Comparing three approaches for involving patients in research prioritization: a qualitative study of participant experiences.

BACKGROUND: By participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities. METHODS: Respondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65 years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience. RESULTS: The crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews. CONCLUSION: Common methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NICHSR, HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.

Multi-site Pain Is Associated with Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Adults with Persistent Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of co-occurring pain sites among older adults with persistent back pain and associations of multisite pain with longitudinal outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: Eight hundred ninety-nine older adults with persistent back pain. METHODS: Participants reported pain in the following sites: stomach, arms/legs/joints, headaches, neck, pelvis/groin, and widespread pain. Over 18 months, we measured back-related disability (Roland Morris, scored 0-24), pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], utility from 0-1), and falls in the past three weeks. We used mixed-effects models to test the association of number and type of pain sites with each outcome. RESULTS: Nearly all (N = 839, 93%) respondents reported at least one additional pain site. There were 216 (24%) with one additional site and 623 (69%) with multiple additional sites. The most prevalent comorbid pain site was the arms/legs/joints (N = 801, 89.1%). Adjusted mixed-effects models showed that for every additional pain site, RMDQ worsened by 0.65 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 0.86), back pain intensity increased by 0.14 points (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.22), EQ-5D worsened by 0.012 points (95% CI = -0.018 to -0.006), and the odds of falling increased by 27% (odds ratio = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.43). Some specific pain sites (extremity pain, widespread pain, and pelvis/groin pain) were associated with greater long-term disability. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite pain is common among older adults with persistent back pain. Number of pain sites was associated with all outcomes; individual pain sites were less consistently associated with outcomes.

Systemic effects of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis.

This analysis of the lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis multicenter randomized controlled trial data identifies the degree of and risk factors for cortisol suppression after epidural steroid injections in older adults with spinal stenosis. Four hundred patients aged 50 years and older with back or leg pain and central lumbar spinal stenosis completed baseline demographic and psychosocial measures. Morning serum cortisol levels were measured at baseline and 3 weeks after initial injection. Patients were randomized to receive epidural injections of either local anesthetic with corticosteroid (n = 200) or local anesthetic only (n = 200). The specific corticosteroid was chosen at the treating physician's discretion (methylprednisolone, betamethasone, triamcinolone, or dexamethasone). Thirty-two patients (20.3%) treated with corticosteroid experienced cortisol reduction at 3 weeks of >50% compared with 10 patients (6.7%) treated with lidocaine only (adjusted treatment effect = 3.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.6-7.9, P = 0.002). The effect on 3-week cortisol changes did not differ by demographic or patient-level characteristics. Those treated with methylprednisolone or triamcinolone had an average 3-week cortisol reduction of 41.0% (P = 0.005) and 41.6% (P < 0.001) from baseline, respectively, whereas patients treated with betamethasone or dexamethasone were not significantly different than comparable patients in the lidocaine arm. The higher rates of cortisol suppression at 3 weeks in those receiving epidural corticosteroid injections, particularly with longer-acting insoluble corticosteroid formulations, are consistent with sustained systemic absorption of corticosteroid.

Long-term outcomes of a large, prospective observational cohort of older adults with back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although back pain is common among older adults, there is relatively little research on the course of back pain in this age group. PURPOSE: Our primary goals were to report 2-year outcomes of older adults initiating primary care for back pain and to examine the relative importance of patient factors versus medical interventions in predicting 2-year disability and pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study used a predictive model using data from a prospective, observational cohort from a primary care setting. PATIENT SAMPLE: The study included patients aged ≥65 years at the time of new primary care visits for back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported 2-year disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and back pain (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]). METHODS: We developed our models using a machine learning least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach. We evaluated the predictive value of baseline characteristics and the incremental value of interventions that occurred between 0 and 90 days, and the change in patient disability and pain from 0 to 90 days. Limitations included confounding by indication and unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Of 4,665 patients (89%) with follow-up, both RDQ (from mean 9.6 [95% confidence interval {CI} 9.4-9.7] to mean 8.3 [95% CI 8.0-8.5]) and back pain NRS (from mean 5.0 [95% CI 4.9-5.1] to mean 3.5 [95% CI 3.4-3.6]) scores improved slightly. Only 16% (15%-18%) reported no back pain-related disability or back pain at 2 years after initial visits. Regression model parameters explained 40% of the variation (R2) in 2-year RDQ scores, and the addition of 0- to 3-month change in RDQ score and pain improved prediction (R2=51%). The most consistent predictors of 2-year RDQ scores and back pain NRS scores were 0- to 90-day change in each respective outcome and patient confidence in improvement. Patients experienced 50% and 43% improvement in back pain and disability, respectively, 2 years after their initial visit. However, fewer than 20% of patients had complete resolution of their back pain and disability at that time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patient factors were more important than early interventions in explaining disability and pain after 2 years.

Associations of Early Opioid Use With Patient-reported Outcomes and Health Care Utilization Among Older Adults With Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and health care utilization of older patients who did versus did not fill opioid prescriptions within 90 days of initiating care for low back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For patients ≥65 years with new back pain visits, we used propensity scores to match those who filled no opioid prescriptions to those who filled ≥2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days (and the first opioid prescription within 30 d) of the index visit. Over 24 months, we examined patient-reported outcomes, health care utilization, and subsequent opioid prescription fills. RESULTS: Among 1954 patients eligible for matching, 238 (12%) filled ≥2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days; 200 of these were matched to controls. Patients with versus without early opioid prescriptions had similar patient-reported outcomes but were more likely to have filled ≥1 opioid prescription 18 to 24 months after the index visit (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]=2.4 [1.5-3.9]) and to have had ≥1 visit to the emergency department in the subsequent 24 months (OR, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.5). DISCUSSION: Among older patients with new back pain visits, filling ≥2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days of the visit was associated with similar back pain-related outcomes but increased likelihood of filling opioid prescriptions 18 to 24 months later compared with matched patients who did not fill early opioid prescriptions.

Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry.

PURPOSE: A cornerstone of patient-centered outcome research is direct patient involvement throughout the research process. Identifying and prioritizing research topics is a critical but often overlooked point for involvement, as it guides what research questions are asked. We assess the feasibility of involving individuals with low back pain in identifying and prioritizing research topics using two approaches: an existing patient registry and an online crowdsourcing platform. We compare and contrast the diversity of participants recruited, their responses, and resources involved. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a survey ranking their five highest priority topics from an existing list and supplying additional topics not previously identified. We analyzed their responses using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: The patient registry yielded older (mean age 72.4), mostly White (70%), and well-educated (95% high school diploma or higher) participants; crowdsourcing yielded younger (mean age 36.6 years), mostly White (82%), and well-educated (98% high school diploma or higher) participants. The two approaches resulted in similar research priorities by frequency. Both provided open-ended responses that were useful, in that they illuminate additional and nuanced research topics. Overall, both approaches suggest a preference towards topics related to diagnosis and treatment over other topics. CONCLUSION: Using a patient registry and crowdsourcing are both feasible recruitment approaches for engagement. Researchers should consider their approach, community, and resources when choosing their recruitment approach, as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are likely most appropriate to supplement or to complement in-person and ongoing engagement strategies.

The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Crowdsourcing in Research Prioritization for Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: The 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing 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.

Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER): Study Protocol to Compare Qualitative Research Methods and Advance Patient Engagement in Research.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients as partners in research is a defining characteristic of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). While patients' experiential knowledge of a health condition or treatment may yield research priorities not reflected by researchers and policy makers, the methods for identifying and effectively collaborating with patients are still evolving. Patient registries and crowdsourcing may offer ease of access and convenience to both researchers and patients. Surveys and focus groups, including online modalities, have been described for prioritizing research topics. However, little is known about how these different methods compare in producing consistent priorities and similar perceptions of engagement quality among participants. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are (1) to compare how different engagement methods used to elicit patient priorities for research perform as measured by rankings for priorities generated and participant satisfaction; and (2) to determine characteristics of individuals choosing to participate in research prioritization activities. METHODS: Participants in the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) patient registry, established to evaluate the natural history of back pain among individuals 65 years and older, and participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdsourcing platform, to provide input on priorities for research via a questionnaire, are invited. For BOLD participants, we subsequently randomize interested respondents to 1 of 3 interactive prioritization activities to further develop priorities: a Delphi panel, an online crowd voting activity, or an in-person facilitated prioritization activity using nominal group technique (NGT). Participants involved in each activity complete a survey to evaluate the quality of the experience and a subset of these participants discuss their experience further in an interview. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize the rankings produced by each method and compare the top 5 rated topics resulting from each prioritization activity. We use rank-ordered logistic regression models to identify associations of the ranked priority topics with baseline patient characteristics. We analyze responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach wherein we tabulate responses to Likert-scale questions and use content analysis to enumerate themes emerging from interviews for the 3 activities. RESULTS: In Phase I, we invite approximately 3000 BOLD participants and 500 Amazon MTurk workers to complete a research topic prioritization survey. Based on these results, we include additional topics into a subsequent prioritization survey. In Phase II, we invite BOLD participants to join 1 of 3 activities: 90 participants for Delphi panel, 100 participants for crowd voting, and 60 participants for focus groups. Of the Phase II participants, 30 will be interviewed to evaluate the activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study informs decisions about how to conduct outreach to patient registry participants for providing input on research priorities, how individuals 65 years and older wish to participate in engagement activities, and how different research prioritization methods compare in terms of rankings generated and participant satisfaction.

