Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain (cLBP) is a complex with a heterogenous clinical presentation. A better understanding of the factors that contribute to cLBP is needed for accurate diagnosis, optimal treatment, and identification of mechanistic targets for new therapies. The Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as it will generate large clinical datasets, including a diverse set of harmonized measurements. The Theoretical Model Working Group was established to guide BACPAC research and to organize new knowledge within a mechanistic framework. This article summarizes the initial work of the Theoretical Model Working Group. It includes a three-stage integration of expert opinion and an umbrella literature review of factors that affect cLBP severity and chronicity.MethodsDuring Stage 1, experts from across BACPAC established a taxonomy for risk and prognostic factors (RPFs) and preliminary graphical depictions. During Stage 2, a separate team conducted a literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to establish working definitions, associated data elements, and overall strength of evidence for identified RPFs. These were subsequently integrated with expert opinion during Stage 3.ResultsThe majority (∼80%) of RPFs had little strength-of-evidence confidence, whereas seven factors had substantial confidence for either a positive association with cLBP (pain-related anxiety, serum C-reactive protein, diabetes, and anticipatory/compensatory postural adjustments) or no association with cLBP (serum interleukin 1-beta / interleukin 6, transversus muscle morphology/activity, and quantitative sensory testing).ConclusionThis theoretical perspective will evolve over time as BACPAC investigators link empirical results to theory, challenge current ideas of the biopsychosocial model, and use a systems approach to develop tools and algorithms that disentangle the dynamic interactions among cLBP factors.

Project description:Back pain represents a substantial burden globally, ranking first in a recent assessment among causes of years lived with disability. Though back pain is widely studied among working age adults, there are gaps with respect to basic descriptive epidemiology among seniors, especially in the United States. Our goal was to describe how pain, function and health-related quality of life vary by demographic and geographic factors among seniors presenting to primary care providers with new episodes of care for back pain.We examined baseline data from the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry, the largest inception cohort to date of seniors presenting to a primary care provider for back pain. The sample included 5,239 patients ? 65 years old with a new primary care visit for back pain at three integrated health systems (Northern California Kaiser-Permanente, Henry Ford Health System [Detroit], and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates [Boston]). We examined differences in patient characteristics across healthcare sites and associations of patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with baseline patient-reported measures of pain, function, and health-related quality of life.Patients differed across sites in demographic and other characteristics. The Detroit site had more African-American patients (50%) compared with the other sites (7-8%). The Boston site had more college graduates (68%) compared with Detroit (20%). Female sex, lower educational status, African-American race, and older age were associated with worse functional disability as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Except for age, these factors were also associated with worse pain.Baseline pain and functional impairment varied substantially with a number of factors in the BOLD cohort. Healthcare site was an important factor. After controlling for healthcare site, lower education, female sex, African-American race, and older age were associated with worse physical disability and all of these factors except age were associated with worse pain.Clinical Trials.gov NCT01776242; Registration date: June 13, 2012.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies?MethodsWe used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes.ResultsEighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups.ConclusionDirectives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

Dataset Information

A Brewing Back Pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets