Evaluation of an experiential training program in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research for diverse researcher communities and health care organizations.

Background/Objective: The goal of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Partnership was to prepare health care professionals and researchers to conduct patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Substantial evidence gaps, heterogeneous health care systems, and decision-making challenges in the USA underscore the need for evidence-based strategies. Methods: We engaged five community-based health care organizations that serve diverse and underrepresented patient populations from Hawai'i to Minnesota. Each partner nominated two in-house scholars to participate in the 2-year program. The program focused on seven competencies pertinent to patient-centered outcomes and CER. It combined in-person and experiential learning with asynchronous, online education, and created adaptive, pragmatic learning opportunities and a Summer Institute. Metrics included the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), a tool designed to assess research self-efficacy and clinical research skills across 10 domains. Results: We trained 31 scholars in 3 cohorts. Mean scores in nine domains of the CRAI improved; greater improvement was observed from the beginning to the midpoint than from the midpoint to conclusion of the program. Across all three cohorts, mean scores on 52 items (100%) increased (p ≤ 0.01), and 91% of scholars reported the program improved their skills moderately/significantly. Satisfaction with the program was high (91%). Conclusions: Investigators that conduct patient-centered outcomes and CER must know how to collaborate with regional health care systems to identify priorities; pose questions; design, conduct, and disseminate observational and experimental research; and transform knowledge into practical clinical applications. Training programs such as ours can facilitate such collaborations.

Cost-effectiveness of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of preterm birth: a prospective study of the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research.

BACKGROUND: Premature birth is associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, and strategies to prevent preterm birth are few in number and resource intensive. In 2020, the ASPIRIN trial showed the efficacy of low-dose aspirin (LDA) in nulliparous, singleton pregnancies for the prevention of preterm birth. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this therapy in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: In this post-hoc, prospective, cost-effectiveness study, we constructed a probabilistic decision tree model to compare the benefits and costs of LDA treatment compared with standard care using primary data and published results from the ASPIRIN trial. In this analysis from a health-care sector perspective, we considered the costs and effects of LDA treatment, pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal health-care use. We did sensitivity analyses to understand the effect of the price of the LDA regimen, and the effectiveness of LDA in reducing both preterm birth and perinatal death. FINDINGS: In model simulations, LDA was associated with 141 averted preterm births, 74 averted perinatal deaths, and 31 averted hospitalisations per 10 000 pregnancies. The reduction in hospitalisation resulted in a cost of US$248 per averted preterm birth, $471 per averted perinatal death, and $15·95 per disability-adjusted life year. INTERPRETATION: LDA treatment in nulliparous, singleton pregnancies is a low-cost, effective treatment to reduce preterm birth and perinatal death. The low cost per disability-adjusted life year averted strengthens the evidence in support of prioritising the implementation of LDA in publicly funded health care in low-income and middle-income countries. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections after new episodes of low back pain in older adults.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESI) in older adults despite the high prevalence of back and leg pain in this age group. We tested the hypotheses that older adults undergoing ESI, compared to patients not receiving ESI: (1) have worse pain, disability and quality of life ('outcomes') pre-ESI, (2) have improved outcomes after ESI and (3) have improved outcomes due to a specific ESI effect. METHODS: We prospectively studied patients ≥65 years old presenting to primary care with new episodes of back pain in three US healthcare systems (BOLD registry). Outcomes were leg and back pain intensity, disability and quality of life, assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-ups. We categorized participants as: (1) ESI within 6 months from the index visit (n = 295); (2) no ESI within 6 months (n = 4809); (3) no ESI within 6 months, propensity-score matched to group 1 (n = 483). We analysed the data using linear regression and Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: Pain intensity, disability and quality of life at baseline were significantly worse at baseline in ESI patients (group 1) than in group 2. The improvement from baseline to 24 months in all outcomes was statistically significant for group 1. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between outcome trajectories for the propensity-score matched groups 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults treated with ESI have long-term improvement. However, the improvement is unlikely the result of a specific ESI effect. SIGNIFICANCE: In this large, two-year, prospective study in older adults with a new episode of low back pain, back pain, leg pain, disability and quality of life improved after epidural steroid injections; however, propensity-score matching revealed that the improvement was unlikely the result of a specific effect of the injections, indicating that epidural steroids are unlikely to provide long-term benefits in older adults with new episodes of back and leg pain.

Expected Organizational Costs for Inserting Prevalence Information Into Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports.