Long-Term Effects of Repeated Injections of Local Anesthetic With or Without Corticosteroid for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall long-term effectiveness of treatment with epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis and the effect of repeat injections, including crossover injections, on outcomes through 12 months. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. SETTING: Sixteen clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with imaging-confirmed lumbar central spinal stenosis (N=400). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone with the option of blinded crossover after 6 weeks to receive the alternate treatment. Participants could receive 1 to 2 injections from 0 to 6 weeks and up to 2 injections from 6 to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, participants received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (range, 0-24, where higher scores indicate greater disability) and leg pain intensity (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [pain as bad as you can imagine]). Secondary outcomes included opioid use, spine surgery, and crossover rates. RESULTS: At 12 months, both treatment groups maintained initial observed improvements, with no significant differences between groups on the RDQ (adjusted mean difference, -0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 0.9; P=.55), leg pain (adjusted mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7; P=.75), opioid use (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 41.4% vs lidocaine alone: 36.3%; P=.41), or spine surgery (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 16.8% vs lidocaine alone: 11.8%; P=.22). Fewer participants randomized to corticosteroid plus lidocaine (30%, n=60) versus lidocaine alone (45%, n=90) crossed over after 6 weeks (P=.003). Among participants who crossed over at 6 weeks, the 6- to 12-week RDQ change did not differ between the 2 randomized treatment groups (adjusted mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.7; P=.24). In both groups, participants crossing over at 6 weeks had worse 12-month trajectories compared with participants who did not choose to crossover. CONCLUSIONS: For lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine offered no benefits from 6 weeks to 12 months beyond that of injections of lidocaine alone in terms of self-reported pain and function or reduction in use of opioids and spine surgery. In patients with improved pain and function 6 weeks after initial injection, these outcomes were maintained at 12 months. However, the trajectories of pain and function outcomes after 3 weeks did not differ by injectate type. Repeated injections of either type offered no additional long-term benefit if injections in the first 6 weeks did not improve pain.

Effect of Comorbid Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis on Longitudinal Clinical and Health Care Use Outcomes in Older Adults With New Visits for Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if a comorbid diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in older adults with new back pain visits is associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes and back-related health care use. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems forming the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=5155) were older adults (≥65y) with a new visit for back pain and a complete electronic health record data. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable; we obtained OA diagnoses using diagnostic codes in the electronic health record 12 months prior to the new back pain visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were key patient-reported outcomes. Health care use, measured by relative-value units (RVUs), was summed for the 12 months after the initial visit. We used linear mixed-effects models to model patient-reported outcomes. We also used generalized linear models to test the association between comorbid knee or hip OA and total back-related RVUs. RESULTS: Of the 5155 participants, 368 (7.1%) had a comorbid knee OA diagnosis, and 94 (1.8%) had a hip OA diagnosis. Of the participants, 4711 (91.4%) had neither knee nor hip OA. In adjusted models, the 12-month RDQ score was 1.23 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.74) for patients with knee OA and 1.26 points higher (95% CI, 0.24-2.27) for those with hip OA than those without knee or hip OA, respectively. A lower EQ-5D score was found among participants with knee OA (.02 lower; 95% CI, -.04 to -.01) and hip OA diagnoses (.03 lower; 95% CI, -.05 to -.01) compared with those without knee or hip OA, respectively. Comorbid knee or hip OA was not significantly associated with total 12-month back-related resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid knee or hip OA in older adults with a new back pain visit was associated with modestly worse long-term disability and health-related quality of life.

