Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Extracting Medical Information from Paper COVID-19 Assessment Forms.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the validity of optical mark recognition, a novel user interface, and crowdsourced data validation to rapidly digitize and extract data from paper COVID-19 assessment forms at a large medical center. METHODS: An optical mark recognition/optical character recognition (OMR/OCR) system was developed to identify fields that were selected on 2,814 paper assessment forms, each with 141 fields which were used to assess potential COVID-19 infections. A novel user interface (UI) displayed mirrored forms showing the scanned assessment forms with OMR results superimposed on the left and an editable web form on the right to improve ease of data validation. Crowdsourced participants validated the results of the OMR system. Overall error rate and time taken to validate were calculated. A subset of forms was validated by multiple participants to calculate agreement between participants. RESULTS: The OMR/OCR tools correctly extracted data from scanned forms fields with an average accuracy of 70% and median accuracy of 78% when the OMR/OCR results were compared with the results from crowd validation. Scanned forms were crowd-validated at a mean rate of 157 seconds per document and a volume of approximately 108 documents per day. A randomly selected subset of documents was reviewed by multiple participants, producing an interobserver agreement of 97% for documents when narrative-text fields were included and 98% when only Boolean and multiple-choice fields were considered. CONCLUSION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be challenging for health care workers wearing personal protective equipment to interact with electronic health records. The combination of OMR/OCR technology, a novel UI, and crowdsourcing data-validation processes allowed for the efficient extraction of a large volume of paper medical documents produced during the COVID-19 pandemic.