A Cluster Analysis of Initial Primary Care Orders for Patients with Acute Low Back Pain.

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) often face a complex intersection of patient expectations, evidence, and policy that influences their care recommendations for acute low back pain (aLBP). The purpose of this study was to elucidate patterns of PCP orders for patients with aLBP, identify the most common patterns, and describe patient clinical and demographic characteristics associated with patterns of aLBP care. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 9574 aLBP patients presenting to 1 of 77 primary care practices in 4 geographic locations in the United States. We performed a cluster analysis of PCP orders extracted from electronic health records within the first 21 days of an initial visit for aLBP. RESULTS: 1401 (15%) patients did not receive a PCP order related to back pain within the first 21 days of their initial visit. These patients predominantly had aLBP without leg pain, less back-related disability, and were at low-risk for persistent disability. Of the remaining 8146 patients, we found 4 distinct order patterns: combined nonpharmacologic and first-line medication (44%); second-line medication (39%); imaging (10%); and specialty referral (7%). Among all patients, 29% received solely 1 order from their PCP. PCPs more often combined different guideline concordant and discordant orders. Patients with higher self-reported disability and psychological distress were more likely to receive guideline discordant care. CONCLUSION: Guideline discordant orders such as steroids and NSAIDS are often combined with guideline recommended orders such as physical therapy. Further defining patient, clinician, and health care setting characteristics associated with discordant care would inform targeted efforts for deimplementation initiatives.

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy. CONCLUSION: Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes. IMPACT: Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

ReDWINE: A clinical datamart with text analytical capabilities to facilitate rehabilitation research.

Rehabilitation research focuses on determining the components of a treatment intervention, the mechanism of how these components lead to recovery and rehabilitation, and ultimately the optimal intervention strategies to maximize patients' physical, psychologic, and social functioning. Traditional randomized clinical trials that study and establish new interventions face challenges, such as high cost and time commitment. Observational studies that use existing clinical data to observe the effect of an intervention have shown several advantages over RCTs. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have become an increasingly important resource for conducting observational studies. To support these studies, we developed a clinical research datamart, called ReDWINE (Rehabilitation Datamart With Informatics iNfrastructure for rEsearch), that transforms the rehabilitation-related EHR data collected from the UPMC health care system to the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) to facilitate rehabilitation research. The standardized EHR data stored in ReDWINE will further reduce the time and effort required by investigators to pool, harmonize, clean, and analyze data from multiple sources, leading to more robust and comprehensive research findings. ReDWINE also includes deployment of data visualization and data analytics tools to facilitate cohort definition and clinical data analysis. These include among others the Open Health Natural Language Processing (OHNLP) toolkit, a high-throughput NLP pipeline, to provide text analytical capabilities at scale in ReDWINE. Using this comprehensive representation of patient data in ReDWINE for rehabilitation research will facilitate real-world evidence for health interventions and outcomes.

The Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Vestibular Activities Avoidance Instrument.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish the psychometric properties of the 9-Item Vestibular Activities Avoidance Instrument (VAAI-9), a patient-reported outcome measure developed to identify fear avoidance beliefs in persons with vestibular disorders. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 100 participants 18 years and older seeking care at a balance disorders clinic for dizziness. Participants completed the VAAI-9, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), and other patient-reported outcomes at the initial visit and the 3-month follow-up. To measure test-retest reliability, the VAAI-9 was completed again 5 days after the initial visit and was analyzed using a 2-way mixed ICC for absolute agreement. Internal consistency was determined using the Cronbach alpha. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess convergent validity of the VAAI-9 with other outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to identify baseline VAAI-9 cutoff scores for those who reported mild (DHI ≤ 30) or moderate or severe (DHI > 30) perceived disability at the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age of the study cohort was 49 (SD = 16) years; 73 (73%) were women. Seventy-one participants completed the 5-day follow-up, and 68 completed the 3-month follow-up. The VAAI-9 demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.91) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90). Baseline VAAI-9 scores had moderate to strong associations with other outcome measures at baseline and 3 months. A baseline VAAI-9 score of 26 or higher had a sensitivity of 80.6% and a specificity of 78.4% for identifying a DHI score of >30 at 3 months (area under the curve = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence of excellent reliability and validity for the 9-item VAAI in persons with vestibular disorders. A baseline VAAI-9 score of ≥26 identified individuals at risk of persistent moderate to severe disability due to dizziness. IMPACT: Initial levels of fear avoidance beliefs measured using the VAAI-9 provided important prognostic information about outcomes for persons with vestibular symptoms.

First Provider Seen for an Acute Episode of Low Back Pain Influences Subsequent Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Costs associated with low back pain (LBP) continue to rise. Despite numerous clinical practice guidelines, the evaluation and treatments for LBP are variable and largely depend on the individual provider. As yet, little attention has been given to the first choice of provider. Early research indicates that the choice of first provider and the timing of interventions for LBP appear to influence utilization. We sought to examine the association between the first provider seen and health care utilization. METHODS: Using 2015-2018 data from a large insurer, this retrospective analysis focused on patients (29,806) seeking care for a new episode of LBP. The study identified the first provider chosen and examined the following year of medical utilization. Cox proportional hazards models were calculated using inverse probability weighting on propensity scores to evaluate the time to event and the relationship to the first choice of provider. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the timing and use of health care resources. Total health care use was lowest in those who first sought care with chiropractic care or physical therapy. Highest health care use was seen in those patients who chose the emergency department. CONCLUSION: Overall, there appears to be an association between the first choice of provider and future health care use. Chiropractic care and physical therapy provide nonpharmacologic and nonsurgical, guideline-based interventions. The use of physical therapists and chiropractors as entry points into the health system appears related to a decrease in immediate and long-term use of health resources. This study expands the existing body of literature and provides a compelling case for the influence of the first provider on an acute episode of LBP. IMPACT: The first provider seen for an acute episode of LBP influences immediate treatment decisions, the trajectory of a specific patient episode, and future health care choices in the management of LBP.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol.

Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Toward the Identification of Distinct Phenotypes: Research Protocol for the Low Back Pain Biological, Biomechanical, and Behavioral (LB3P) Cohort Study and the BACPAC Mechanistic Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh.

As a member of the Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC), the University of Pittsburgh Mechanistic Research Center's research goal is to phenotype chronic low back pain using biological, biomechanical, and behavioral domains using a prospective, observational cohort study. Data will be collected from 1,000 participants with chronic low back pain according to BACPAC-wide harmonized and study-specific protocols. Participation lasts 12 months with one required in person baseline visit, an optional second in person visit for advanced biomechanical assessment, and electronic follow ups at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12 to assess low back pain status and response to prescribed treatments. Behavioral data analysis includes a battery of patient-reported outcomes, social determinants of health, quantitative sensory testing, and physical activity. Biological data analysis includes omics generated from blood, saliva, and spine tissue. Biomechanical data analysis includes a physical examination, lumbopelvic kinematics, and intervertebral kinematics. The statistical analysis includes traditional unsupervised machine learning approaches to categorize participants into groups and determine the variables that differentiate patients. Additional analysis includes the creation of a series of decision rules based on baseline measures and treatment pathways as inputs to predict clinical outcomes. The characteristics identified will contribute to future studies to assist clinicians in designing a personalized, optimal treatment approach for each patient.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP). METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP. RESULTS: We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02647658.

Treatment effect modifiers for individuals with acute low back pain: secondary analysis of the TARGET trial.

