Dataset Information

Outcomes of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: The impact of physical therapy on the outcomes of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) stratified by the STart Back Screening Tool (SBST) is unclear.The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute LBP who were stratified as medium or high risk.This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.Patients were recruited between March 2011 and November 2013 from primary care clinics in Salt Lake City, Utah.One hundred eighty-one participants with acute LBP who were stratified as medium risk (n = 120) or high risk (n = 61) by the SBST were included. They were aged 18 through 60 years, with duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no symptoms below the knee, no treatment for LBP in the past 6 months, and an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 20% or greater.After participants received education on how to manage their LBP, they were randomized to receive usual care (n = 97) by their primary care provider or early intervention (n = 84) by a physical therapist.The primary (3-month ODI score) outcome measure was obtained at baseline and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year.No differences were detected in the effect of intervention between participants stratified as medium or high risk. For the high-risk subgroup, there was a significant difference between the early intervention and usual care groups for the 3-month ODI (mean difference = -5.87 [95% CI = -11.24, -0.50]) favoring early intervention.The primary study was not designed to examine the SBST.Patients with acute LBP stratified as high risk seem likely to respond well to one session of education. They may experience additional benefit by 3 months from evidence-based physical therapy treatments. These effects disappear at 1 year.

SUBMITTER: Magel J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5804017 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Magel John J Fritz Julie M JM Greene Tom T Kjaer Per P Marcus Robin L RL Brennan Gerard P GP

Physical therapy 20170301 3

<h4>Background</h4>The impact of physical therapy on the outcomes of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) stratified by the STart Back Screening Tool (SBST) is unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute LBP who were stratified as medium or high risk.<h4>Design</h4>This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Patients were recruited between March 2011 and November 2013 from primary care clinics in Salt Lake City ...[more]

PMID: 28204740

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background contextThe STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) categorizes risk of future disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Previous studies evaluating the use of SBST in physical therapy (PT) populations do not reflect the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity occurring in clinical practice and lack statistical power to evaluate factors associated with outcomes within each SBST risk category.PurposeThe purpose of this study is to further refine SBST risk categorization for predicting improvements in functional disability with attention toward patient level factors that might guide SBST use in routine outpatient physical therapy practice.Study design/settingThis was a retrospective cohort study that took place within a large academic, tertiary-care health system.Patient sampleThe study cohort consisted of 1,169 patients with LBP who completed a course of outpatient physical therapy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 and who completed the patient-reported SBST and modified low back pain disability questionnaire (MDQ) questionnaires as part of standard of care.Outcome measuresImprovement in functional disability defined as decrease in 10 or more points in the MDQ.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of improvement after PT, which included SBST risk category, baseline MDQ, a two-way interaction term between SBST category and baseline MDQ, prior level of function (independent vs. required assistance), demographic characteristics, number of completed PT visits, and duration of PT episode of care. In exploratory analyses, additional two-way interaction terms between SBST category and the significant predictors were added to the regression model.ResultsMean age of patients in the study cohort was 55.1 years (SD 16.1); 657 (56.2%) were female, 117 (10.0%) were black race, 127 (10.9%) had Medicaid insurance, and 353 (30.2%) had previously received PT for back pain. In all, 35.8% (n=419) patients categorized as low risk SBST category, 40.7% (n=476) medium risk SBST category, and 23.4% (n=274) high risk SBST category. There was an interaction between baseline MDQ and SBST risk category and improvement with PT. For all three SBST categories, higher baseline MDQ was associated with higher probability of improvement, but the effect was less pronounced as SBST risk category increased. Additional factors independently associated with reduced odds of improvement after PT included black race (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.72), Medicaid insurance (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), and prior PT (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67). In exploratory analyses, there was a significant interaction between insurance type and SBST risk category in predicting functional improvement after PT. Patients with Medicare and Medicaid insurance had similar rates of improvement in low and high risk SBST categories but different rates of improvement in the medium risk categories.ConclusionsThe SBST tool predicts outcomes of PT in a cohort of patients receiving outpatient PT for LBP. The odds of improvement varied according to baseline disability and SBST risk status. Race, insurance type, and history of previous PT influenced prediction independent of SBST risk status. Incorporating these variables and the interaction between SBST and baseline disability in outcome models has the potential to refine prediction of outcomes after PT.

