Physicians' initial management of acute low back pain versus evidence-based guidelines. Influence of sciatica.
ABSTRACT Little information is available on physician characteristics and patient presentations that may influence compliance with evidence-based guidelines for acute low back pain.
To assess whether physicians' management decisions are consistent with the Agency for Health Research Quality's guideline and whether responses varied with the presentation of sciatica or by physician characteristics.
Cross-sectional study using a mailed survey.
Participants were randomly selected from internal medicine, family practice, general practice, emergency medicine, and occupational medicine specialties.
A questionnaire asked for recommendations for 2 case scenarios, representing patients without and with sciatica, respectively.
Seven hundred and twenty surveys were completed (response rate=25%). In cases 1 (without sciatica) and 2 (with sciatica), 26.9% and 4.3% of physicians fully complied with the guideline, respectively. For each year in practice, the odds of guideline noncompliance increased 1.03 times (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01 to 1.05) for case 1. With occupational medicine as the referent specialty, general practice had the greatest odds of noncompliance (3.60, 95% CI=1.75 to 7.40) in case 1, followed by internal medicine and emergency medicine. Results for case 2 reflected the influence of sciatica with internal medicine having substantially higher odds (vs case 1) and the greatest odds of noncompliance of any specialty (6.93, 95% CI=1.47 to 32.78), followed by family practice and emergency medicine.
A majority of primary care physicians continue to be noncompliant with evidence-based back pain guidelines. Sciatica dramatically influenced clinical decision-making, increasing the extent of noncompliance, particularly for internal medicine and family practice. Physicians' misunderstanding of sciatica's natural history and belief that more intensive initial management is indicated may be factors underlying the observed influence of sciatica.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Yueng-Hsiang Huang, Jul 01, 2015
- SourceAvailable from: Kristina Alexanderson[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A hypothetical case study about return to work was used to explore the process of translating research into practice. The method involved constructing a case study derived from the characteristics of a typical, sick-listed employee with non-specific low back pain in Norway. Next, the five-step evidence-based process, including the Patient, Intervention, Co-Interventions and Outcome framework (PICO), was applied to the case study. An inductive analysis produced 10 technical and more fundamental challenges to incorporate research into intervention decisions for an individual with comorbidity. A more dynamic, interactive approach to the evidence-based practice process is proposed. It is recommended that this plus the 10 challenges are validated with real life cases, as the hypothetical case study may not be replicable.Occupational Therapy International 03/2012; 19(1):28-44. DOI:10.1002/oti.326 · 0.67 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chronic low back pain is a major socioeconomic health issue, due to the high direct (healthcare) and indirect (sick leave) costs. The aim of the present study was to describe the primary care management of low back pain patients prior to their inclusion in a multidisciplinary functional restoration network. A descriptive, retrospective, questionnaire-based survey of the general practitioners dealing with 72 low back pain patients. Patients had been monitored by their general practitioner for an average of four years, with a mean frequency of eight appointments per year per patient. Ninety-three percent and 60% of the patients had been referred to a rheumatologist and a surgeon, respectively. Ninety-eight percent had had lumbar radiographies, 80% had undergone a computed tomography scan and 64% had undergone magnetic resonance imaging. The most commonly prescribed medications were anti-inflammatories and first- or second-line analgesics. Thirty percent had already received morphine analgesics and 50% had taken antidepressants. Thirty-two percent had undergone lumbar surgery. Physiotherapy was frequently reported and, indeed, 6% of patients had participated in over 100 sessions. Total sick leave averaged 8.25 months over the study's follow-up period. The time interval before referral to a multidisciplinary care team is long and so GPs should be encouraged and helped to organize this process earlier. It is also essential to determine factors which predict progression to chronic LBP.Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique: revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique 11/2008; 51(8):650-6, 656-62. DOI:10.1016/j.annrmp.2008.08.006
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to explore concurrence with evidence-based management of acute back pain by primary care specialty and years in practice groups. Participants randomly selected from five American Medical Association physician groups were surveyed asking their initial care recommendations for case scenarios with and without sciatica. Response differences were compared among groups and with the Agency for Health Research Quality's guideline. Response rate was 25%. Emergency physicians were least likely to order diagnostic studies for both cases but more often made recommendations likely to promote inactivity. Occupational physicians were less likely to order diagnostic studies and more likely choose treatments conducive to increasing activity. The longer physicians were in practice, the less likely they were to follow recommendations. All specialty groups selected more nonevidence-based interventions for the patient with sciatica. General practitioners were least likely to follow the guidelines in either case. Despite widespread dissemination of acute low back pain guidelines, the study suggests a lack of adherence by certain primary care groups, physicians with more practice experience, and in specific areas of management.Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 08/2006; 48(7):723-32. DOI:10.1097/01.jom.0000214356.67689.1f · 1.80 Impact Factor