ABSTRACT: Treatment effect modifiers identify patient characteristics associated with treatment responses. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify potential treatment effect modifiers for disability from the TARGET trial that compared usual care (control) with usual care + psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). The sample consisted of a STarT Back tool identified high-risk patients with acute low back pain that completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data at index visit and 6 months later (n = 1250). Candidate treatment effect modifiers were identified a priori and informed by the literature. Linear mixed models tested for treatment effect modification through tests of statistical interaction. All statistical interactions ( P ≤ 0.20) were stratified by modifier to inspect for specific effects ( P ≤ 0.05). Smoking was identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment * smoking interaction, P = 0.08). In participants who were smokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 5.5; 95% CI: 0.6-10.4; P = 0.03) compared with usual care. In participants who were nonsmokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 1.5; 95% CI: -1.4 to 4.4; P = 0.31) compared with usual care. Pain medication was also identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment × pain medication interaction, P = 0.10). In participants prescribed ≥3 pain medications, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 7.1; 95% CI: -0.1 to 14.2; P = 0.05) compared with usual care. The PIPT effect for participants prescribed no pain medication was (ODI = 3.5; 95% CI: -0.4 to 7.4; P = 0.08) and for participants prescribed 1 to 2 pain medications was (ODI = 0.6; 95% CI: -2.5 to 3.7; P = 0.70) when compared with usual care. These findings may be used for generating hypotheses and planning future clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of tailored application of PIPT.

Fear Avoidance Beliefs Are Associated With Perceived Disability in Persons With Vestibular Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between fear-avoidance beliefs and disability in 3 months in people with vestibular disorders while accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included people aged 18 to 100 years who reported dizziness. Participants were recruited from a balance disorders clinic and outpatient physical therapy clinics. All participants completed the Vestibular Activities Avoidance Instrument (VAAI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and the Vestibular Activities and Participation measure (VAP), dizziness Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and 12-item Short Form Health Questionnaire at baseline and 3-month follow-up. A modified version of the VAAI included 9 items abstracted from the 81-item VAAI. The relationships between 9-item VAAI scores and follow-up measures of disability were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. Linear regression models were analyzed to determine the effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on follow-up VAP score while accounting for baseline outcome measures. RESULTS: All participants (n = 404) completed the baseline assessment (mean age = 54 years), and 286 (71%) completed the 3-month assessment. The mean 9-item VAAI score was 25 (SD = 14) at baseline and was significantly associated with VAP (ρ = 0.54), 12-item Short Form Health Questionnaire component scores (ρ = -0.53; -0.44), and dizziness VAS at follow-up (ρ = 0.37). Approximately 38% of the variation in VAP score at follow-up was predicted by age, number of medications, 9-item VAAI score, dizziness VAS, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression score when considered together (R2 = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Fear-avoidance beliefs are associated with measures of disability at 3 months and are predictive of activity limitations and participation restrictions at 3 months when controlling for age, medications, baseline dizziness, and depression symptom severity in people with vestibular disorders. IMPACT: Measurement of fear-avoidance beliefs may provide important prognostic information, suggesting that an assessment of fear-avoidance beliefs could be used by clinicians to identify individuals at greater risk of disability after a vestibular disorder. LAY SUMMARY: Fear-avoidance beliefs in people who have vestibular disorders are associated with disability at 3 months and predict limitations in daily activities at 3 months.

Stratified care to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: The TARGET trial. A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with acute low back pain (LBP) first seek care from primary care physicians. Evidence is lacking for interventions to prevent transition to chronic LBP in this setting. We aimed to test if implementation of a risk-stratified approach to care would result in lower rates of chronic LBP and improved self-reported disability. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial using 77 primary care clinics in four health care systems across the United States. Practices were randomly assigned to a stratified approach to care (intervention) or usual care (control). Using the STarTBack screening tool, adults with acute LBP were screened low, medium, and high-risk. Patients screened as high-risk were eligible. The intervention included electronic best practice alerts triggering referrals for psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). PIPT education was targeted to community clinics geographically close to intervention primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were transition to chronic LBP and self-reported disability at six months. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02647658. FINDINGS: Between May 2016 and June 2018, 1207 patients from 38 intervention and 1093 from 37 control practices were followed. In the intervention arm, around 50% of patients were referred for physical therapy (36% for PIPT) compared to 30% in the control. At 6 months, 47% of patients reported transition to chronic LBP in the intervention arm (38 practices, n = 658) versus 51% of patients in the control arm (35 practices, n = 635; OR=0.83 95% CI 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.18). No differences in disability were detected (difference -2·1, 95% CI -4.9-0.6; p = 0.12). Opioids and imaging were prescribed in 22%-25% and 23%-26% of initial visits, for intervention and control, respectively. Twelve-month LBP utilization was similar in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: There were no differences detected in transition to chronic LBP among patients presenting with acute LBP using a stratified approach to care. Opioid and imaging prescribing rates were non-concordant with clinical guidelines. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract # PCS-1402-10867.

Use of healthcare resources in patients with low back pain and comorbid depression or anxiety.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Psychological comorbidities are important prognostic factors for low back pain (LBP). To develop improved treatment paradigms, it is first necessary to characterize and determine current patterns of treatment in this population. PURPOSE: Identify how comorbid depression or anxiety in patients with LBP is related to use of healthcare resources. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health records from outpatient offices at a large multisite academic medical center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Data from 513,088 unique patients seen between January 2010 and July 2020 (58.0% female, 52.6±19.5 years) with a diagnosis of LBP, indicated by predetermined ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. OUTCOME MEASURES: Average self-reported pain scores, absolute differences and unadjusted risk ratios to compare opioid use, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, advanced imaging orders, spinal injections, and back surgeries between cohorts. METHODS: Clinical characteristics and data regarding use of healthcare resources were extracted from the electronic health record. Clinical features and patterns in healthcare utilization were determined for patients with depression or anxiety compared to those without. RESULTS: Depression or anxiety was coded for 21.4% of patients at first LBP visit. Those with depression or anxiety were more likely to be on opioids (unadjusted risk ratio: 1.22, CI: [1.22,1.23]), go to the emergency department (1.31 [1.30-1.33]), be hospitalized (1.15 [1.13, 1.17]), receive advanced imaging (1.09 [1.08, 1.11]), receive an epidural steroid injection (1.16 [1.15, 1.18]), and less likely to have back surgery (0.74 [0.72, 0.77]). Differences in pain scores for those with depression/anxiety compared to those without were not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Depression/anxiety is associated with increased use of healthcare resources, and is not associated with clinically meaningful elevated pain scores. Limitations come from use of an aggregate data set and reliance on administrative coding.

Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care.

Importance: Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP. Objective: To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020. Exposures: SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral). Main Outcomes and Measures: Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records. Results: Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with SBT stratum and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.

Which Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Respond Favorably to Yoga, Physical Therapy, and a Self-care Book? Responder Analyses from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To identify baseline characteristics of adults with chronic low back pain (cLBP) that predict response (i.e., a clinically important improvement) and/or modify treatment effect across three nonpharmacologic interventions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic safety net hospital and seven federally qualified community health centers. SUBJECTS: Adults with cLBP (N = 299). METHODS: We report patient characteristics that were predictors of response and/or modified treatment effect across three 12-week treatments: yoga, physical therapy [PT], and a self-care book. Using preselected characteristics, we used logistic regression to identify predictors of "response," defined as a ≥30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Then, using "response" as our outcome, we identified baseline characteristics that were treatment effect modifiers by testing for statistical interaction (P < 0.05) across two comparisons: 1) yoga-or-PT vs self-care and 2) yoga vs PT. RESULTS: Overall, 39% (116/299) of participants were responders, with more responders in the yoga-or-PT group (42%) than the self-care (23%) group. There was no difference in proportion responding to yoga (48%) vs PT (37%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.88 - 2.6). Predictors of response included having more than a high school education, a higher income, employment, few depressive symptoms, lower perceived stress, few work-related fear avoidance beliefs, high pain self-efficacy, and being a nonsmoker. Effect modifiers included use of pain medication and fear avoidance beliefs related to physical activity (both P = 0.02 for interaction). When comparing yoga or PT with self-care, a greater proportion were responders among those using pain meds (OR = 5.3), which differed from those not taking pain meds (OR = 0.94) at baseline. We also found greater treatment response among those with lower (OR = 7.0), but not high (OR = 1.3), fear avoidance beliefs around physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed important subgroups for whom referral to yoga or PT may improve cLBP outcomes.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Vestibular Activities Avoidance Instrument.

Importance: Fear avoidance is a behavioral response to dizziness that can lead to chronic symptoms and maladaptation of the vestibular system, but there is no valid and reliable clinical measure of fear avoidance for persons with dizziness. Although the Vestibular Activities Avoidance Instrument (VAAI) was developed to identify fear avoidance beliefs in persons with dizziness, it was considered too long for clinical use. Objective: To continue development of the VAAI for clinical use by reducing its length and by assessing the internal consistency and construct validity through associations with measures of disability, quality of life, and psychological well-being. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study conducted from February 2018 to December 2019 at a tertiary care balance disorders clinic and in outpatient physical therapy clinics in the United States included 404 adults with dizziness. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants completed the 81-item VAAI, the Vestibular Activities and Participation (VAP) measure, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline. Exploratory factor analysis of the VAAI was conducted to reduce the number of items. Internal consistency of the reduced VAAI was determined by calculating the Cronbach α. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the associations between the reduced VAAI and the VAP, the SF-12, and the HADS using Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Data from 404 adults (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [17.0] years; 64.6% women) were included in the analyses. The exploratory factor analysis indicated that 2 factors explained the underlying constructs of the 81-Item VAAI. The first factor was retained and measured the construct of fear avoidance. The VAAI was reduced to 9 items (VAAI-9). The VAAI-9 showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.92) and was positively associated with the VAP (ρ = 0.81) and the HADS anxiety (ρ = 0.47) and depression (ρ = 0.64) subscales, and negatively associated with physical (ρ = -0.76) and mental (ρ = -0.47) health-related quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that the VAAI-9 is a short, internally consistent, valid measure of fear avoidance and is associated with quality of life, activity limitations and participation restrictions, and psychological well-being. The next steps in the development of the VAAI-9 will include validation in an external sample, assessment of test-retest validity, and prospective investigations of its association with future disability.

Resolving the Burden of Low Back Pain in Military Service Members and Veterans (RESOLVE): Protocol for a Multisite Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapy (PT) is frequently used for the management of low back pain (LBP) within the US Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA). However, variations in PT practice patterns and use of ineffective interventions lower the quality and increase the cost of care. Although adherence to the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can improve the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of LBP care, PT CPG adherence remains below 50%. The Resolving the Burden of Low Back Pain in Military Service Members and Veterans (RESOLVE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of an active PT CPG implementation strategy using an education, audit, and feedback model for reducing pain, disability, medication use, and cost of LBP care within the DOD and VA health care systems. DESIGN: The RESOLVE trial will include 3,300 to 7,260 patients with LBP across three DOD and two VA medical facilities using a stepped-wedge study design. An education, audit, and feedback model will be used to encourage physical therapists to better adhere to the PT CPG recommendations. The Oswestry Disability Index and the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale will be used as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include the LBP-related medication use, medical resource utilization, and biopsychosocial predictors of outcomes. Statistical analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle and will use linear mixed models to compare treatment conditions and examine the interactions between treatment and subgrouping status (e.g., limb loss). SUMMARY: The RESOLVE trial will provide a pragmatic approach to evaluate whether better adherence to PT CPGs can reduce pain, disability, medication use, and LBP care cost within the DOD and VA health care systems.

Implementing stratified care for acute low back pain in primary care using the STarT Back instrument: a process evaluation within the context of a large pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Although risk-stratifying patients with acute lower back pain is a promising approach for improving long-term outcomes, efforts to implement stratified care in the US healthcare system have had limited success. The objectives of this process evaluation were to 1) examine variation in two essential processes, risk stratification of patients with low back pain and referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy and 2) identify barriers and facilitators related to the risk stratification and referral processes. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed methods study design to evaluate implementation of stratified care at 33 primary care clinics (17 intervention, 16 control) participating in a larger pragmatic trial. We used electronic health record data to calculate: 1) clinic-level risk stratification rates (proportion of patients with back pain seen in the clinic over the study period who completed risk stratification questionnaires), 2) rates of risk stratification across different points in the clinical workflow (front desk, rooming, and time with clinician), and 3) rates of referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy among intervention clinics. We purposively sampled 13 clinics for onsite observations, which occurred in month 24 of the 26-month study. RESULTS: The overall risk stratification rate across the 33 clinics was 37.8% (range: 14.7-64.7%). Rates were highest when patients were identified as having back pain by front desk staff (overall: 91.9%, range: 80.6-100%). Rates decreased as the patient moved further into the visit (rooming, 29.3% [range: 0-83.3%]; and time with clinician, 11.3% [range: 0-49.3%]. The overall rate of referrals of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy across the 17 intervention clinics was 42.1% (range: 8.3-70.8%). Barriers included staffs' knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, patients' needs, technology issues, lack of physician engagement, and lack of time. Adaptability of the processes was a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to key stratified care processes varied across primary care clinics and across points in the workflow. The observed variation suggests room for improvement. Future research is needed to build on this work and more rigorously test strategies for implementing stratified care for patients with low back pain in the US healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02647658 ). Registered January 6, 2016.

