21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Patients’ experiences of the management of lower back pain in general practice: use of diagnostic imaging, medication and provision of self-management advice

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Lower back pain is prevalent in the general community. Guidelines recommend against the use of diagnostic imaging unless ‘red flags’ are present that may indicate a potentially serious cause. This paper reports on a cross-sectional electronic survey to investigate self-reported experiences of lower back pain management among Australian general practice patients. Of the 872 participants, 551 (63%) reported that they had experienced lower back pain in the past 12 months. Approximately 40% of patients who had experienced lower back pain reported that they had consulted their general practitioner (GP) regarding this issue. Among those who sought general practice care, 67% reported being referred for diagnostic imaging. Those who received imaging were more likely to have been prescribed medication by their GP, but received self-management advice at the same rate as those who had not been referred. Rates of self-reported referral for diagnostic imaging were higher than expected, given the low prevalence of potentially serious causes for lower back pain reported in the international literature. However, it remains unclear whether this is due to poor guideline adherence by GPs or lack of specificity in the red flags identified in guidelines. Findings suggest the need for improvements in the provision of evidence-based self-management advice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions. We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model. We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0.19, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.39 for pain and 0.11, -0.29 to 0.50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0.04, -0.15 to 0.07 for pain and 0.01, -0.17 to 0.19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings. Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic imaging for low back pain: advice for high-value health care from the American College of Physicians.

            Diagnostic imaging is indicated for patients with low back pain only if they have severe progressive neurologic deficits or signs or symptoms that suggest a serious or specific underlying condition. In other patients, evidence indicates that routine imaging is not associated with clinically meaningful benefits but can lead to harms. Addressing inefficiencies in diagnostic testing could minimize potential harms to patients and have a large effect on use of resources by reducing both direct and downstream costs. In this area, more testing does not equate to better care. Implementing a selective approach to low back imaging, as suggested by the American College of Physicians and American Pain Society guideline on low back pain, would provide better care to patients, improve outcomes, and reduce costs.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Low back pain and best practice care: A survey of general practice physicians.

              Acute low back pain (LBP) is primarily managed in general practice. We aimed to describe the usual care provided by general practitioners (GPs) and to compare this with recommendations of best practice in international evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute LBP. Care provided in 3533 patient visits to GPs for a new episode of LBP was mapped to key recommendations in treatment guidelines. The proportion of patient encounters in which care arranged by a GP aligned with these key recommendations was determined for the period 2005 through 2008 and separately for the period before the release of the local guideline in 2004 (2001-2004). Although guidelines discourage the use of imaging, over one-quarter of patients were referred for imaging. Guidelines recommend that initial care should focus on advice and simple analgesics, yet only 20.5% and 17.7% of patients received these treatments, respectively. Instead, the analgesics provided were typically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4%) and opioids (19.6%). This pattern of care was the same in the periods before and after the release of the local guideline. The usual care provided by GPs for LBP does not match the care endorsed in international evidence-based guidelines and may not provide the best outcomes for patients. This situation has not improved over time. The unendorsed care may contribute to the high costs of managing LBP, and some aspects of the care provided carry a higher risk of adverse effects.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Australian Journal of Primary Health
                Aust. J. Prim. Health
                CSIRO Publishing
                1448-7527
                2015
                2015
                : 21
                : 3
                : 342
                Article
                10.1071/PY14057
                25074025
                4a578bc4-4302-4147-84f9-2a7346f2555f
                © 2015
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log