Dataset Information

Global Consensus From Clinicians Regarding Low Back Pain Outcome Indicators for Older Adults: Pairwise Wiki Survey Using Crowdsourcing.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most debilitating conditions among older adults. Unfortunately, existing LBP outcome questionnaires are not adapted for specific circumstances related to old age, which may make these measures less than ideal for evaluating LBP in older adults. OBJECTIVE:To explore the necessity of developing age-specific outcome measures, crowdsourcing was conducted to solicit opinions from clinicians globally. METHODS:Clinicians around the world voted and/or prioritized various LBP outcome indicators for older adults on a pairwise wiki survey website. Seven seed outcome indicators were posted for voting while respondents were encouraged to suggest new indicators for others to vote/prioritize. The website was promoted on the social media of various health care professional organizations. An established algorithm calculated the mean scores of all ideas. A score >50 points means that the idea has >50% probability of beating another randomly presented indicator. RESULTS:Within 42 days, 128 respondents from 6 continents cast 2466 votes and proposed 14 ideas. Indicators pertinent to improvements of physical functioning and age-related social functioning scored >50 while self-perceived reduction of LBP scored 32. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first crowdsourcing study to address LBP outcome indicators for older adults. The study noted that age-specific outcome indicators should be integrated into future LBP outcome measures for older adults. Future research should solicit opinions from older patients with LBP to develop age-specific back pain outcome measures that suit clinicians and patients alike.

SUBMITTER: Wong AY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6350088 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global Consensus From Clinicians Regarding Low Back Pain Outcome Indicators for Older Adults: Pairwise Wiki Survey Using Crowdsourcing.

Wong Arnold Yl AY Lauridsen Henrik H HH Samartzis Dino D Samartzis Dino D Macedo Luciana L Ferreira Paulo H PH Ferreira Manuela L ML

JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies 20190115 1

<h4>Background</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most debilitating conditions among older adults. Unfortunately, existing LBP outcome questionnaires are not adapted for specific circumstances related to old age, which may make these measures less than ideal for evaluating LBP in older adults.<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the necessity of developing age-specific outcome measures, crowdsourcing was conducted to solicit opinions from clinicians globally.<h4>Methods</h4>Clinicians around the worl ...[more]

PMID: 30664493

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe involvement of patients in research better aligns evidence generation to the gaps that patients themselves face when making decisions about health care. However, obtaining patients' perspectives is challenging. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has gained popularity over the past decade as a crowdsourcing platform to reach large numbers of individuals to perform tasks for a small reward for the respondent, at small cost to the investigator. The appropriateness of such crowdsourcing methods in medical research has yet to be clarified.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to (1) understand how those on MTurk who screen positive for back pain prioritize research topics compared with those who screen negative for back pain, and (2) determine the qualitative differences in open-ended comments between groups.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional surveys on MTurk to assess participants' back pain and allow them to prioritize research topics. We paid respondents US $0.10 to complete the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to categorize participants as those "with back pain" and those "without back pain," then offered both those with (RMDQ score ?7) and those without back pain (RMDQ <7) an opportunity to rank their top 5 (of 18) research topics for an additional US $0.75. We compared demographic information and research priorities between the 2 groups and performed qualitative analyses on free-text commentary that participants provided.ResultsWe conducted 2 screening waves. We first screened 2189 individuals for back pain over 33 days and invited 480 (21.93%) who screened positive to complete the prioritization, of whom 350 (72.9% of eligible) did. We later screened 664 individuals over 7 days and invited 474 (71.4%) without back pain to complete the prioritization, of whom 397 (83.7% of eligible) did. Those with back pain who prioritized were comparable with those without in terms of age, education, marital status, and employment. The group with back pain had a higher proportion of women (234, 67.2% vs 229, 57.8%, P=.02). The groups' rank lists of research priorities were highly correlated: Spearman correlation coefficient was .88 when considering topics ranked in the top 5. The 2 groups agreed on 4 of the top 5 and 9 of the top 10 research priorities.ConclusionsCrowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk support efforts to efficiently reach large groups of individuals to obtain input on research activities. In the context of back pain, a prevalent and easily understood condition, the rank list of those with back pain was highly correlated with that of those without back pain. However, subtle differences in the content and quality of free-text comments suggest supplemental efforts may be needed to augment the reach of crowdsourcing in obtaining perspectives from patients, especially from specific populations.

Project description:To compare the effects of 4 months of isolated lumbar resistance exercise and total body resistance exercise on walking performance in obese, older adults with chronic low back pain. A secondary analysis examined whether responsiveness to training modulated walking improvement.Randomized, controlled trial.Research laboratory affiliated with tertiary care facility.Participants (N = 49; 60-85 years) were randomized into a 4-month resistance exercise intervention (TOTRX), lumbar extensor exercise intervention (LEXT), or a control group (CON).Walking performance, maximal low back strength and leg strength, and average resting and low back pain severity score (from an 11-point numerical pain rating scale; NRSpain) were collected at baseline and month 4.The TOTRX and LEXT improved lumbar extensor strength relative to CON, and the TOTRX (P < .05). NRSpain scores at month 4 were lowest in the TOTRX group compared with the LEXT and CON groups, respectively (2.0 ± 1.7 points vs 3.7 ± 2.6 points and 4.6 ± 2.4 points; P < .006). A total of 53% and 67% of participants in the TOTRX and LEXT groups were responders who made lumbar extensor strength gains that achieved ?20% greater than baseline values. Although the TOTRX demonstrated the greatest improvement in walking endurance among the intervention groups, this did not reach significance (10.1 ± 12.2% improvement in TOTRX vs 7.4 ± 30.0% LEXT and -1.7 ± 17.4% CON; P = .11). Gait speed increased most in the TOTRX (9.0 ± 13.5%) compared with the LEXT and CON groups (P < .05). The change in lumbar extensor strength explained 10.6% of the variance of the regression model for the change in walking endurance (P = .024).The use of LEXT and TOTRX produced similar modest improvements in patients' walking endurance. Lumbar extensor strength gain compared with leg strength gain is a moderate but important contributor to walking endurance in obese older adults with chronic low back pain. Responders to resistance exercise programs (event those with only lumbar extension exercise) who make at least a 20% improvement in strength can expect better improvement in walking endurance than those who do not achieve this strength improvement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings. METHODS:The project will comprise an inception cohort study and a concurrent qualitative study. For the cohort study, we will recruit 175 primary care clinicians (50 each from physiotherapy and chiropractic; 75 from family medicine), and 3750 patients with a new episode of LBP who present to these clinicians. Clinicians will collect data in the clinic, and each participant will be tracked for 12?months using Ontario health administrative and self-reported data to measure diagnostic imaging use and other health outcomes. We will assess characteristics of the clinicians, patients and encounters to identify variables associated with inappropriate imaging. In the qualitative study we will conduct in-depth interviews with primary care clinicians and patients. DISCUSSION:This will be the first Canadian study to accurately document the extent of the overuse of imaging for LBP, and the first worldwide to include data from the main healthcare professions offering primary care for people with LBP. This study will provide robust information about rates of inappropriate imaging for LBP, along with factors associated with, and an understanding of, potential reasons for inappropriate imaging.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisDifferent databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.Results24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).ConclusionsMT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.Prospero registration numberCRD42020198301.

Dataset Information

Global Consensus From Clinicians Regarding Low Back Pain Outcome Indicators for Older Adults: Pairwise Wiki Survey Using Crowdsourcing.

Publications

Global Consensus From Clinicians Regarding Low Back Pain Outcome Indicators for Older Adults: Pairwise Wiki Survey Using Crowdsourcing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure