The effect of clinical guidelines on the utilisation of radiographs in chiropractic clinics in Denmark - an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Denmark, chiropractors have a statutory right to use radiography and the government-funded national Health Insurance provides partial reimbursement. Danish National Clinical Guidelines recommends against routine use of imaging for uncomplicated spinal pain; however, it is not clear if clinical imaging guidelines recommendations have had an effect on the utilisation of spinal radiography. This study aimed to describe the utilisation rate of radiographs in Danish chiropractic clinics in the period from 2010 to 2020 and to assess the impact of clinical guidelines and policy changes on the utilisation of radiographs in Danish chiropractic clinics. METHODS: Anonymised data from January 1st, 2010, to December 31st, 2020, were extracted from the Danish Regions register on health contacts in primary care. Data consisted of the total number of patients consulting one of 254 chiropractic clinics and the total number of patients having or being referred for radiography. Data were used to investigate the radiography utilisation per month from 2010 to 2020. An 'interrupted time series' analysis was conducted to determine if two interventions, the dissemination of 1) Danish clinical imaging guidelines recommendations and policy changes related to referral for advanced imaging for chiropractors in 2013 and 2) four Danish clinical guidelines recommendations in 2016, were associated with an immediate change in the level and/or slope of radiography utilisation. RESULTS: In total, 336,128 unique patients consulted a chiropractor in 2010 of which 55,449 (15.4%) had radiography. In 2020, the number of patients consulting a chiropractor had increased to 366,732 of which 29,244 (8.0%) had radiography. The pre-intervention utilisation decreased by two radiographs per 10,000 patients per month. Little absolute change, but still statistically significant for Intervention 1, in the utilisation was found after the dissemination of the clinical guidelines and policy changes in 2013 or 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of Danish chiropractic patients undergoing radiography was halved in the period from 2010 to 2020. However, the dissemination of clinical imaging guidelines recommendations and policy changes related to referrals for advanced imaging showed little meaningful change in the monthly utilisation of radiographs in the same period.

Clinical Observation, Management and Function Of low back pain Relief Therapies (COMFORT): A cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient-participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient-participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001505796.

Drivers, barriers, and response to care of Australian pregnant women seeking chiropractic care for low back and pelvic girdle pain: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic girdle pain is common, with a prevalence rate of up to 86% in pregnant women. Although 19.5% of Australian pregnant women visit a chiropractor for pelvic girdle pain, little is known about the experience of pregnant women who seek this care. The aim of this study was to describe and explore the experiences of Australian pregnant women who seek chiropractic care for their current pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic girdle pain. METHODS: A qualitative case study approach with purposive sampling from 27 chiropractic practices was used. A grounded theory approach was informed by a constructivist and interpretivist stance, which provided understanding and meaning to the pregnant women's experiences. Online unstructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymised. A thematic analysis was subsequently conducted on the primary data. Codes and major themes were developed with the use of critical self- reflection (memos), survey finding triangulation and respondent validation. RESULTS: Sixteen potential respondents expressed interest in participating. After eligibility screening and data saturation, nine interviews were undertaken. Four key themes were identified: "Care drivers: what drives care seeking?", "Care barriers: what barriers are encountered?", "Chiropractic treatment: what does treatment consist of?" and "Response to care: what response was there to care?". CONCLUSION: Four key themes: care drivers, care barriers, chiropractic treatment, and response to care support an emergent substantive-level theory in women's care seeking experiences for pregnancy-related back pain and chiropractic care. This theory is that chiropractic care for pregnant women experiencing low back pain and pelvic girdle pain may improve pain and function, while reducing pregnancy-related biopsychosocial concerns. The findings may inform antenatal health providers and the chiropractic profession about pregnant women's experience seeking chiropractic care as well as directing future research.

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: a cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010-2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014-2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. RESULTS: Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62-63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62-68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77-0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56-0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71-0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54-0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35-0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58-0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16-0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06-0.44). CONCLUSION: In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Physiotherapists should apply health coaching techniques and incorporate accountability to foster adherence to a walking program for low back pain: a qualitative study.

QUESTIONS: What motivates individuals to start a walking program for the prevention of low back pain? What strategies optimise short-term and long-term adherence to a walking program? What strategies can physiotherapists incorporate into clinical practice to facilitate commencement of and adherence to a walking program? DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two adults recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain who participated in a 6-month, progressive and individualised walking program that was prescribed by a physiotherapist trained in health coaching. METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups conducted online following completion of the walking program. Interview questions explored: primary motivations for starting a walking program, identification of which elements were useful in optimising adherence to the program, and identification of the barriers to and facilitators of engagement with the program. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. Theme one identified that strong motivators to start a walking program were anticipated improvements in low back pain management and the added general health benefits of a more active lifestyle. Theme two identified that fear of high-impact exercises led to avoidance; however, walking was considered a safe exercise option. Theme three identified accountability, enjoyment of exercise and health benefits were critical to adherence. CONCLUSION: Participants recently recovered from low back pain reflected positively on a physiotherapist-prescribed walking program. Participants described what elements of the program were crucial to starting exercise and optimising adherence. These findings have informed a list of practical recommendations for physiotherapists to improve patient commencement and adherence to exercise.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive, individualised walking and education program for prevention of low back pain recurrence in adults: statistical analysis plan for the WalkBack randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise for the prevention of low back pain recurrences is recommended, but under-researched. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking program for preventing low back pain recurrence remains unknown. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the WalkBack trial. METHODS: WalkBack is a prospectively registered, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month progressive and individualised walking and education program (intervention) for the prevention of low back pain recurrences, compared to a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome is days to the first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting low back pain. Key secondary outcomes include days to any recurrence of low back pain, days to a care-seeking recurrence of low back pain, disability level, health-related quality of life, costs associated with low back pain and adverse events. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 12 months. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Cox regression is planned to assess the effects for the outcomes of time to activity-limiting, minimal and care-seeking recurrence. Hazard ratios and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. The effect of the intervention on continuous outcomes will be estimated with repeated-measure linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal perspective for recurrence prevented (yes/no) and quality-adjusted life years. The proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using Fisher's exact test. DISCUSSION: The WalkBack trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking intervention to prevent low back pain recurrences. This statistical analysis plan provides transparency on the analysis of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: WalkBack - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive individualised walking and education program for the prevention of a recurrence of low back pain. ACTRN12619001134112 . Date Registered: 14/08/2019.

The osteoarthritis knowledge scale.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate knowledge is central to effective self-care of osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to assess the measurement properties of the Osteoarthritis Knowledge Scale (OAKS) with versions for the hip and knee. METHODS: Participants with hip OA (n = 144), knee OA (n = 327), and no OA (n = 735) were recruited. Rasch analysis was conducted to assess psychometric properties using data from all participants with hip OA and 144 randomly selected participants with either knee OA or no OA. Test-retest reliability and measurement error were estimated among those with hip (n = 51) and knee (n = 142) OA. RESULTS: Four items from the draft scales were deleted following Rasch analysis. The final 11-item OAKS was unidimensional. Item functioning was not affected by gender, age, educational level, or scale version (hip or knee). Person separation index was 0.75. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74, 0.86; hip version 0.66 [0.47, 0.79]; knee version 0.85 (0.79, 0.90)). Smallest detectable change was 9 points (scale range 11-55; hip OA version 11 points; knee OA version 8 points). CONCLUSION: The OAKS is a psychometrically adequate, unidimensional measure of important OA knowledge that can be used in populations with and without hip and knee OA. Caution is needed when using with populations with only hip OA as test-retest reliability of the hip version did not surpass the acceptable range.

Effectiveness of a New Service Delivery Model for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and health costs of a new primary care service delivery model (the Optimising Primary Care Management of Knee Osteoarthritis [PARTNER] model) to improve health outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to usual care. METHODS: This study was a 2-arm, cluster, superiority, randomized controlled trial with randomization at the general practice level, undertaken in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. We aimed to recruit 44 practices and 572 patients age ≥45 years with knee pain for >3 months. Professional development opportunities on best practice OA care were provided to intervention group general practitioners (GPs). All recruited patients had an initial GP visit to confirm knee OA diagnosis. Control patients continued usual GP care, and intervention patients were referred to a centralized care support team (CST) for 12-months. Via telehealth, the CST provided OA education and an agreed OA action plan focused on muscle strengthening, physical activity, and weight management. Primary outcomes were patient self-reported change in knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale [range 0-10; higher score = worse]) and physical function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score activities of daily living subscale [range 0-100; higher score = better] at 12 months. Health care cost outcomes included costs of medical visits and prescription medications over the 12-month period. RESULTS: Recruitment targets were not reached. A total of 38 practices and 217 patients were recruited. The intervention improved pain by 0.8 of 10 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.2, 1.4) and function by 6.5 of 100 points (95% CI 2.3, 10.7), more than usual care at 12 months. Total costs of medical visits and prescriptions were $3,940 (Australian) for the intervention group versus $4,161 for usual care. This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The PARTNER model improved knee pain and function more than usual GP care. The magnitude of improvement is unlikely to be clinically meaningful for pain but is uncertain for function.

Feasibility of testing the effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General medical practitioner (GP) recruitment and subsequent data collection in clinical practice are challenging and may limit successful completion of a large-scale trial. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial to test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain in general medical practice. METHODS: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was performed, with recruitment of GPs and randomisation of GP clinics. All GPs attended a training session and were asked to record low back pain codes in electronic medical records for any low back pain presentations. Intervention group GPs were trained in the use of a patient education booklet to be used during low back pain patient visits. Control group GPs provided usual care. Outcomes for the proposed trial were collected to determine feasibility. GP recruitment was assessed as the proportion of GPs approached who consented to participate. Low back pain imaging outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (counts of patients presenting with low back pain) and from Australian healthcare administrative (Medicare) data (counts of imaging use). GP compliance with study procedures was assessed and qualitative data reported. RESULTS: Thirty-four GP clinics were approached, with four participating (12%). At these clinics, 13/19 (68%) GPs consented to participate, and 10/19 (53%) started the study. Outcome data were collected from medical records for all GPs. Three GPs (30%) withdrew consent to access Medicare data, limiting reporting of imaging outcome measures. Three GPs (30%) self-reported low compliance entering low back pain codes. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the feasibility of many aspects of a full-scale effectiveness study, while also identifying a number of challenges that need to be resolved. Recommendations related to GP recruitment, study compliance, data collection, and outcome measures were made to increase the success of a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR), Trial ID: ACTRN12619000991112; Registered 11 July 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376973.

Low-value care in musculoskeletal health care: Is there a way forward?

BACKGROUND: Low-value care that wastes resources and harms patients is prevalent in health systems everywhere. METHODS: As part of an invited keynote presentation at the Pain in Motion IV conference held in Maastricht, Holland, in May 2022, we reviewed evidence for low-value care in musculoskeletal conditions and discussed possible solutions. RESULTS: Drivers of low-value care are diverse and affect patients, clinicians, and health systems everywhere. We show that low-value care for back pian, neck pain, and osteoarthritis is prevalent in all professional groups involved in caring for people who seek care for these conditions. Implementation efforts that aim to reverse low-value care seem to work better if designed using established conceptual and theoretical frameworks. CONCLUSION: Low-value care is prevalent in the care of people with musculoskeletal conditions. Reducing low-value care requires behaviour change among patients and clinicians as well as in health systems. There is evidence that behaviour change can be facilitated through good conceptual and theoretical frameworks but not convincing evidence that it changes patient outcomes.

Implementing a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for low back pain: a qualitative study of patient and primary care team perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for primary care visits and is the leading contributor to years lived with disability worldwide. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of patients and primary care team members related to their experiences with a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP. METHODS: We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study. Data were collected using a combination of semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included adults (> 18 years of age) with LBP and primary care team members who participated in a physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with patients with LBP (10 women; median age of 52) as well as three focus group discussions with a total of 20 primary care team members representing three teams. Four themes (each with sub-themes) were constructed: 1) enhanced primary care delivery for LBP (improved access and engagement in physiotherapy care, improved communication and care integration between the physiotherapist and primary care team, less inappropriate use of healthcare resources); 2) positive patient experiences and perceived outcomes with the new model of care (physiotherapist built therapeutic alliance, physiotherapist provided comprehensive care, improved confidence in managing LBP, decreased impact of pain on daily life); 3) positive primary care team experiences with the new model of care (physiotherapist fit well within the primary care team, physiotherapist provided expertise on LBP for the primary care team, satisfaction in being able to offer a needed service for patients); and 4) challenges implementing the new model of care (challenges with prompt access to physiotherapy care, challenges making the physiotherapist the first contact for LBP, and opportunities to optimize communication between the physiotherapist and primary care team). CONCLUSIONS: A new physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP was described by patients and primary care team members as contributing to positive experiences and perceived outcomes for patients, primary care team members, and potentially the health system more broadly. Results suggest that this model of care may be a viable approach to support integrated and guideline adherent management of LBP in primary care settings.