BACKGROUND: Modifying physician behavior to more closely align with guideline-based care can be challenging. Few effective strategies resulting in appropriate spine-related health care have been reported. The Lumbar Imaging With Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) intervention did not result in reductions in spine care but did in opioid prescriptions written. OBJECTIVES: To estimate organizational resource needs and costs associated with implementing a pragmatic, decision support-type intervention that inserted age- and modality-matched prevalence information for common lumbar spine imaging findings, using site-based resource use data from the LIRE trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Time and cost estimation associated with implementing the LIRE intervention in a health organization. SUBJECTS: Providers and patients assessed in the LIRE trial. MEASURES: Expected personnel costs required to implement the LIRE intervention. RESULTS: Annual salaries were converted to daily average per person costs, ranging from $400 to $2,200 per day (base case) for personnel (range: $300-$2,600). Estimated total average cost for implementing LIRE was $5,009 (range: $2,651-$12,020), including conducting pilot testing with providers. Costs associated with a small amount of time for a radiologist (6-12 hours) and imaging-ordering providers (1-8 hours each) account for approximately 75% of the estimated total cost. CONCLUSIONS: The process of implementing an intervention for lumbar spine imaging reports containing age- and modality-appropriate epidemiological benchmarks for common imaging findings required radiologists, imaging-ordering providers, information technology specialists, and limited testing and monitoring. The LIRE intervention seems to be a relatively low-cost, evidence-based, complementary tool that can be easily integrated into the reporting of spine imaging.

Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

Prevalence and Financial Impact of Claustrophobia, Anxiety, Patient Motion, and Other Patient Events in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Claustrophobia, other anxiety reactions, excessive motion, and other unanticipated patient events in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) not only delay or preclude diagnostic-quality imaging but can also negatively affect the patient experience. In addition, by impeding MRI workflow, they may affect the finances of an imaging practice. This review article offers an overview of the various types of patient-related unanticipated events that occur in MRI, along with estimates of their frequency of occurrence as documented in the available literature. In addition, the financial implications of these events are discussed from a microeconomic perspective, primarily from the point of view of a radiology practice or hospital, although associated limitations and other economic viewpoints are also included. Efforts to minimize these unanticipated patient events can potentially improve not only patient satisfaction and comfort but also an imaging practice's operational efficiency and diagnostic capabilities.

A targeted systematic review of cost analyses for implementation of simulation-based education in healthcare.

Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the use of simulation-based education for training healthcare providers in technical and non-technical skills. Simulation education and research programs have mostly focused on the impact on clinical knowledge and improvement of technical skills rather than on cost. To study and characterize existing evidence to inform multi-stakeholder investment decisions, we performed a systematic review of the literature on costs in simulation-based education in medicine in general and in neonatal resuscitation as a particular focus. We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed database using two targeted queries. The first searched for cost analyses of healthcare simulation-based education more broadly, and the second was more narrowly focused on cost analyses of neonatal resuscitation training. The more general query identified 47 qualified articles. The most common specialties for education interventions were surgery (51%); obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics (11%); medicine, nursing, or medical school (11%); and urology (9%), accounting for over 80% of articles. The neonatal resuscitation query identified five qualified articles. The two queries identified seven large-scale training implementation studies, one in the United States and six in low-income countries. There were two articles each from Tanzania and India and one article each from Zambia and Ghana. Methods, definitions, and reported estimates varied across articles, implying interpretation, comparison, and generalization of program effects are challenging. More work is needed to understand the costs, processes, and outcomes likely to make simulation-based education programs cost-effective and scalable. To optimize return on investments in training, assessing resource requirements, associated costs, and subsequent outcomes can inform stakeholders about the potential sustainability of SBE programs. Healthcare stakeholders and decision makers will benefit from more transparent, consistent, rigorous, and explicit assessments of simulation-based education program development and implementation costs in low- and high-income countries.