Project description:BackgroundStratification strategies based on identifying patient's prognosis in order to guide patient care constitute one of the most prominent and recent approach in low back pain research. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) although promising, has not been studied in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Considering how challenging it is to translate research into practice, the value of integrating a new tool should be thoroughly assessed. The purpose was therefore to assess associations between the short- and long-terms clinical status and two types of variables, physiologic measures and the SBST, in participants with cLBP. The ability of both types of variables to discriminate between participants with and without higher levels of disability, pain, fear of movement and patient's global impression of change was also investigated.MethodsFifty-three volunteers with cLBP participated in an initial evaluation and follow-ups at 2-, 4-, 6- and 12-month. Physiologic measures (maximal voluntary contraction, maximal endurance and muscle activity evaluated during prone and lateral isometric tasks) and the SBST were assessed at baseline. Disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), pain intensity (101-point Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, TSK) and patient's global impression of change (7-point scale, PGIC) were evaluated at baseline and at each follow-up. Aside the use of correlation analyses to assess potential associations; ROC curves were performed to evaluate the discriminative ability of physiologic measures and the SBST.ResultsThe SBST allowed for the identification of participants presenting higher levels of disability (ODI ≥24 %), pain (NRS ≥37 %) or fear of movement (TSK ≥41/68) over a 12-month period (AUC = 0.71 to 0.84, ps < 0.05). The SBST score was also correlated with disability at each follow-up (τ = 0.22 to 0.33, ps < 0.05) and with pain intensity and fear of movement at follow-ups. Among physiologic measures, only maximal voluntary contraction was correlated to disability, pain intensity or fear of movement during the follow-up (|τ| = 0.26 to 0.32, ps < 0.05) and none was able to identify participants presenting higher levels of outcomes (AUC ps > 0.05).ConclusionPhysiologic measures obtained during prone and lateral tests have limited associations with the clinical status over a 12-month period in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. On the other hand, the STarT Back Screening Tool is useful for the identification of patients who will present higher levels of disability, pain intensity and fear of movement over a year.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02226692.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with back and neck pain are often seen in primary care and it is important to provide them with tailored interventions based on risk stratification/triage. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is a widely used screening questionnaire which has not yet been validated for a population with back and/or neck pain with short duration. Our aim was to compare the concurrent validity of the SBT and the short form of the ÖMPSQ including psychometric properties and clinical utility in a primary care setting.MethodsPatients who applied for physiotherapy by direct access (January 2013 to January 2014) at 35 primary care centers in south Sweden, with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain, aged 18-67 years, who were not currently on sick leave or had been on sick leave less than 60 days were asked to complete the SBT and ÖMPSQ-short questionnaire (n = 329). We used the Spearman's rank correlations to study correlations, cross tabulation and Cohen's kappa to analyze agreement of patient classification. Clinical utility was described as clinician scoring miscalculations and misclassifications of total and/or subscale scores.ResultsCompleted SBT (9-items) and ÖMPSQ-short (10-items) data were available for 315/329 patients respectively. The statistical correlation for SBT and ÖMPSQ-short total scores was moderately strong (0.62, p < 0.01). In subgroup analyses, the correlations were 0.69 (p < 0.01) for males and 0.57 (p < 0.01) for females. The correlations were lower among older age groups, especially females over 50 years (0.21, p = 0.11). Classification to high or low risk for long-term pain and disability had moderate agreement (κ = 0.42). Observed classification agreement was 70.2%. The SBT had fewer miscalculations (13/315) than the ÖMPSQ-short (54/315).ConclusionsThe correlation between the SBT and the ÖMPSQ-short scores were moderately strong for individuals with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain. SBT seemed to be clinically feasible to use in clinical practice. We therefore suggest that SBT can be used for individuals with both BP and/or NP in primary care settings but it is important to be aware of that SBT's agreement with the ÖMPSQ-short was poor among females aged over 50 years.