Low back pain research priorities: a survey of primary care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Despite the large amount of time and money which has been devoted to low back pain research, successful management remains an elusive goal and low back pain continues to place a large burden on the primary care setting. One reason for this may be that the priorities for research are often developed by researchers and funding bodies, with little consideration of the needs of primary care practitioners. This study aimed to determine the research priorities of primary care practitioners who manage low back pain on a day-to-day basis. METHODS: A modified-Delphi survey of primary care practitioners was conducted, consisting of three rounds of questionnaires. In the first round, 70 practitioners who treat low back pain were each asked to provide up to five questions which they would like answered with respect to low back pain in primary care. The results were collated into a second round questionnaire consisting of 39 priorities, which were rated for importance by each practitioner on a likert-scale. The third round consisted of asking the practitioners to rank the top ten priorities in order of importance. RESULTS: Response rates for the modified-Delphi remained above 70% throughout the three rounds. The ten highest ranked priorities included the identification of sub-groups of patients that respond optimally to different treatments, evaluation of different exercise approaches in the management of low back pain, self-management of low back pain, and comparison of different treatment approaches by primary care professions treating low back pain. CONCLUSION: Practitioners identified a need for more information on a variety of topics, including diagnosis, the effectiveness of treatments, and identification of patient characteristics which affect treatment and recovery.

Prognosis of chronic low back pain: design of an inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical guidelines generally portray chronic low back pain as a condition with a poor prognosis this portrayal is based on studies of potentially unrepresentative survival cohorts. The aim of this study is to describe the prognosis of an inception cohort of people with chronic low back pain presenting for primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will be an inception cohort study with one year follow-up. Participants are drawn from a cohort of consecutive patients presenting with acute low back pain (less than 2 weeks duration) to primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Those patients who continue to experience pain at three months, and are therefore classified as having chronic back pain, are invited to participate in the current study. The cohort will be followed up by telephone at baseline, 9 months and 12 months after being diagnosed with chronic low back pain. Recovery from low back pain will be measured by sampling three different outcomes: pain intensity, interference with function due to pain, and work status. Life tables will be generated to determine the one year prognosis of chronic low back pain. Prognostic factors will be assessed using Cox regression. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the prognosis of chronic non-specific low back pain in a representative cohort of patients sourced from primary care. The results of this study will improve understanding of chronic low back pain, allowing clinicians to provide more accurate prognostic information to their patients.

Prognosis of acute low back pain: design of a prospective inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines generally portray acute low back pain as a benign and self-limiting condition. However, evidence about the clinical course of acute low back pain is contradictory and the risk of subsequently developing chronic low back pain remains uncertain. There are few high quality prognosis studies and none that have measured pain, disability and return to work over a 12 month period. This study aims to provide the first estimates of the one year prognosis of acute low back pain (pain of less than 2 weeks duration) in patients consulting primary care practitioners. A secondary aim is to identify factors that are associated with the prognosis of low back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a prospective inception cohort study. Consecutive patients consulting general medical practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors in the Sydney metropolitan region will complete a baseline questionnaire regarding their back pain. Subsequently these patients will be followed up by telephone 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months after the initial consultation. Patients will be considered to have recovered from the episode of back pain if they have no pain and no limitation of activity, and have returned to pre-injury work status. Life tables will be generated to determine the one year prognosis of acute low back pain. Prognostic factors will be assessed using Cox regression. DISCUSSION: This study will provide the first estimates of the one year prognosis of acute low back pain in a representative sample of primary care patients.

A web-based clinical decision support tool for primary health care management of back pain: development and mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with back pain do not receive health care in accordance with best practice recommendations. Implementation trials to address this issue have had limited success. Despite the known effectiveness of clinical decision support systems (CDSS), none of these are available for back pain management. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop a Web-based CDSS to support Australian general practitioners (GPs) to diagnose and manage back pain according to guidelines. METHODS: Asking a panel of international experts to review recommendations for sixteen clinical vignettes validated the tool. It was then launched nationally as part of National Pain Week and promoted to GPs via a media release and clinic based visits. Following this, a mixed methods evaluation was conducted to determine tool feasibility, acceptability, and utility. The 12 month usage data were analyzed, and in-depth, semistructured interviews with 20 GPs were conducted to identify barriers and enablers to uptake. RESULTS: The tool had acceptable face validity when reviewed by experts. Over a 12 month period there were 7125 website visits with 4503 (63.20%) unique users. Assuming most unique users are GPs, around one quarter of the country's GPs may have used the tool at least once. Although usage was high, GP interviews highlighted the sometimes complex nature of management where the tool may not influence care. Conversely, several "touch-points", whereby the tool may exert its influence, were identified, most notably patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: A novel CDSS tool has the potential to assist with evidence-based management of back pain. A clinical trial is required to determine its impact on practitioner and patient outcomes.