Skeletal muscle fat in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis compared to healthy adults.

OBJECTIVE: To compare skeletal muscle fat (SMF), intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) between individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and healthy individuals of the same age, and healthy individuals at least 10 years older than those with RA. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies. In the first study, RA subjects were matched by age, sex, and BMI with healthy adults. In the second, RA subjects were matched by sex and BMI to adults 10-20 years older. SMF, IMAT and SAT were measured with Computed Tomography images of the mid-thigh region. We used parametric or non-parametric related-sample tests to compare fat accumulation between RA subjects and healthy adults. RESULTS: In the first study SMF was significantly higher in the RA cohort compared to their age-matched healthy counterparts (mean difference = -3.5 HU (95% -6.2, -0.9), p = 0.011), but IMAT and SAT were similar between cohorts. In the second study, SMF, IMAT and SAT were not significantly different between the RA and matched older healthy cohorts. In both studies, there were no significant differences in mid-thigh muscle area between RA subjects and healthy adults. CONCLUSION: SMF accumulation in RA was higher than in healthy individuals of similar age, sex, BMI. Accumulation of fat within and around the muscles in RA was not different compared to the matched healthy older individuals, indicating that muscle fat accumulation in RA might mimic a pattern not different from healthy aging.

Targeted interventions to prevent transitioning from acute to chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: development and delivery of a pragmatic training course of psychologically informed physical therapy for the TARGET trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a public health concern because it is highly prevalent and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) is a secondary prevention approach that first aims to identify individuals at high risk for transitioning to chronicity and then provides tailored treatment to reduce that risk. Training models that are feasible to implement with acceptable training quality are needed to improve scalability for widespread implementation of PIPT. This manuscript describes the PIPT training program that was developed for training physical therapists providing PIPT in the TARGET trial. METHODS: The PIPT training program was developed, tested, and modified using an iterative process. Content development consisted of stakeholder engagement, beta testing, modification of training, and confirmation of final course objectives. Methods of delivery consisted of a website that included brief online educational modules followed by a live 8-h workshop that included video-based mock case scenarios and case-based role playing. Attitudes, beliefs, and confidence in implementing PIPT principles were assessed before and immediately after training to measure training quality and impact. RESULTS: Early stakeholder engagement and beta testing indicated the need for increased emphasis on experiential learning opportunities and patient-centered communication training. Booster training varied extensively across TARGET sites with involvement of 'clinician champions' providing brief follow-up sessions identified as best practice. Favorable post-training changes in physical therapist attitudes and beliefs toward biopsychosocial treatment orientation and increased confidence in implementing PIPT principles were observed. CONCLUSIONS: PIPT training for provider participation in the TARGET trial was feasible to deliver. Course content was acceptable to physical therapists and resulted in improved beliefs and confidence in applying PIPT skills during clinical practice. Ongoing consultation and site-based continuing education were methods by which specific TARGET sites maintained or augmented PIPT skill training; however, implementing ongoing training was challenging in general. Due to the pragmatic nature of the TARGET trial, it was not possible to directly measure the effect of PIPT training on treatment fidelity, which was a limitation of our approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02647658 . Registered on 6 January 2016.