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02609750 Registered: November 18, 2015.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough risk-stratifying patients with acute lower back pain is a promising approach for improving long-term outcomes, efforts to implement stratified care in the US healthcare system have had limited success. The objectives of this process evaluation were to 1) examine variation in two essential processes, risk stratification of patients with low back pain and referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy and 2) identify barriers and facilitators related to the risk stratification and referral processes.MethodsWe used a sequential mixed methods study design to evaluate implementation of stratified care at 33 primary care clinics (17 intervention, 16 control) participating in a larger pragmatic trial. We used electronic health record data to calculate: 1) clinic-level risk stratification rates (proportion of patients with back pain seen in the clinic over the study period who completed risk stratification questionnaires), 2) rates of risk stratification across different points in the clinical workflow (front desk, rooming, and time with clinician), and 3) rates of referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy among intervention clinics. We purposively sampled 13 clinics for onsite observations, which occurred in month 24 of the 26-month study.ResultsThe overall risk stratification rate across the 33 clinics was 37.8% (range: 14.7-64.7%). Rates were highest when patients were identified as having back pain by front desk staff (overall: 91.9%, range: 80.6-100%). Rates decreased as the patient moved further into the visit (rooming, 29.3% [range: 0-83.3%]; and time with clinician, 11.3% [range: 0-49.3%]. The overall rate of referrals of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy across the 17 intervention clinics was 42.1% (range: 8.3-70.8%). Barriers included staffs' knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, patients' needs, technology issues, lack of physician engagement, and lack of time. Adaptability of the processes was a facilitator.ConclusionsAdherence to key stratified care processes varied across primary care clinics and across points in the workflow. The observed variation suggests room for improvement. Future research is needed to build on this work and more rigorously test strategies for implementing stratified care for patients with low back pain in the US healthcare system.Trial registrationTrial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02647658 ). Registered January 6, 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of contact with the primary healthcare sector. In some patients, symptoms quickly resolve, but others develop long-lasting pain and disability. To improve the care pathway for patients with LBP, the STarT Back Tool (STarT) questionnaire has been developed. It helps initial decision-making by subgrouping patients on the basis of their prognosis and helps to target treatment according to prognosis. An assumption behind the use of STarT is the ability to predict functional improvement. This assumption has never been tested in a population that consists exclusively of patients enrolled when consulting a Danish general practitioner for LBP. The aim of this study was to investigate STarT's ability to predict a 30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score. METHODS:This was an ancillary analysis using data from a Danish guideline implementation study (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01699256). An inclusion criterion was age 18 to 65 years of age. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, fractures, and signs of underlying pathology. Patient-reported STarT score and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire were administered at baseline and again after 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS:Between January 2013 and July 2014, 475 patients from the original trial participated with questionnaires. From this subpopulation, 441 (92.8%) patients provided information regarding STarT. Baseline and eight-week RMDQ data were available for 304 (64.0%) patients. After 8 weeks, 61 (65.6%) in the low-risk group, 67 (54.9%) in the medium-risk group, and 33 (37.1%) in the high-risk group had achieved a 30% improvement in the RMDQ score. After 8 weeks, high-risk patients were at 61% (95% CI: 20-125%, P < 0.001) higher risk of not achieving a 30% improvement in the RMDQ score compared with patients in either the low-risk group or the medium-risk group. CONCLUSION:STarT was predictive for functional improvement in patients from general practice with LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01699256 , Nov 29, 2016 (registered retrospectively).

Dataset Information

Outcomes of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Publications

Outcomes of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets