Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Evaluation of a risk-stratification strategy to improve primary care for low back pain: the MATCH cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous options for treating back pain and the increasing healthcare resources devoted to this problem, the prevalence and impact of back pain-related disability has not improved. It is now recognized that psychosocial factors, as well as physical factors, are important predictors of poor outcomes for back pain. A promising new approach that matches treatments to the physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery, the STarT Back risk stratification approach, improved patients' physical function while reducing costs of care in the United Kingdom (UK). This trial evaluates implementation of this strategy in a United States (US) healthcare setting. METHODS: Six large primary care clinics in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State were block-randomized, three to receive an intensive quality improvement intervention for back pain and three to serve as controls for secular trends. The intervention included 6 one-hour training sessions for physicians, 5 days of training for physical therapists, individualized and group coaching of clinicians, and integration of the STarT Back tool into the electronic health record. This prognostic tool uses 9 questions to categorize patients at low, medium or high risk of persistent disabling pain with recommendations about evidence-based treatment options appropriate for each subgroup. Patients at least 18 years of age, receiving primary care for non-specific low back pain, were invited to provide data 1-3 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 months and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. The primary outcomes are back-related physical function and pain severity. Using an intention to treat approach, intervention effects on patient outcomes will be estimated by comparing mean changes at the 2 and 6 month follow-up between the pre- and post-implementation periods. The inclusion of control clinics permits adjustment for secular trends. Differences in change scores by intervention group and time period will be estimated using linear mixed models with random effects. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization and adherence to clinical guidelines. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the first randomized trial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of implementing risk stratification with matched treatment options for low back pain in a United States health care delivery system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02286141. Registered November 5, 2014.

Patient Experiences With Blood Pressure Measurement Methods for Hypertension Diagnosis: Qualitative Findings From the BP-CHECK Study.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is recommended when making a new hypertension diagnosis. In practice, however, hypertension is primarily diagnosed using clinic BP. The study objective was to understand patient attitudes about accuracy and patient-centeredness regarding hypertension diagnostic methods. METHODS: Qualitative study within a randomized controlled diagnostic study conducted between May 2017 and March 2019 comparing the accuracy and acceptability of BP measurement methods among patients in an integrated healthcare delivery system. All participants completed 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), plus either clinic BP, home BP monitoring (HBPM), or kiosk BP diagnostic testing. Qualitative interviewees (aged 31-76 years, n = 35) were recruited from the main study. RESULTS: Participants who completed HBPM found it to be comfortable and low burden, and believed it produced accurate results. Participants in the clinic arm described clinic measurements as inconvenient. Participants in the kiosk arm overall did not favor kiosks due to concerns about accuracy and privacy. Participants described ABPM as the most accurate method due to repeated measurements over the 24-hour period in real-world contexts, but many found it uncomfortable and disruptive. Participants also noted methods that involved repeated measures such as HBPM and ABPM particularly influenced their understanding of whether or not they had hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension diagnostic methods that include more BP measurements help patients gain a deeper understanding of BP variability and the lower reliability of infrequent measurements in the clinic. These findings warrant implementing strategies to enhance out-of-office BP diagnostic testing in primary care. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial number NCT03130257.