Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the elements and composition of care provided by general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and chiropractors (DCs) to patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Primary care setting, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians (GPs, PTs and DCs) in the Region of Southern Denmark were invited to register consecutive adult patient visits with LBP as the primary complaint. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians reported care elements provided to patients with LBP. Elements varied due to professional differences (eg, prescriptive rights). Data were descriptively analysed, on group and individual levels, for frequency and combination of care elements, and practice patterns were explored with latent class analysis. RESULTS: The clinicians (33 GPs, 67 PTs and 43 DCs with a median experience of 15 years and 59% were females) registered 3500 patient visits. On average, the visits involved patients aged 51 years, and 51% were with females. The frequencies of common care elements across professions were information (42%-56% of visits between professions) and advice (56%-81%), while other common elements for GPs were pain medication (40%) and referrals to PTs (36%), for PTs, use of exercises (81%) and for DCs, use of manual therapy (96%). Substantial variation was observed within professions and distinct practice patterns, with different focuses of attention to information and advice versus exercise and manual therapy, were identified for PTs and DCs. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial variation in the care elements provided by GPs, PTs and DCs to LBP patients. The compositions of care and practice patterns identified challenge the understanding of usual care as a uniform concept and professions as homogeneous groups. Strategic use of particular care elements in different parts of treatment courses is indicated. Longitudinal data and qualitative enquiry are needed to assess if or how care is tailored to individual patients.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain in primary and secondary care settings in Southern Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with acute or chronic low back pain across all health care settings treating this condition.Design and setting: Concurrent prospective survey registration of all consecutive consultations regarding low back pain at general practitioners, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and the secondary care spine centre in Southern Denmark. SUBJECTS: Patients ≥16 years of age with low back pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Demographic characteristics, symptoms, and clinical findings were registered and descriptively analysed. Pearson's chi-square tested differences between the populations in the four settings. Multiple logistic regression assessed the odds of consulting specific settings, and t-test assessed differences between patients attending for a first and later consultation. RESULTS: Thirty-six general practitioners, 44 chiropractors, 74 physiotherapists, and 35 secondary care Spine Centre personnel provided information on 5645 consultations, including 1462 first-visit consultations. The patients differed significantly across the settings. Patients at the Spine Centre had the most severe symptoms and signs and were most often on sick leave. Compared to the other populations, the chiropractor population was younger, whereas the physiotherapist population was older, more often females, and had prolonged symptoms. In general practice, first-time consultations were with milder cases while patients who attended for a second or later consultation had the worst symptoms, findings, and risk of sick leave compared to the other primary care settings. CONCLUSION: The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain differ considerably across the health care settings treating them.KEY POINTSThe study describes the symptoms and clinical findings of patients with low back pain consulting the Danish health care system in all its settings.Patients with chiropractors were youngest, while those with physiotherapists were the oldest and most frequently female.First consultations in general practice were generally with the least symptomatic patients while those returning for a subsequent consultation had more severe disease including more sick leave compared to patients in the other primary care settings.Our findings call for caution when generalizing between health care settings for patients with low back pain.

Providing information at the initial consultation to patients with low back pain across general practice, chiropractic and physiotherapy - a cross-sectorial study of Danish primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines for managing low back pain (LBP) emphasise patient information, patient education and physical activity as key components. Little is known about who actually receives information. This study investigates to what extent information at the first consultation with general practitioner (GP), chiropractor (DC) and physiotherapist (PT) in Danish primary care is provided to patients with LBP. DESIGN AND SETTING: This cross-sectorial study was conducted as a prospective survey registration of LBP consultations at the three primary health care professions in Denmark. INTERVENTION: Clinicians ticked off a paper survey chart during or after consultations with patients who visited the clinic for LBP (Approval number: ID # 11.220). SUBJECTS: 33 GPs, 43 DCs and 61 PTs registered first-time consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was provision of information, overall and across care settings. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients provided with information was 72%, but this varied among professions (GP, 44%; DC, 76%; and PT, 74%). Provision of information increased to 78% if patients had increased emotional distress or back-related leg pain below the knee. The strongest association with provision of information was having two or three signs of elevated distress (OR 2.58 and 5.05, respectively, p= 0.00) or physical disability (OR 2.55, p= 0.00). CONCLUSION: In more than a quarter of first-time consultations, patient information was not provided. Large variation in providing information was found across the settings. The proportion provided with information increased for sub-populations having elevated distress or back-related leg pain below the knee.Key Points Clinical guidelines recommend patient information, patient education and physical activity for managing low back pain (LBP) • Information is not provided in more than a quarter of first-time consultations in Danish primary care settings that manage these patients. • Information increased for the sub-populations having elevated distress and back-related leg pain below the knee. • The conducted primary care surveys monitored clinical activity and illustrated variations in provision of information.

