The epidemiology of low back pain in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kent PM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1208926 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The epidemiology of low back pain in primary care.
Kent Peter M PM Keating Jennifer L JL
Chiropractic & osteopathy 20050726
This descriptive review provides a summary of the prevalence, activity limitation (disability), care-seeking, natural history and clinical course, treatment outcome, and costs of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. LBP is a common problem affecting both genders and most ages, for which about one in four adults seeks care in a six-month period. It results in considerable direct and indirect costs, and these costs are financial, workforce and social. Care-seeking behaviour varies depending on cul ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:A common recommendation to improve the management of low back pain (LBP) is the use of interdisciplinary teams. However, many challenges remain in establishing interdisciplinary care, particularly in community-based primary care settings. This study explored patients' experiences with interdisciplinary care for LBP using an applied phenomenological research approach. Semistructured open-ended interviews were conducted with fifteen adults enrolled in a 6-month interdisciplinary LBP program within an integrated care network. The analysis included detailed descriptions of participants' experiences and interpretations by the researchers of the main themes: (i) challenging start-"It's intimidating," (ii) desire for flexibility-"I didn't need as much," (iii) better collaboration-"They are all together," (iv) grasping the pain issue-"They helped," (v) care was responsive to needs and experience-"Always centered on me, not general," (vi) meanings of recovery-"I'm able to function." Participants viewed the interdisciplinary LBP program as the culmination of a long journey toward recovery. The findings identified as important to patients contribute to our understanding of how to optimize patient-centered care for individuals living with chronic pain.
| S-EPMC11907624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009-2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications.
| S-EPMC8036853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition in western countries and is associated with persistent disability and high consumption of health care resources. NSLBP patients first seek primary health care services but the outcomes are often uncertain. This study aimed to examine the clinical course of the outcomes and to identify prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in NSLBP patients who consulted primary care.MethodsA prospective cohort study of 115 patients seeking treatment for NSLBP in primary care was conducted. Participants were consecutively recruited by their General Practitioners (GPs) and then assessed at baseline and 2 and 6 months later. Baseline assessment included socio-demographic and clinical data, psychosocial factors, pain, disability, and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Pain, disability, HRQoL and global perception of change were also assessed at 2 and 6-months' follow-up. In addition, information regarding the GP' practice was collected. Poor outcomes were determined according to the cut-off point used to define a persistent disabling condition and the minimal important change established for disability, pain and for global perception of change. The relationship between variables on baseline and poor outcomes was modulated through binary logistic regression analysis. The significance of associations was evaluated at ≤ 0.05 p-value with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR).Results110 (94.8%) and 104 (89.7%) participants completed the follow-up assessment at 2 and 6 months, respectively. The mean age (±SD) was 48.06 ± 11.41, with 53.9%, (N = 62) reporting an acute presentation of NSLBP. Six months after GP consultation, 53.8% (N = 56) of the participants reported a persistent disabling condition. An "LBP episode of less than 12 weeks" [AOR: 0.26; 95% CI (0.10, 0.65); AOR: 0.34; 95% CI (0.14, 0.81); AOR: 0.21; 95% CI (0.09, 0.53)],"maladaptive psychosocial factors" [AOR: 2.06; 95% CI (1.40, 3.04); AOR: 1.82; 95% CI (1.27, 2.59); AOR: 1.72; 95% CI (1.20, 2.47)] were significantly associated with poor outcomes on disability, pain and global perception of change, respectively. Besides these factors, being employed reduces the chances of poor outcomes on disability [AOR 0.31; 95% CI (0.11, 0.92)].ConclusionsA large proportion of LBP patients seeking primary health care reported poor outcomes 6 months after GP consultation. Patients who report chronic LBP, maladaptive psychosocial factors and are unemployed have a significant increase in the risk of poor outcome. These findings suggest the need of implementing effective models of care able to provide early screening and appropriate treatment to those at greatest risk of a poor outcome.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials NCT04046874 (August 6, 2019). Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC7100970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a clinical practice guideline to support the management of chronic pain, including low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care.MethodsThe guideline was developed with an emphasis on best available evidence and shared decision-making principles. Ten health professionals (4 generalist family physicians, 1 pain management-focused family physician, 1 anesthesiologist, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 psychologist), a patient representative, and a nonvoting pharmacist and guideline methodologist comprised the Guideline Committee. Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative in identification of key questions, evidence review, and development of guideline recommendations. Three systematic reviews, including a total of 285 randomized controlled trials, were completed. Randomized controlled trials were included only if they reported a responder analysis (eg, how many patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in pain). The committee directed an Evidence Team (composed of evidence experts) to address an additional 11 complementary questions. Key recommendations were derived through committee consensus. The guideline and shared decision-making tools underwent extensive review by clinicians and patients before publication.RecommendationsPhysical activity is recommended as the foundation for managing osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain; evidence of benefit is unclear for neuropathic pain. Cognitive-behavioural therapy or mindfulness-based stress reduction are also suggested as options for managing chronic pain. Treatments for which there is clear, unclear, or no benefit are outlined for each condition. Treatments for which harms likely outweigh benefits for all or most conditions studied include opioids and cannabinoids.ConclusionThis guideline for the management of chronic pain, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic pain, highlights best available evidence including both benefits and harms for a number of treatment interventions. A strong recommendation for exercise as the primary treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and low back pain is made based on demonstrated long-term evidence of benefit. This information is intended to assist with, not dictate, shared decision making with patients.
