Prognostic Factors and Treatment Effect Modifiers for Physical Health, Opioid Prescription, and Health Care Utilization in Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders in Primary Care: Exploratory Secondary Analysis of the STEMS Randomized Trial of Direct Access to Physical Therapist-Led Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to identify prognostic factors associated with health care outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal conditions in primary care and to determine whether characteristics associated with choice of care modify treatment effects of a direct-access physical therapist-led pathway in addition to general practitioner (GP)-led care compared to GP-led care alone. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a 2-parallel-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial involving general practices in the United Kingdom was conducted. Practices were randomized to continue offering GP-led care or to also offer a direct-access physical therapist-led pathway. Data from adults with musculoskeletal conditions who completed the 6-month follow-up questionnaire were analyzed. Outcomes included physical health, opioid prescription, and self-reported health care utilization over 6 months. Treatment effect modifiers were selected a priori from associations in observational studies. Multivariable regression models identified potential prognostic factors, and interaction analysis tested for potential treatment effect modifiers. RESULTS: Analysis of 767 participants indicated that baseline pain self-efficacy, pain severity, and having low back pain statistically predicted outcomes at 6 months. Higher pain self-efficacy scores at baseline were associated with improved physical health scores, reduced opioid prescription, and less health care utilization. Higher bodily pain at baseline and having low back pain were associated with worse physical health scores and increased opioid prescription. Main interaction analyses did not reveal that patients' age, level of education, duration of symptoms, or musculoskeletal presentation influenced response to treatment, but visual trends suggested those in the older age group proceeded to fewer opioid prescriptions and utilized less health care when offered direct access to physical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with musculoskeletal conditions with lower levels of pain self-efficacy, higher pain severity, and presenting with low back pain have less favorable clinical and health care outcomes in primary care. Prespecified characteristics did not modify the treatment effect of the offer of a direct-access physical therapist-led pathway compared to GP-led care. IMPACT: Patients with musculoskeletal conditions receiving primary care in the form of direct-access physical therapist-led or GP-led care who have lower levels of self-efficacy, higher pain severity, and low back pain are likely to have a less favorable prognosis. Age and duration of symptoms should be explored as potential patient characteristics that modify the treatment response to a direct-access physical therapist-led model of care.

Usefulness of machine learning softwares to screen titles of systematic reviews: a methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness and performance metrics of three freely-available softwares (Rayyan®, Abstrackr® and Colandr®) for title screening in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this methodological study, the usefulness of softwares to screen titles in systematic reviews was investigated by the comparison between the number of titles identified by software-assisted screening and those by manual screening using a previously published systematic review. To test the performance metrics, sensitivity, specificity, false negative rate, proportion missed, workload and timing savings were calculated. A purposely built survey was used to evaluate the rater's experiences regarding the softwares' performances. RESULTS: Rayyan® was the most sensitive software and raters correctly identified 78% of the true positives. All three softwares were specific and raters correctly identified 99% of the true negatives. They also had similar values for precision, proportion missed, workload and timing savings. Rayyan®, Abstrackr® and Colandr® had 21%, 39% and 34% of false negatives rates, respectively. Rayyan presented the best performance (35/40) according to the raters. CONCLUSION: Rayyan®, Abstrackr® and Colandr® are useful tools and provided good metric performance results for systematic title screening. Rayyan® appears to be the best ranked on the quantitative and on the raters' perspective evaluation. The most important finding of this study is that the use of software to screen titles does not remove any title that would meet the inclusion criteria for the final review, being valuable resources to facilitate the screening process.

Influence of Initial Health Care Provider on Subsequent Health Care Utilization for Patients With a New Onset of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to examine the scope of evidence for the influence of a nonmedical initial provider on health care utilization and outcomes in people with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Using scoping review methodology, we conducted an electronic search of 4 databases from inception to June 2021. Studies investigating the management of patients with a new onset of LBP by a nonmedical initial health care provider were identified. Pairs of reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text studies. We extracted health care utilization and patient outcomes and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers descriptively analyzed the data and categorized findings by outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 26,462 citations were screened, and 11 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily retrospective cohort designs using claims-based data. Four studies had a low risk of bias. Five health care outcomes were identified: medication, imaging, care seeking, cost of care, and health care procedures. Patient outcomes included patient satisfaction and functional recovery. Compared with patients initiating care with medical providers, those initiating care with a nonmedical provider showed associations with reduced opioid prescribing and imaging ordering rates but increased rates of care seeking. Results for cost of care, health care procedures, and patient outcomes were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing nonmedical providers at the first point of care may decrease the use of low-value care, such as opioid prescribing and imaging referral, but may lead to an increased number of health care visits in the care of people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings. IMPACT: This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, may help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. The trend observed in this scoping review has important implications for pathways of care and the role of nonmedical providers, such as physical therapists, within primary health care systems. LAY SUMMARY: This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, might help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.