Characteristics of patients with acute low back pain presenting to primary care in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive profile of a representative sample of patients with acute low back pain drawn from the primary care setting. A secondary aim was to determine whether patient characteristics are associated with pain intensity or disability at the initial consultation. METHODS: A total of 1172 consecutive patients with acute low back pain presenting to clinics of primary care practitioners (general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors) in Australia were recruited. Pain intensity and level of disability were measured at the first consultation, and a range of other variables were measured to describe the patient's characteristics. The characteristics were then grouped into 7 distinct factors: demographic, social, cultural, general health, psychologic, past low back pain history, and current low back pain history. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to determine each factor's independent relationship with pain intensity and disability. RESULTS: The majority of patients reported having had a previous episode of low back pain (75.7%), and that the current episode was of sudden onset (76.7%). Only a small proportion (14.3%) had compensable back pain. Pain intensity and disability were associated with each other (P<0.01), current low back pain history (P<0.01), and psychologic (P<0.01) characteristics. DISCUSSION: In a representative sample of acute low back pain patients in primary care, we found that the profile included only a small proportion of patients with compensable low back pain. Those without compensation were more likely to remain at work despite low back pain. Psychologic and other patient characteristics were associated with pain intensity and level of disability at the initial consultation.

Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of serious pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of recommended "red flag" screening questions. METHODS: An inception cohort of 1,172 consecutive patients receiving primary care for acute low back pain was recruited from primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. At the initial consultation, clinicians recorded responses to 25 red flag questions and then provided an initial diagnosis. The reference standard was a 12-month followup supplemented with a specialist review of a random subsample of participants. RESULTS: There were 11 cases (0.9%) of serious pathology, including 8 cases of fracture. Despite the low prevalence of serious pathology, most patients (80.4%) had at least 1 red flag (median 2, interquartile range 1-3). Only 3 of the red flags for fracture recommended for use in clinical guidelines were informative: prolonged use of corticosteroids, age >70 years, and significant trauma. Clinicians identified 5 of the 11 cases of serious pathology at the initial consultation and made 6 false-positive diagnoses. The status of a diagnostic prediction rule containing 4 features (female sex, age >70 years, significant trauma, and prolonged use of corticosteroids) was moderately associated with the presence of fracture (the area under the curve for the rule score was 0.834 [95% confidence interval 0.654-1.014]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to a primary care provider with back pain, previously undiagnosed serious pathology is rare. The most common serious pathology observed was vertebral fracture. Approximately half of the cases of serious pathology were identified at the initial consultation. Some red flags have very high false-positive rates, indicating that, when used in isolation, they have little diagnostic value in the primary care setting.

Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. DESIGN: Cohort study with one year follow-up. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks' duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. RESULTS: The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.

Identification of families with cortical Lewy body disease.

Until recently, cortical Lewy body disease (CLB) was considered essentially the same as dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). It is now known patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) with a later-onset dementia (PD-dementia) have the same pattern and extent of cortical Lewy body pathology. Inheritance patterns of CLB have not been evaluated previously. To identify genetic influence on CLB, all cases with this pathology need to be considered. We selected 180 cases meeting clinical and/or pathological criteria for DLB or PD (+/-dementia) from two patient groups: a PD and PD-dementia brain donor program, and a case-control study of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Cases meeting NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for probable AD were excluded and non-demented PD cases used as a comparison group. A detailed family history was taken analyzing onset and progression of dementia and PD phenotypes and a family tree constructed. The frequency of a positive family history of dementia and/or PD and risk of developing CLB in relatives was calculated. Fifty-five percent of dementia and 52% of PD cohorts did not have relatives with clinical disease. There was no increased frequency of familial disease in the CLB cohort compared with PD. However, in half the CLB families, rather than a dominant dementia, the clinical presentation varied (dementia and/or PD). Unlike PD, there was an increased risk of dementia if CLB was present in a parent ( approximately 20% risk) compared with another family member ( approximately 5% risk), suggesting CLB is more likely than PD to occur in a pattern consistent with autosomal dominant inheritance.