The usefulness of the STarT back screening tool and single-item general health measures when predicting future disability in patients with low back pain treated in Danish primary care physiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The extent to which disease specific screening tools or other health measures add to the predictive value of common clinical factors (pain, disability and socio-demographics) has been sparsely investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a disease specific screening tool and a single-item general health measure adds predictive value to basic information collected in primary physiotherapy care when predicting future disability in patients with low back pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included 354 patients with low back pain from Danish primary care physiotherapy. Information was collected on socio-demographics, common clinical factors, The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) and general health perceptions measured as a single item from the SF-36 (GH-1). Disability at 6-month follow-up, measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, was predicted using multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: Clinical factors and baseline disability level explained 28.3% of the variance in 6-month disability scores. With SBT and GH-1 added separately to the baseline model, the explained variance increased by 2.1% (p = 0.01) and 3.6% (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: The added value of the disease specific screening tools or the single-item general measure when predicting disability in patients with low back pain was generally small. Moreover, the predictive value of the single-item general measure seems comparable to and slightly better than the disease specific screening tool. Overall these findings may question the clinical utility of such measures.

Therapist perceptions of the Danish Physiotherapy Research Database for assessing patients with chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: The Danish Physiotherapy Research Database for chronic patients receiving Free of Charge Physiotherapy (PhysDB-FCP) was piloted over a 1-year period. The purpose of the PhysDB-FCP is to provide a user friendly digital online structured tool that standardizes initial and follow up clinical assessments generating data that can be used for clinical decision making and support future research in physiotherapy for patients with chronic disease. Although initial assessments were completed, the attrition rate was 73% and 90% at 3- and 6- months, respectively, which suggests problems with the current tool. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perspectives of the physiotherapists that used the PhysDB-FCP and propose changes to the tool based on this feedback. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty of the 103 physiotherapists introduced to the PhysDB-FCP completed an anonymous online survey. Physiotherapists were asked Likert/categorical and yes/no questions on experiences with the PhysDB-FCP within their practice, perceptions of patient experiences, suitability of the resources and support provided by the PhysDB-FCP working group and the ideal administration frequency of the assessments within the PhysDB-FCP. Open ended feedback on possible improvements to the PhysDB-FCP was also collected. RESULTS: Physiotherapists agreed that the PhysDB-FCP was useful for taking a physiotherapy assessment (74%) and the patient survey was useful for goal setting (72%). Although physiotherapists felt the PhysDB-FCP was well-defined (82%), only 36% would like to use a similar tool again. Generally, the PhysDB-FCP was too time-consuming, administered too frequently and included irrelevant items. For example, 72% of physiotherapists took >45 min to administer the assessment in the first consultation which was performed over multiple sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives of physiotherapists using The PhysDB-FCP suggest specific changes that will ensure better use of the tool in future practice. Changes will likely involve administering the assessment less frequently (every 6-months to 1-year), shortening the assessment, and using diagnosis-specific assessment items.

Incidence of Free of Charge Physiotherapy in a Danish National Cohort of Stroke, Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Denmark is a welfare state with a publically funded healthcare system that includes the right to free of charge physiotherapy (FCP) for patients with chronic or progressive disease who fulfill strict criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of referral to FCP in patients with a hospital diagnosis of stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) between 2007 and 2016. METHODS: The study was register-based and included data from The Danish National Patient Registry and The National Health Service Registry. The study population included the four largest disease groups receiving FCP in Denmark. The incidence of receiving FCP was reported as the cumulated incidence proportion (CIP). RESULTS: The study showed that FCP was mainly initiated within the first 2 years after diagnosis. The 2-year CIP was 8% for stroke patients, 53% for PD patients, 49% for MS patients, and 16% for RA patients. The proportion of patients referred to FCP generally increased over the period of the study due to more patients being referred from medical specialists in primary care. CONCLUSION: This study found substantial differences in the incidence of referral to FCP in a Danish population of stroke, PD, MS and RA patients.

Cohort profile: Design and implementation of the Danish Physiotherapy Research Database for patients receiving primary care with chronic disease.

PURPOSE: Free of charge physiotherapy (FCP) is free physiotherapy provided by the Danish government for patients with a range of chronic diseases. To date, the population has not been described in depth making evaluation and decision making difficult. The purpose of this study was to (1) describe the development and the content of a novel clinical physiotherapy database for FCP (PhysDB-FCP) and (2) present the cohort profile based on the data collected. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine clinics (17 460 FCP patients) were invited to participate in the development process from 2018 to 2019. Eleven clinics consented (2780 FCP patients) and 534 patients performed the physiotherapy assessment using the PhysDB-FCP tool, with 393/534 completing the patient survey. FINDINGS TO DATE: The content of the PhysDB-FCP was developed through an iterative process involving consensus between clinical and research workgroups. Prior to using the tool all consenting sites received training to use/administer the tool. All data were collected/stored using the PhysDB-FCP. Items finally chosen for the PhysDB-FCP included demographic information, questions about health status and daily functioning, functional tests, treatment plan and validated questionnaires. The initial patient cohort composed of 63.4% women with main diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (22.7%) and Parkinson's disease (17.0%). The ability to perform personal/instrumental activities of daily living and functional ability varied widely. Other non-physiotherapy related issues were identified in numerous patients (ie, 34.9% of patients were at risk of depression) and multidisciplinary interventional approaches could be considered. FUTURE PLANS: The current study has provided a comprehensive description of patients receiving FCP, using data collected from the novel PhysDB-FCP. Collected information can be used to facilitate microlevel to macrolevel programme evaluation and decisions. Although the PhysDB-FCP is promising, the tool requires optimisation before it is implemented regionally and/or nationally.

The effectiveness of a stratified care model for non-specific low back pain in Danish primary care compared to current practice: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies indicate that stratified care for low back pain results in better clinical outcome and reduced costs in healthcare compared to current practice. Stratified care may be associated with clinical benefits for patients with low back pain at a lower cost, but evidence is sparse. Hence this study aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of stratified care in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to current practice. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a two-armed randomised controlled trial in primary care in the Regions of Southern and Central Denmark (2.5 million citizens). Patients with non-specific low back will be recruited by paticpating GPs. Patients are randomised to either (1) stratified care or (2) current practice at participating physiotherapy clinics. In the stratified care arm, the intervention is based on the patient's STarT Back Tool classification and trained accordingly, whereas physiotherapists in the current pratice arm are blinded to the STarT score. Primary outcomes in the trial will be group differences in time off work, improvement in LBP disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and patient-reported global change. Secondary measures will be pain intensity, patient satisfaction, data on patient healthcare resource utilisation and quality-adjusted life year based on the EQ-5D-5L. DISCUSSION: Stratified care that effectively targets treatment to relevant sub-groups of patients has potentially great impact on the treatment pathways of low back pain. Thus, if effective, this could result in better patient outcomes and at the same time reduce the costs for treatment of low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02612467 . Registered on 16 November 2015.