Mind the gap - Evaluation of the promotion initiatives for implementation of the GLA:D® back clinician courses.

BACKGROUND: Translation of research into practice is a methodological challenge. The GLA:D® Back program was initiated to implement evidence-based care for people with low back pain inspired by GLA:D® (Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark) that has succeeded in implementing evidence-based care for knee and hip osteoarthritis. This study evaluates the spread and reach of promotion initiatives for GLA:D® Back clinician courses, and the adoption of the GLA:D® Back intervention in clinical practice. METHODS: Pre-defined success criteria addressed; i) spread; achievement of intended promotion activities (e.g. social media), ii) reach; recruitment of clinicians with certain profiles (e.g. gender balance). Adoption was defined as patient enrollment in the GLA:D® Back registry by course participants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate associations between adoption and clinician characteristics. RESULTS: Most clinicians signed up based on information from colleagues (22%). Pre-defined goals for reach, except one, was obtained. 23% (140) of clinicians initiated the GLA:D® Back program in clinical practice within <90 days of course participation; mainly physiotherapists (p < 0.001). The odds ratio for starting GLA:D® Back patient care in a chiropractic setting was 7.4 [2.5; 21.4], indicating that physiotherapists employed by chiropractors mostly handled the intervention. CONCLUSION: Future promotion strategies should recognize the influence of colleagues and professional networks. Converting clinician courses into patient care was mostly adopted physiotherapists. Although, evaluation processes were less useful in this study, future evaluation of health care processes has potential to inform the implementation of new models in future studies.

GLA:D® Back: implementation of group-based patient education integrated with exercises to support self-management of back pain - protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Reassuring patient education and exercise therapy are widely recommended interventions for back pain in clinical guidelines. However, many patients are offered non-guideline endorsed options, and strategies for effective implementation of guideline-based care have not yet been developed. This protocol outlines the evaluation of a strategy for nationwide implementation of standardised patient education and exercise therapy for people with persistent or recurrent back pain in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. The strategy and the evaluation were planned using the framework of the Behaviour Change Wheel. METHODS: The main activity of the implementation strategy is a two-days course for physiotherapists and chiropractors in delivering patient education and exercise therapy that is aimed at supporting patient self-management. This comes with ready-to-use patient education materials and exercise programs. The clinical intervention is a group-based program consisting of two sessions of patient education and 8 weeks of supervised exercises. The program uses a cognitive-behavioural approach and the aim of the exercise component is to restore the patient's ability and confidence to move freely. The implementation process is evaluated in a dynamic process monitoring the penetration, adoption and fidelity of the clinical intervention. The clinical intervention and potential effect mechanisms will be evaluated at the patient-level using measures of knowledge, skills, beliefs, performance, self-efficacy and success in self-management. The education of clinicians will be evaluated via clinician-level outcomes, including the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, the Practitioner Confidence Scale, and the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire. Effects at a national level will be investigated via data from national registries of health care utilisation and sick-leave. DISCUSSION: This implementation-effectiveness study is designed to evaluate the process of implementing an evidence-based intervention for back pain. It will inform the development of strategies for implementing evidence-based care for musculoskeletal pain conditions, it will enhance the understanding of mechanisms for developing patient self-management skills, and it will demonstrate the outcomes that are achievable in everyday clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03570463 . Registered 27 June 2018.

The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool was affected by episode duration.

PURPOSE: The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) reportedly varies, but the factors affecting this are unclear. This study investigated the influences of care setting (chiropractic, GP, physiotherapy, spine centre), episode duration (0-2, 3-4, 4-12, >12 weeks), and outcome time period (3, 6, 12 months) on SBT prognostic ability. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from three primary care cohorts [chiropractic (n = 416), GP (n = 265), and physiotherapy (n = 200) practices] and one cohort from a secondary care outpatient spine centre (n = 974) in Denmark. Care pathways were not systematically affected by SBT risk subgroup (non-stratified care). Using generalised estimating equations, we investigated statistical interactions between SBT risk subgroups and potentially influential factors on the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups, when Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores were the outcome. RESULTS: SBT risk subgroup, age, care setting, and episode duration were all independent prognostic factors. The only investigated factor that modified the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups was episode duration. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the prognostic ability of the SBT in these non-stratified care settings was unaffected by care setting on its own. However, the prognosis of patients is affected by diverse clinical characteristics that differ between patient populations, many of which are not assessed by the SBT. When controlling for some of those factors and testing potential interactions, the results showed that only episode duration affected the SBT prognostic ability and, specifically, that the SBT was less predictive in very acute patients (<2 weeks duration).