Individual Patient Factors Associated with the Use of Physical or Digital Primary Care in Sweden.

Introduction: Little is known about factors that influence patients' choice to use physical or digital primary care. This study aimed to compare self-rated health, internet habits, and what patients deem important when choosing health care between users of physical and digital primary health care. Methods: We recruited 2,716 adults visiting one of six physical or four digital primary health care providers in Stockholm, Sweden, October 2020 to May 2021. Participants answered a questionnaire with questions about sociodemography, self-rated health, internet habits, and what they considered important when seeking care. We used logistic regression and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for choosing digital care. Results: Digital users considered themselves healthier and used the internet more, compared with physical users (p < 0.001). Competence of health care staff was the most important factor when seeking care to both physical and digital users (90% and 78%, respectively). Patients considering it important to avoid leaving home were more likely to seek digital care (OR 29.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.65-69.06), while patients valuing continuity were more likely to seek physical care (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.32). These factors were significant also when adjusting for self-rated health and sociodemographic characteristics. Conclusion: What patients considered important when seeking health care was associated with what type of care they sought. Patient preferences should be considered when planning health care to optimize resource allocation.

Assessment of nerve involvement in the lumbar spine: agreement between magnetic resonance imaging, physical examination and pain drawing findings.

BACKGROUND: Detection of nerve involvement originating in the spine is a primary concern in the assessment of spine symptoms. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the diagnostic method of choice for this detection. However, the agreement between MRI and other diagnostic methods for detecting nerve involvement has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this diagnostic study was to evaluate the agreement between nerve involvement visible in MRI and findings of nerve involvement detected in a structured physical examination and a simplified pain drawing. METHODS: Sixty-one consecutive patients referred for MRI of the lumbar spine were - without knowledge of MRI findings - assessed for nerve involvement with a simplified pain drawing and a structured physical examination. Agreement between findings was calculated as overall agreement, the p value for McNemar's exact test, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values. RESULTS: MRI-visible nerve involvement was significantly less common than, and showed weak agreement with, physical examination and pain drawing findings of nerve involvement in corresponding body segments. In spine segment L4-5, where most findings of nerve involvement were detected, the mean sensitivity of MRI-visible nerve involvement to a positive neurological test in the physical examination ranged from 16-37%. The mean specificity of MRI-visible nerve involvement in the same segment ranged from 61-77%. Positive and negative predictive values of MRI-visible nerve involvement in segment L4-5 ranged from 22-78% and 28-56% respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with long-standing nerve root symptoms referred for lumbar MRI, MRI-visible nerve involvement significantly underestimates the presence of nerve involvement detected by a physical examination and a pain drawing. A structured physical examination and a simplified pain drawing may reveal that many patients with "MRI-invisible" lumbar symptoms need treatment aimed at nerve involvement. Factors other than present MRI-visible nerve involvement may be responsible for findings of nerve involvement in the physical examination and the pain drawing.

Inter-examiner reliability in the assessment of low back pain (LBP) using the Kirkaldy-Willis classification (KWC).

Reliable classification systems and clinical tests are sought for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). The objectives of this clinical study were to evaluate inter-examiner reliability in the classification of patients with LBP, the influence of radiological findings on the classification and the reliability of some clinical tests. Two examiners independently assessed 50 outpatients with LBP. Inter-examiner reliability in classification of patients with LBP using Kirkkaldy-Willis classification (KWC) system and in 30 clinical tests was calculated as percentage agreement and kappa coefficients (kappa). Inter-examiner reliability was excellent (kappa>0.8) for classification according to KWC. Radiological findings did not influence the reliability. Age of the patient, movement range, and pain and neurological signs seemed to guide the decision on classification. The reliability of clinical tests was good (kappa>0.6) in 6 tests and moderate (kappa>0.4) in 12 tests. Good inter-examiner reliability was found for the SLR test, movement range and sensibility testing with spurs in dermatome areas. We conclude that the KWC for classifying patients with LBP seems to be a reliable classification system depending on a few key observations and that moderate and good inter-examiner reliability can be achieved in several clinical tests in the assessment of LBP.

Reliability of clinical tests in the assessment of patients with neck/shoulder problems-impact of history.

STUDY DESIGN: A clinical trial on patients receiving neck/shoulder physical examinations. OBJECTIVES: To analyze reliability of clinical tests, prevalence of positive findings in the assessment of neck/shoulder problems in primary care patients, and the impact of history, including pain drawing, on these parameters. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reliability of clinical tests varies, perhaps partly because of the impact of history. To our knowledge, this has not been studied before. METHODS: Two examiners independently assessed 100 patients with a set of 66 clinical tests divided into 9 categories. Half of the patients were examined with and the other half without knowledge of history. Reliability as expressed by percentage agreement, kappa coefficients, and prevalence of positive findings was calculated. RESULTS: Reliability of clinical tests was poor or fair in several categories and did not alter with history. Only a bimanual sensitivity test reached good kappa values. With known history, prevalence of positive findings increased. Bias was apparent in all test categories except sensitivity tests. Four out of five patients were diagnosed to have neurogenic dysfunction in the affected area. CONCLUSIONS: Our sensitivity test was the most reliable and also exempt from bias and should be studied further. Some common tests may not be reliable. History had no impact on reliability of our tests but increased the prevalence of positive findings. Neurogenic dysfunction seems very common in patients with neck and/or shoulder problems and should be screened for.