| S-EPMC9833192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most debilitating and prevalent disorders. The prevalence of LBP ranges from 30% to 80%, depending on the population, and increases with age. Causes of LBP are typically classified as spinal and non-spinal. The main goal of this study was to investigate the non-spinal causes of LBP, since neglecting these factors leads to increases in the financial, psychological, and physical burden of LBP on individuals as well as on society.MethodsThe data were extracted after searching the PubMed database and Google Scholar search engine up to October 27, 2021. We included all studies that were conducted on a human population and assessed the effects of epidemiological, biological, psychological, and sociodemographic factors on the incidence or progression of LBP.ResultsThe most common causes of non-spinal LBP were diseases such as nephrolithiasis, endometriosis, tumors, fibromyalgia, and conditions like psychological disorders and pregnancy. Nevertheless, the perceived intensity of the pain can be affected by factors such as socioeconomic level, genetics, age, habits, diet, and psychological status.ConclusionThe epidemiology, etiologies, and risk factors associated with LBP should be more clearly recognized to better prevent, diagnose, and treat the underlying disease and to reduce the burden of LBP.
| S-EPMC10477419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) are different conditions with different treatments. However, they are coded in electronic health records with the same International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) code (M54.5) and can be differentiated only by retrospective chart reviews. This prevents an efficient definition of data-driven guidelines for billing and therapy recommendations, such as return-to-work options. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of automatically distinguishing acute LBP episodes by analyzing free-text clinical notes. METHODS:We used a dataset of 17,409 clinical notes from different primary care practices; of these, 891 documents were manually annotated as acute LBP and 2973 were generally associated with LBP via the recorded ICD-10 code. We compared different supervised and unsupervised strategies for automated identification: keyword search, topic modeling, logistic regression with bag of n-grams and manual features, and deep learning (a convolutional neural network-based architecture [ConvNet]). We trained the supervised models using either manual annotations or ICD-10 codes as positive labels. RESULTS:ConvNet trained using manual annotations obtained the best results with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.98 and an F score of 0.70. ConvNet's results were also robust to reduction of the number of manually annotated documents. In the absence of manual annotations, topic models performed better than methods trained using ICD-10 codes, which were unsatisfactory for identifying LBP acuity. CONCLUSIONS:This study uses clinical notes to delineate a potential path toward systematic learning of therapeutic strategies, billing guidelines, and management options for acute LBP at the point of care.