Clinical and Payer-Based Analysis of Value of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Workup of Incidental Abdominal Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a clinical and payer-based analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for workup of incidental abdominal findings. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospectively designed, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study approved by our institutional review board. Sixty-nine examinations in 69 patients (45 men, 24 women; mean age, 57.7 years) who underwent single-phase postcontrast abdominal DECT studies between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, were included. Two radiologists, blinded to study objective and design, reviewed all cases and identified incidental abdominal findings needing further imaging. All incidental findings were reviewed by 2 other investigators, who determined whether an imaging-based diagnosis could be made using DECT virtual noncontrast images and iodine maps. Additional studies and associated payer-reimbursement amounts avoided by use of DECT were estimated. All imaging costs were estimated based on the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: Thirty-four incidental findings (renal mass, n = 20; adrenal nodule, n = 8; pancreatic cystic lesions, n = 3; others, n = 3) were identified in 19 (27.5%) of 69 patients. Dual-energy computed tomography characterized 27 incidental findings in 15 patients and accounted for cost savings of 15 additional imaging examinations (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, n = 11; abdominal computed tomography, n = 4). Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts, we estimated that, by abolishing the need for additional imaging use, DECT saved US $84.95 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography can provide an imaging-based diagnosis of incidental abdominal findings, otherwise incompletely characterized on routine abdominal computed tomography, in approximately 21% of patients. In select patients, the monetary savings from abolishing additional imaging may reduce payer costs associated with use of DECT.

Imaging Intussusception in Children's Hospitals in the United States: Trends, Outcomes, and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To describe imaging utilization, outcomes, and cost in the management of intussusception between 2010 and 2017 in pediatric hospitals in the United States. METHODS: All children (under 18 years of age) with a primary diagnosis of intussusception in a large administrative database were identified. Demographics, imaging, and costs were described. RESULTS: There were 17,032 children (63.3% boys, 36.7% girls, mean age: 3.2 years) that had 20,655 hospital encounters for intussusception, and 88.5% were <5 years of age. The average length of stay was 2.8 days (median: 1 day), with rates of intensive care unit admission, 3.7%; 90-day readmission, 10.5%; and mortality, 0.2%. The surgical rate was 19.6%, and 93.5% (n = 19,301) of patients underwent imaging: 87.2% (n = 16,822) received ultrasound, 69.1% (n = 13,329) had fluoroscopy, 59% (n = 11,380) had abdominal radiographs, and 8.8% (n = 1,696) had CT. The reduction success rate for fluoroscopy was 77.9%. Surgery was more common in rural patients (26.8% versus 18.7% in urban patients, P < .001). Median encounter costs were $2,675 (interquartile range: $1,637-$5,465). Imaging cost represented a quarter (median $680, interquartile range: $372-1,069) of all costs. Higher costs (median) were associated with longer length of stay (<3 days: $858 versus >3 days: $5,342; use of CT ($4,168 versus $943 in patients without a CT), and surgery ($4,434 versus $860 without surgery). CONCLUSION: The management of intussusception is mainly nonsurgical, most frequently involving imaging with ultrasound and fluoroscopy, and resulting in excellent outcomes in the great majority of the cases. Despite playing a central role for diagnosis and management, imaging only represents a fraction of total cost.

Use of ultrasound and mHealth to improve perinatal outcomes in low and middle income countries.

The explosion of mobile health and portable obstetric ultrasound interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) reflects the optimism that technology can help reduce persistently high rates of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity in these settings. While these technology-driven interventions have had success in improving aspects of antenatal and perinatal care, they have not clearly demonstrated reductions in mortality. The expanding synergy between mobile health (mHealth) and ultrasound technology shows promise to enhance care, but it will likely take combining these technological advances with system-wide approaches that also address referral patterns and infrastructure barriers to improve outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of a large, prospective observational cohort of older adults with back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although back pain is common among older adults, there is relatively little research on the course of back pain in this age group. PURPOSE: Our primary goals were to report 2-year outcomes of older adults initiating primary care for back pain and to examine the relative importance of patient factors versus medical interventions in predicting 2-year disability and pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study used a predictive model using data from a prospective, observational cohort from a primary care setting. PATIENT SAMPLE: The study included patients aged ≥65 years at the time of new primary care visits for back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported 2-year disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and back pain (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]). METHODS: We developed our models using a machine learning least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach. We evaluated the predictive value of baseline characteristics and the incremental value of interventions that occurred between 0 and 90 days, and the change in patient disability and pain from 0 to 90 days. Limitations included confounding by indication and unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Of 4,665 patients (89%) with follow-up, both RDQ (from mean 9.6 [95% confidence interval {CI} 9.4-9.7] to mean 8.3 [95% CI 8.0-8.5]) and back pain NRS (from mean 5.0 [95% CI 4.9-5.1] to mean 3.5 [95% CI 3.4-3.6]) scores improved slightly. Only 16% (15%-18%) reported no back pain-related disability or back pain at 2 years after initial visits. Regression model parameters explained 40% of the variation (R2) in 2-year RDQ scores, and the addition of 0- to 3-month change in RDQ score and pain improved prediction (R2=51%). The most consistent predictors of 2-year RDQ scores and back pain NRS scores were 0- to 90-day change in each respective outcome and patient confidence in improvement. Patients experienced 50% and 43% improvement in back pain and disability, respectively, 2 years after their initial visit. However, fewer than 20% of patients had complete resolution of their back pain and disability at that time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patient factors were more important than early interventions in explaining disability and pain after 2 years.

