6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring biopsychosocial risk for back pain disability in chiropractic patients using the STarT back screening tool: a cross-sectional survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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 Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT), a 9-item questionnaire, screens for pain, physical functioning, fear-avoidance beliefs, catastrophizing, anxious thoughts, low mood, and bothersomeness in persons with back pain. SBT scores designate low, medium, or high risk for developing persistent disabling back pain. The primary study aim was to report the prevalence of SBT-calculated risk for back pain disability in US patients seeking chiropractic care.

          Methods

          The SBT questionnaire was administered to patients ≥18 years in 3 Chiropractic College outpatient teaching clinics in Iowa and Illinois (May 2017). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze respondent characteristics and prevalence of SBT-calculated risk subgroups. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between respondent characteristics and SBT scores (including psychological subscores).

          Results

          Of 550 respondents, 496 completed the SBT; 392 (79%) scored low-risk, 81 (16%) medium-risk, and 23 (5%) high-risk. Mean (SD) age was 44.8 (15.9), 56.9% were female, 88.2% white, 62.6% employed, mean current pain was 2.9 (2.1) out of 10, and 62% reported symptom duration > 3 months. Eighteen percent of respondents reported anxious thoughts, 32% low mood, 41% ≥ 1 and 21% ≥ 3 SBT psychological risk factors. Respondents reporting higher average pain (OR = 1.8 [1.4, 2.3]) and pain severity (OR = 1.3 [1.0 to 1.6]) were more likely to score with medium or high risk. Respondents reporting mid back versus low back pain (OR = 0.2 [0.1, 0.7]), and those employed less than full-time versus full-time (0.2 [01, 0.5]) were less likely to score with medium or high risk. Respondents reporting higher average pain were more likely to report ≥1 psychological factor (OR = 1.8 [1.5, 2.0]). Respondents employed part-time were less likely to report ≥1 psychological factor than those employed full-time (OR = 0.4 [0.2, 0.7]).

          Conclusion

          The sample surveyed was less likely to score with medium or high risk for back pain disability than previous samples studied, perhaps due to differences in study design and sample characteristics. Rates of low mood and anxious thoughts indicate a need for future research to explore psychological factors among persons seeking chiropractic care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain.

          A systematic review of prospective cohort studies in low back pain. To evaluate the evidence implicating psychological factors in the development of chronicity in low back pain. The biopsychosocial model is gaining acceptance in low back pain, and has provided a basis for screening measurements, guidelines and interventions; however, to date, the unique contribution of psychological factors in the transition from an acute presentation to chronicity has not been rigorously assessed. A systematic literature search was followed by the application of three sets of criteria to each study: methodologic quality, quality of measurement of psychological factors, and quality of statistical analysis. Two reviewers blindly coded each study, followed by independent assessment by a statistician. Studies were divided into three environments: primary care settings, pain clinics, and workplace. Twenty-five publications (18 cohorts) included psychological factors at baseline. Six of these met acceptability criteria for methodology, psychological measurement, and statistical analysis. Increased risk of chronicity (persisting symptoms and/or disability) from psychological distress/depressive mood and, to a lesser extent, somatization emerged as the main findings. Acceptable evidence generally was not found for other psychological factors, although weak support emerged for the role of catastrophizing as a coping strategy. Psychological factors (notably distress, depressive mood, and somatization) are implicated in the transition to chronic low back pain. The development and testing of clinical interventions specifically targeting these factors is indicated. In view of the importance attributed to other psychological factors (particularly coping strategies and fear avoidance) there is a need to clarify their role in back-related disability through rigorous prospective studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Logistic regression: a brief primer.

            Regression techniques are versatile in their application to medical research because they can measure associations, predict outcomes, and control for confounding variable effects. As one such technique, logistic regression is an efficient and powerful way to analyze the effect of a group of independent variables on a binary outcome by quantifying each independent variable's unique contribution. Using components of linear regression reflected in the logit scale, logistic regression iteratively identifies the strongest linear combination of variables with the greatest probability of detecting the observed outcome. Important considerations when conducting logistic regression include selecting independent variables, ensuring that relevant assumptions are met, and choosing an appropriate model building strategy. For independent variable selection, one should be guided by such factors as accepted theory, previous empirical investigations, clinical considerations, and univariate statistical analyses, with acknowledgement of potential confounding variables that should be accounted for. Basic assumptions that must be met for logistic regression include independence of errors, linearity in the logit for continuous variables, absence of multicollinearity, and lack of strongly influential outliers. Additionally, there should be an adequate number of events per independent variable to avoid an overfit model, with commonly recommended minimum "rules of thumb" ranging from 10 to 20 events per covariate. Regarding model building strategies, the three general types are direct/standard, sequential/hierarchical, and stepwise/statistical, with each having a different emphasis and purpose. Before reaching definitive conclusions from the results of any of these methods, one should formally quantify the model's internal validity (i.e., replicability within the same data set) and external validity (i.e., generalizability beyond the current sample). The resulting logistic regression model's overall fit to the sample data is assessed using various goodness-of-fit measures, with better fit characterized by a smaller difference between observed and model-predicted values. Use of diagnostic statistics is also recommended to further assess the adequacy of the model. Finally, results for independent variables are typically reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). © 2011 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of stratified care for low back pain in family practice (IMPaCT Back): a prospective population-based sequential comparison.

              We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician's clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. The IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. The 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8-3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed. Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                yasmeen-khan@uiowa.edu
                dlawrence@parker.edu
                robert.vining@palmer.edu
                dustin.derby@palmer.edu
                Journal
                Chiropr Man Therap
                Chiropr Man Therap
                Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
                BioMed Central (London )
                2045-709X
                15 January 2019
                15 January 2019
                2019
                : 27
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9561 3395, GRID grid.420154.6, Parker University, ; 2500 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas, TX 75229 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0749, GRID grid.419969.a, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, ; 741 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803 USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0749, GRID grid.419969.a, Palmer College of Chiropractic, ; 1000 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803 USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-7233
                Article
                228
                10.1186/s12998-018-0228-5
                6332914
                c9d61130-0173-4dc8-ad2f-b74c9a2b92b6
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 23 January 2018
                : 14 December 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research
                Award ID: Not applicable
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                start back screening tool,back pain,chiropractic,disability,back pain disability,chronic pain,low back pain,biopsychosocial

                Comments

                Comment on this article