| S-EPMC7068466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition worldwide and it is responsible for high healthcare costs and resources consumption. It represents a challenge for primary care services that struggle to implement evidence-based practice. Models of care (MoCs) are arising as effective solutions to overcome this problem, leading to better health outcomes. Although there is growing evidence regarding MoCs for the management of LBP patients, an analysis of the existing body of evidence has not yet been carried out. Therefore, this scoping review aims to identify and map the current evidence about the implementation of MoCs for LBP in primary healthcare. Findings from this study will inform policy makers, health professionals and researchers about their characteristics and outcomes, guiding future research and best practice models.Methods and analysisThis protocol will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidelines for scoping reviews. Studies that implemented an MoC for LBP patients in primary healthcare will be included. Searches will be conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, grey literature databases and relevant organisations websites. This review will consider records from 2000, written in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Two researchers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles and abstract data. Data extracted will include the identification of the MoC, key elements of the intervention, organisational components, context-specific factors and patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes.Ethics and disseminationAs a secondary analysis, this study does not require ethical approval. It will provide a comprehensive understanding on existing MoCs for LBP, outcomes and context-related challenges that may influence implementation in primary healthcare, which is meaningful knowledge to inform future research in this field. Findings will be disseminated through research papers in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at relevant conferences and documentation for professional organisations and stakeholders.
| S-EPMC8981342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFamily physicians in Canada's universal healthcare system often manage low back pain patients using interventions not recommended in clinical guidelines, such as pharmaceuticals, imaging and spinal injections, while guideline-based treatments like education and exercise remain unfunded. The Alberta Back Care pathway was developed to address this gap, offering funded, evidence-based care for low back pain patients in 5 streams (acute, sub-acute, chronic, chronic non-responsive and stable radiculopathy).ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of implementing the pathway in two urban Primary Care Networks in Alberta, Canada.Materials and methodsEach of the 5 pathway streams provided physicians with information scripts, no-cost interventions (pharmaceuticals and otherwise) and interventions to avoid. From April 2021 to November 2023, the RE-AIM framework was used to assess implementation feasibility of the pathway.ResultsFor the RE-AIM dimension of reach, 25% (n = 41/162) of eligible family physicians in Primary Care Network "A" and 12% (n = 26/221) in Primary Care Network "B" enrolled in the study. Over half of enrolled physicians (n = 21/41 and 21/26) referred at least one patient with most referrals to the GLA:D Back program for chronic low back pain stream (93% in network "A" and 88% in network "B"). Implementation, evaluated as the proportion of referrals by physician compared to their total low back pain caseload, was low (> 0-10% referred) for 52% (n = 11/21) of physicians in network "A", and medium-low (10-25% referred) for 52% (n = 11/21) of physicians in network "B". The number of pathway-appropriate patients in each physician's caseload was unknown. Maintenance at 12 months was 56% (n = 10/18) in network "A" and 39% (n = 7/18) in network "B".ConclusionThe Alberta Back Care pathway was feasible to implement during the pandemic and primarily serving patients with chronic low back pain by providing access to a guideline-based education and exercise group program (GLA:D Back).
| S-EPMC11602090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBack pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).Methods1573 adults (aged ?18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.Findings851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06-2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25-1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19-0·45) and 0·19 (0·04-0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.InterpretationThe results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.FundingArthritis Research UK.
| S-EPMC3208163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdentification of sciatica may assist timely management but can be challenging in clinical practice. Diagnostic models to identify sciatica have mainly been developed in secondary care settings with conflicting reference standard selection. This study explores the challenges of reference standard selection and aims to ascertain which combination of clinical assessment items best identify sciatica in people seeking primary healthcare.MethodsData on 394 low back-related leg pain consulters were analysed. Potential sciatica indicators were seven clinical assessment items. Two reference standards were used: (i) high confidence sciatica clinical diagnosis; (ii) high confidence sciatica clinical diagnosis with confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging findings. Multivariable logistic regression models were produced for both reference standards. A tool predicting sciatica diagnosis in low back-related leg pain was derived. Latent class modelling explored the validity of the reference standard.ResultsModel (i) retained five items; model (ii) retained six items. Four items remained in both models: below knee pain, leg pain worse than back pain, positive neural tension tests and neurological deficit. Model (i) was well calibrated (p = 0.18), discrimination was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.98). Model (ii) showed good discrimination (AUC 0.82; 0.78, 0.86) but poor calibration (p = 0.004). Bootstrapping revealed minimal overfitting in both models. Agreement between the two latent classes and clinical diagnosis groups defined by model (i) was substantial, and fair for model (ii).ConclusionFour clinical assessment items were common in both reference standard definitions of sciatica. A simple scoring tool for identifying sciatica was developed. These criteria could be used clinically and in research to improve accuracy of identification of this subgroup of back pain patients.
| S-EPMC5886387 | biostudies-literature