Impact of co-morbidities on resource use and adherence to guidelines among commercially insured adults with new visits for back pain.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess if co-morbidity is associated with higher use of back-related care and adherence to back pain guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from 2007-2011. We included individuals ≥18 years with an index visit for back pain. Co-morbidities were measured 12 months prior to index. Co-morbidity burden was measured using Quan's Co-morbidity Index. Co-morbidities categories were measured using chronic condition indicators from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Total lumbar spine-related resource use for three years was ascertained using procedure codes. A clustering algorithm identified higher long-term utilizer. We identified initial use from day 0-42 for several categories of spine-related care. We used logistic regression to test the association between co-morbidities and resource use. RESULTS: Greater co-morbidity burden was associated with higher long-term spine-related resource use. Those with ≥2 on Quan's Co-morbidity Index had 29% higher odds of being a high back-specific resource user compared to those with no co-morbidities [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.29, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.23-1.35]. Greater co-morbidity burden was associated with more frequent initial use of imaging, emergency visits, injections, and opioid fills; and less frequent initial use of medical and physical therapy visits. Co-morbid musculoskeletal conditions had the strongest association with being a high utilizer of long-term back-specific resources (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.50-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Co-morbidity burden and the presence of specific chronic conditions, such as musculoskeletal conditions, were associated with high long-term use of back-related care and care inconsistent with guidelines.

Toward a Framework for Benefit-Risk Assessment in Diagnostic Imaging: Identifying Scenario-specific Criteria.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic imaging has many effects and there is no common definition of value in diagnostic radiology. As benefit-risk trade-offs are rarely made explicit, it is not clear which framework is used in clinical guideline development. We describe initial steps toward the creation of a benefit-risk framework for diagnostic radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search and an online survey of physicians to identify and collect benefit-risk criteria (BRC) relevant to diagnostic imaging tests. We operationalized a process for selection of BRC with the use of four clinical use case scenarios that vary by diagnostic alternatives and clinical indication. Respondent BRC selections were compared across clinical scenarios and between radiologists and nonradiologists. RESULTS: Thirty-six BRC were identified and organized into three domains: (1) those that account for differences attributable only to the test or device (n = 17); (2) those that account for clinical management and provider experiences (n = 12); and (3) those that capture patient experience (n = 7). Forty-eight survey participants selected 22 criteria from the initial list in the survey (9-11 per case). Engaging ordering physicians increased the number of criteria selected in each of the four clinical scenarios presented. We developed a process for standardizing selection of BRC in guideline development. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a process relying on elements of comparative effectiveness and the use of standardized BRC may ensure consistent examination of differences among alternatives by way of making explicit implicit trade-offs that otherwise enter the decision-making space and detract from consistency and transparency. These findings also highlight the need for multidisciplinary teams that include input from ordering physicians.

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Prioritizing Imaging Tests in Diagnosis of Suspected Appendicitis.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In clinical guideline or criteria development processes, such as those used in developing American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACR AC), experts subjectively evaluate benefits and risks associated with imaging tests and make complex decisions about imaging recommendations. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decomposes complex decisions into structured smaller decisions, incorporates quantitative evidence and qualitative expert opinion, and promotes structured consensus building. AHP may supplement and/or improve the transparency of expert opinion contributions to developing guidelines or criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To conduct an empirical test using health services research tools, we convened a mock ACR AC panel of emergency department radiology and nonradiology physicians to evaluate by multicriteria decision analysis, the relative appropriateness of imaging tests for diagnosing suspected appendicitis. Panel members selected benefit-risk criteria via an online survey and assessed contrast-enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound using an AHP-based software. Participants were asked whether the process was manageable, transparent, and improved shared understanding. Priority scores were converted to rankings and compared to the rank order of ACR AC ratings. RESULTS: When compared to magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging, participants agreed with the ACR AC that contrast-enhanced computed tomography is the most appropriate test. Contrary to the ACR AC ratings, study results suggest that magnetic resonance is preferable to ultrasound. When compared to nonradiologists, radiologists' priority scores reflect a stronger preference for computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS: Study participants addressed decision-making challenges using a relatively efficient data collection mechanism, suggesting that AHP may benefit the ACR AC guideline development process in identifying the relative appropriateness of imaging tests. With additional development, AHP may improve transparency when expert opinion is used in clinical guideline or appropriateness criteria development.

Associations Between Relative Value Units and Patient-Reported Back Pain and Disability.

Objective: To describe associations between health care utilization measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Method: Primary data were collected from patients ≥65 years with low back pain visits from 2011 to 2013. Six PROs of pain and functionality were collected 12 and 24 months after the index visits and total and spine-specific relative value units (RVUs) from electronic health records were tabulated over 1 year. We calculated correlation coefficients between RVUs and 12- and 24-month PROs and conducted linear regressions with each 12- and 24-month PRO as the outcome variables and RVUs as predictors of interest. Results: We observed very weak correlations between worse PROs at 12 and 24 months and greater 12-month utilization. In regression analyses, we observed slight associations between greater utilization and worse 12- and 24-month PROs. Discussion: We found that 12-month health care utilization is not strongly associated with PROs at 12 or 24 months.

Subsequent health-care utilization associated with early physical therapy for new episodes of low back pain in older adults.

BACKGROUND: The association between early physical therapy (PT) and subsequent health-care utilization following a new visit for low back pain is not clear, particularly in the setting of acute low back pain. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the association between initiating early PT following a new visit for an episode of low back pain and subsequent back pain-specific health-care utilization in older adults. DESIGN/SETTING: This is a prospective cohort study. Data were collected at three integrated health-care systems in the United States through the Back Pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: We recruited 4,723 adults, aged 65 and older, presenting to a primary care setting with a new episode of low back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was total back pain-specific relative value units (RVUs), from days 29 to 365. Secondary outcomes included overall RVUs for all health care and use of specific health-care services including imaging (x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT]), emergency department visits, physician visits, PT, spinal injections, spinal surgeries, and opioid use. METHODS: We compared patients who had early PT (initiated within 28 days of the index visit) with those not initiating early PT using appropriate, generalized linear models to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Adjusted analysis found no statistically significant difference in total spine RVUs between the two groups (ratio of means 1.19, 95% CI of 0.72-1.96, p=.49). For secondary outcomes, only the difference between total spine imaging RVUs and total PT RVUs was statistically significant. The early PT group had greater PT RVUs; the ratio of means was 2.56 (95% CI of 2.17-3.03, p<.001). The early PT group had greater imaging RVUs; the ratio of means was 1.37 (95% CI of 1.09-1.71, p=.01.) CONCLUSIONS: We found that in a group of older adults presenting for a new episode of low back pain, the use of early PT is not associated with any statistically significant difference in subsequent back pain-specific health-care utilization compared with patients not receiving early PT.

Lumbar Imaging With Reporting Of Epidemiology (LIRE)--Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging is often the first step in evaluating patients with back pain and likely functions as a "gateway" to a subsequent cascade of interventions. However, lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals incidental findings among normal, pain-free individuals suggesting that treatment of these "abnormalities" may not be warranted. Our prior work suggested that inserting the prevalence of imaging findings in patients without back pain into spine imaging reports may reduce subsequent interventions. We are now conducting a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that inserting this prevalence data into lumbar spine imaging reports for studies ordered by primary care providers will reduce subsequent spine-related interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: We are using a stepped wedge design that sequentially randomizes 100 primary care clinics at four health systems to receive either standard lumbar spine imaging reports, or reports containing prevalence data for common imaging findings in patients without back pain. We capture all outcomes passively through the electronic medical record. Our primary outcome is spine-related intervention intensity based on Relative Value Units (RVUs) during the following year. Secondary outcomes include subsequent prescriptions for opioid analgesics and cross-sectional lumbar spine re-imaging. DISCUSSION: If our study shows that adding prevalence data to spine imaging reports decreases subsequent back-related RVUs, this intervention could be easily generalized and applied to other kinds of testing, as well as other conditions where incidental findings may be common. Our study also serves as a model for cluster randomized trials that are minimal risk and highly pragmatic.