chiropractic patients who present with chest pain. The prevalence and clinical management, both diagnosis and treatment, of musculoskeletal chest pain in ambulatory medical settings, was explored as the second dimension of the focus group project reported here.MethodsThis project collected observational data from a multidisciplinary focus group composed of both chiropractic and medical professionals. The goals of the focus group were to explore the attitudes and experiences of medical and chiropractic clinicians regarding their patients with chest pain who receive care from both medical and chiropractic providers, to identify important clinical or research questions that may inform the development of 'best practices' for coordinating or managing care of chest pain patients between medical and chiropractic providers, to identify important clinical or research questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chest pain of musculoskeletal origin, to explore various methods that might be used to answer those questions, and to discuss the feasibility of conducting or coordinating a multidisciplinary research effort along this line of inquiry. The convenience-sample of five focus group participants included two chiropractors, two medical cardiologists, and one dual-degreed chiropractor/medical physician. The focus group was audiotaped and transcripts were prepared of the focus group interaction. Content analysis of the focus group transcripts were performed to identify key themes and concepts, using categories of narratives.ResultsSix key themes emerged from the analysis of the focus group interaction, including issues surrounding (1) Diagnosis; (2) Treatment and prognosis; (3) Chest pain as a chronic, multifactorial, or comorbid condition; (4) Inter-professional coordination of care; (5) Best practices and standardization of care; and (6) Training and education.ConclusionThis study carries implications for chiropractic clinical training relative to enhancing diagnostic competencies in chest pain, as well as the need to ascertain and improve those skills, competencies, and standards for referrals and sharing of clinical information that may improve cross-disciplinary coordination of care for chest pain patients.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is still the leading cause of disability and societal burden, with 619 million prevalent cases worldwide in 2020. Most countries produce clinical guidelines to support healthcare professionals in evidence-based care regarding low back pain. However, several studies have identified relatively poor uptake of guidelines. Tailored strategies to facilitate the implementation of guidelines have been argued to increase uptake. This study aimed to develop a contextually tailored implementation programme to enhance evidence-based low back pain care among Danish physiotherapists and chiropractors in primary care.MethodsA theory-driven implementation programme development study was conducted using the Behaviour Change Wheel, with high healthcare professional involvement. Data collection included four workshops with seven physiotherapists and six chiropractors from primary care clinics. The development process consisted of [1] establishing a theoretical frame, [2] involving participants, [3] understanding the behaviour, [4] designing the implementation programme, and [5] final implementation programme.ResultsThe target behaviours selected (guideline recommendations) for the implementation programme were (i) screening of psychosocial risk factors and (ii) offering patient education. The barriers and facilitators for the selected behaviours were described and linked to intervention functions and behavioural techniques. Finally, the implementation programme comprised five strategies: webinars, e-learning videos, communication exercises, peer learning, and group dialogue meetings. In addition, the programme consisted of implementation support: champions, a physical material folder, a weekly email reminder, a specially designed website and a visit from an implementation consultant. An essential element of the overall programme was that it was designed as a step-by-step implementation process consisting of 16 h of education and training distributed over 16 weeks.ConclusionsA programme for implementing low back pain guideline recommendations was developed based on behaviour change theory and four co-design workshops involving healthcare professionals to overcome the contextually identified barriers. A theory-driven approach involving healthcare professionals was useful in identifying relevant target behaviours and tailoring the programme to consider contextual barriers and facilitators for implementation. The effectiveness of the final implementation programme will be evaluated in the project's next phase.Trial registrationCentral Denmark Region, Registered November 11, 2021, act no. 1-16-02-93-19.

Project description:ObjectivesThe main aim of this study was to investigate physiotherapists' pain attitudes and beliefs towardss non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) and identify whether they are associated with treatment selection.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingSaudi Arabia (SA).ParticipantsAn online survey was distributed to physiotherapists from April 2018 to January 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations were assessed using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. (2) Frequent potential treatments used by physiotherapists for individuals with NSCLBP were identified through a 20-item survey. (3) The association between physiotherapists' pain attitudes and beliefs and treatment selection was investigated. Descriptive analysis, Pearson's correlation and multinomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data using SPSS (V.26).ResultsA total of 304 responses were included in the analysis. The biomedical (34.45±7.84) and biopsychosocial (31.74±5.67) treatment orientations were relatively low. The most frequent treatments used by physiotherapists were home exercises (87.1%), patient education (82.0%), specific back exercises (80.6%), electrotherapy (61.9%), soft tissue release (58.8%) and spinal mobilisation or manipulation (57.8%). Physiotherapists with a stronger biomedical treatment orientation were more likely to use treatments (p<0.05) such as specific back exercises, electrotherapy, soft tissue release, hydrotherapy, massage, lumbar supports and acupuncture. However, physiotherapists with a stronger biopsychosocial treatment orientation were more likely to use cognitive functional therapy (p<0.01).ConclusionsBiomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations were relatively low among physiotherapists in SA. Although treatments such as home exercises and patient education were frequently used, some passive and traditional treatments not recommended by clinical practice guidelines continue to be commonly used by physiotherapists in SA. This study has confirmed that physiotherapists' pain attitudes and beliefs are significantly associated with treatment selection when managing individuals with NSCLBP.Trial registration numberResearchregistry3944.

Dataset Information

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets