8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patterns of health care utilization for low back pain

      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

          Background

          The purpose of this study was to determine if primary care patients with low back pain (LBP) cluster into definable care utilization subgroups that can be explained by patient and provider characteristics.

          Materials and methods

          Adult primary care patients with an incident LBP encounter were identified from Geisinger Clinic electronic health records over 5 years. Two-thirds of the cohort had only one to two encounters. Principal component analysis was applied to the data from the remaining one-third on use of ambulatory, inpatient, emergency department, and surgery care and use of magnetic resonance imaging, injections, and opioids in 12 months following the incident encounter. Groups were compared on demographics, health behaviors, chronic and symptomatic disease burden, and a measure of physician efficiency.

          Results

          Six factors with eigenvalues >1.5 explained 71% of the utilization variance. Patient subgroups were defined as: 1–2 LBP encounters; 2+ surgeries; one surgery; specialty care without primary care; 3+ opioid prescriptions; laboratory dominant care; and others. The surgery and 3+ opioid subgroups, while accounting for only 10.4% of the cohort, had used disproportionately more magnetic resonance imaging, emergency department, inpatient, and injectable resources. The specialty care subgroup was characterized by heavy use of inpatient care and the lowest use of injectables. Anxiety disorder and depression were not more prevalent among the surgery patients than in the others. Surgery patients had features in common with specialty care patients, but were older, had higher prevalence of Fibromyalgia, and were associated primary care physicians with worse efficiency scores.

          Conclusion

          LBP care utilization is highly variable and concentrated in small subgroups using disproportionate amounts of potentially avoidable care that reflect both patient and provider characteristics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 27

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

          Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce.

          Common pain conditions appear to have an adverse effect on work, but no comprehensive estimates exist on the amount of productive time lost in the US workforce due to pain. To measure lost productive time (absence and reduced performance due to common pain conditions) during a 2-week period. Cross-sectional study using survey data from the American Productivity Audit (a telephone survey that uses the Work and Health Interview) of working adults between August 1, 2001, and July 30, 2002. Random sample of 28 902 working adults in the United States. Lost productive time due to common pain conditions (arthritis, back, headache, and other musculoskeletal) expressed in hours per worker per week and calculated in US dollars. Thirteen percent of the total workforce experienced a loss in productive time during a 2-week period due to a common pain condition. Headache was the most common (5.4%) pain condition resulting in lost productive time. It was followed by back pain (3.2%), arthritis pain (2.0%), and other musculoskeletal pain (2.0%). Workers who experienced lost productive time from a pain condition lost a mean (SE) of 4.6 (0.09) h/wk. Workers who had a headache had a mean (SE) loss in productive time of 3.5 (0.1) h/wk. Workers who reported arthritis or back pain had mean (SE) lost productive times of 5.2 (0.25) h/wk. Other common pain conditions resulted in a mean (SE) loss in productive time of 5.5 (0.22) h/wk. Lost productive time from common pain conditions among active workers costs an estimated 61.2 billion dollars per year. The majority (76.6%) of the lost productive time was explained by reduced performance while at work and not work absence. Pain is an inordinately common and disabling condition in the US workforce. Most of the pain-related lost productive time occurs while employees are at work and is in the form of reduced performance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcome of low back pain in general practice: a prospective study.

            To investigate the claim that 90% of episodes of low back pain that present to general practice have resolved within one month. Prospective study of all adults consulting in general practice because of low back pain over 12 months with follow up at 1 week, 3 months, and 12 months after consultation. Two general practices in south Manchester. 490 subjects (203 men, 287 women) aged 18-75 years. Proportion of patients who have ceased to consult with low back pain after 3 months; proportion of patients who are free of pain and back related disability at 3 and 12 months. Annual cumulative consultation rate among adults in the practices was 6.4%. Of the 463 patients who consulted with a new episode of low back pain, 275 (59%) had only a single consultation, and 150 (32%) had repeat consultations confined to the 3 months after initial consultation. However, of those interviewed at 3 and 12 months follow up, only 39/188 (21%) and 42/170 (25%) respectively had completely recovered in terms of pain and disability. The results are consistent with the interpretation that 90% of patients with low back pain in primary care will have stopped consulting with symptoms within three months. However most will still be experiencing low back pain and related disability one year after consultation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Physician office visits for low back pain. Frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey.

              This study is an analysis of national survey data from 5 sample years. The authors characterized the frequency of office visits for low back pain, the content of ambulatory care, and how these vary by physician specialty. Few recent data are available regarding ambulatory care for low back pain or how case mix and patient management vary by physician specialty. Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were grouped into three time periods (1980-81, 1985, 1989-90). Frequency of visits for low back pain, referral status, tests, and treatments were tabulated by physician specialty. There were almost 15 million office visits for "mechanical" low back pain in 1990, ranking this problem fifth as a reason for all physician visits. Low back pain accounted for 2.8 percent of office visits in all three time periods. Nonspecific diagnostic labels were most common, and 56 percent of visits were to primary care physicians. Specialty variations were observed in caseload, diagnostic mix, and management. Back pain remains a major reason for all physician office visits. This study describes visit, referral, and management patterns among specialties providing the most care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2015
                12 August 2015
                : 8
                : 523-535
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Geisinger Center for Health Research, Seattle, WA, USA
                [2 ]Pfizer, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA
                [3 ]Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA
                [4 ]Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Daniel D Maeng, Geisinger Center for Health Research, 100 North Academy Avenue, MC 44-00, Danville, PA 17822, USA, Tel +1 570 214 1688, Email ddmaeng@ 123456geisinger.edu
                Article
                jpr-8-523
                10.2147/JPR.S83599
                4540213
                26316803
                © 2015 Stewart et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article