27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treatment Preferences for Chronic Low Back Pain: Views of Veterans and Their Providers

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Purpose

          This study was conducted to characterize chronic low back pain (cLBP) and to identify treatment histories and preferences for cLBP management among Veterans and primary care providers within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system.

          Participants and Methods

          Veterans with cLBP from five geographically diverse VA medical centers were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9 and 10 codes from VA administrative data as were primary care providers at these same sites. From these data, Veterans (200/per site) and providers (160/per site) were selected and mailed surveys. Open-ended interview data were collected from a subset of Veterans and providers.

          Results

          In total, 235 Veterans and 67 providers returned completed surveys. More than 80% of the Veteran respondents had daily back pain for more than 1 year. Most Veterans had tried several treatments for their pain with medications and physical therapy being the most commonly used. Veterans and providers had similar attitudes towards many cLBP treatments with the exception of psychological therapies that were more favored by providers. Open-ended interview data showed that Veterans and providers emphasized the need for multi-component approaches to treatment.

          Conclusion

          Among Veterans, cLBP is typically of sustained duration, is relatively severe, and also interferes significantly with normal functioning. Veterans are experienced with respect to treatments and had similar attitudes towards many cLBP treatments as their providers, especially tailored approaches.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

          Summary Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. Methods We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting. Findings Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1–4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0–8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421–723) to 853 million (642–1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6–9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4–7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782–3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279–1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082–3583] vs 2336 [2154–2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943–3630] vs 5643 [5057–6302]). Interpretation Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.

             C Cleeland,  K M Ryan (1994)
            Poorly controlled cancer pain is a significant public health problem throughout the world. There are many barriers that lead to undertreatment of cancer pain. One important barrier is inadequate measurement and assessment of pain. To address this problem, the Pain Research Group of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Symptom Evaluation in Cancer Care has developed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a pain assessment tool for use with cancer patients. The BPI measures both the intensity of pain (sensory dimension) and interference of pain in the patient's life (reactive dimension). It also queries the patient about pain relief, pain quality, and patient perception of the cause of pain. This paper describes the development of the Brief Pain Inventory and the various applications to which the BPI is suited. The BPI is a powerful tool and, having demonstrated both reliability and validity across cultures and languages, is being adopted in many countries for clinical pain assessment, epidemiological studies, and in studies of the effectiveness of pain treatment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline

              A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed nonpharmacologic treatment options for low back pain. New evidence is now available.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                jpr
                jpainres
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove
                1178-7090
                27 January 2021
                2021
                : 14
                : 161-171
                Affiliations
                [1 ]VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center – Mountain View Division, Palo Alto Healthcare System , Mountain View, CA, USA
                [2 ]Anesthesiology Service, VA Palo Alto Health Care System , Palo Alto, CA, USA
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, USA
                [4 ]VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center , Indianapolis, IN, USA
                [5 ]Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine , Indianapolis, IN, USA
                [6 ]Regenstrief Institute, Inc ., Indianapolis, IN, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Matthew J Bair VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center , 1481 W. 10th St. (11H), Indianapolis, IN46202, USATel +1 (317) 988-2058Fax +1 (317) 988-5361 Email mbair@iupui.edu
                Article
                290400
                10.2147/JPR.S290400
                7850463
                33536780
                © 2021 Belitskaya-Levy et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, References: 27, Pages: 11
                Funding
                Funded by: VA Cooperative Studies Program;
                VA Cooperative Studies Program.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article