Patient Priority Weighting of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Does Not Change Results of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis randomized controlled trial data. OBJECTIVE: To reevaluate whether outcomes for older adults receiving epidural steroid injections with or without corticosteroid improve after using patient-prioritized Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) items. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, despite limited evidence for their effectiveness in clinical trials. It is unclear whether evaluating patient-prioritized outcomes would alter results of a large clinical trial. METHODS: Outcomes from the trial of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (LESS) trial were reanalyzed using RDQ, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) weights assigned to the RDQ items, and patient-prioritized RDQ items. Differences between corticosteroid + lidocaine versus lidocaine-alone groups and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline values of the RDQ and recruitment site. RESULTS: At 6 weeks, both the corticosteroid + lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group had improvement in the RDQ scores (RDQ, RDQ using SIP weights, patient-prioritized RDQ) as compared with baseline scores (corticosteroid + lidocaine: -4.2 points, -4.1 points, -4.2; lidocaine-alone: -3.1 points, -2.9 points, and -3.1 points, respectively). However, there was no significant between-group difference in the RDQ or patient-prioritized RDQ (average treatment effect -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1, P = 0.07; -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.1, P = 0.08, respectively). Although the between-group difference of RDQ using SIP weights was statistically significant (average treatment effect -1.1, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.1, P = 0.04), this was not clinically important. CONCLUSION: Results of the LESS trial did not substantively differ based on reanalysis of data using RDQ with SIP weights or patient-prioritized RDQ outcomes. This provides additional evidence that epidural injection of corticosteroid + lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone for older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Short-term improvements in disability mediate patient satisfaction after epidural corticosteroid injections for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To identify mediators of the effect of lumbar epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine on patient satisfaction at 6 weeks postinjection in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. We hypothesized that short-term (≤3 wk) change in leg pain would be a significant mediator of satisfaction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No prior studies have identified mediators of effects of epidural injections on patient satisfaction with treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: We used mediation analysis methods to examine selected intermediate variables (adverse events and change in leg pain, back pain, disability, depression, and fatigue at 3 wk) as potential mediators of the effect of lumbar epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine on patient satisfaction with treatment. We used the overall satisfaction item from the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire as our primary outcome to measure patient satisfaction with the injection procedure at 6 weeks. RESULTS: Among 400 patients randomized to receive epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or with lidocaine alone, 369 had complete data for the satisfaction outcome and potential mediators and served as the analysis sample. Contrary to our expectations, 3-week change in leg pain intensity did not have significant mediation effects on patient satisfaction. Three-week change in disability as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was a significant mediator of the effects of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections on patient satisfaction at 6 weeks, explaining 48% to 60% of the treatment effect on satisfaction. Changes in pain intensity in the leg and back together explained very little of the treatment effect on satisfaction beyond the information contributed by disability change alone. We did not find other intermediate variables to be mediators of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: These findings support the current approach of examining disability as a primary patient-reported outcome in comparative effectiveness studies of lumbar spinal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults.

IMPORTANCE: In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES: Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain.

Problem areas identified as important to older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is growing concern that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) commonly used in clinical research evaluating treatments such as epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for lumbar spinal stenosis may not adequately capture outcomes of greatest importance to older adults. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine what outcomes are most important to older adults with spinal stenosis, how well commonly used PROs reflect what is most important to these participants, and which outcomes older adults with spinal stenosis would want improved to consider having ESI. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is an outcome prioritization study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Community sample of 33 older adults with spinal stenosis were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. METHODS: The methods involve individual sorting and ranking exercises followed by facilitated focus groups. RESULTS: Highest rated problem areas were "experiencing pain/discomfort" (88% of participants), "problems with physical function" (85%), "difficulty exercising" (73%), "difficulty participating in hobbies and leisure activities" (55%), and "problems with weakness" (52%). Only 10 of the 24 Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire items were rated by 50% or more of participants experiencing them as important enough to warrant ESI treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with spinal stenosis rated problems related to pain and physical function as the most important outcomes to them. However, difficulty exercising and difficulty participating in hobbies and leisure activities were also among the most highly rated and were two areas not typically assessed in treatment studies. Commonly used PROs in spinal stenosis treatment studies may be insufficient to comprehensively assess outcomes from the patient perspective.

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P=0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P=0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238536.).

Back pain in seniors: the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) cohort baseline data.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01776242; Registration date: June 13, 2012.

Study protocol: the Back Pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: BOLD is enrolling 5,000 patients ≥ 65 years old who present to a primary care physician with a new episode of back pain. We are recruiting study participants from three integrated health systems (Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates/ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston). Registry patients complete validated, standardized measures of pain, back pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life at enrollment and 3, 6 and 12 months later. We also have available for analysis the clinical and administrative data in the participating health systems' electronic medical records. Using registry data, we will conduct an observational cohort study of early imaging compared to no early imaging among patients with new episodes of back pain. The aims are to: 1) identify predictors of early imaging and; 2) compare pain, functional outcomes, diagnostic testing and treatment utilization of patients who receive early imaging versus patients who do not receive early imaging. In terms of predictors, we will examine patient factors as well as physician factors. DISCUSSION: By establishing the BOLD registry, we are creating a resource that contains patient-reported outcome measures as well as electronic medical record data for elderly patients with back pain. The richness of our data will allow better matching for comparative effectiveness studies than is currently possible with existing datasets. BOLD will enrich the existing knowledge base regarding back pain in the elderly to help clinicians and patients make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding their care.