Literature DB >> 11426152

Patients' views on importance and usefulness of plain radiography for low back pain.

A Espeland1, A Baerheim, G Albrektsen, K Korsbrekke, J L Larsen.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional interview study.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate how patients who are referred for plain radiography because of low back pain perceive the importance and usefulness of the examination. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Up to 50% of plain radiography examinations for low back pain may be unnecessary based on clinical criteria. However, many patients have great confidence in these examinations. A further exploration of the patients' views may indicate how their needs can be met without unnecessary use of radiography.
METHODS: Ninety-nine patients (65 women, 34 men) 14-91 years of age who were referred from Norwegian general practitioners for plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine were asked to rate the examination as slightly/fairly or very important (93 responded). Chi-squared tests were used to evaluate differences in rating according to age, gender, clinical history, and clinical appropriateness of the examination, as determined by comparing information in the referral form with Norwegian (NR) and British (BR) recommendations for use of radiography. Each of the 99 patients also underwent a semistructured interview that was based on questions about importance, usefulness, and reasons for the radiography referral. Answers were categorized and described using a qualitative method (template analysis).
RESULTS: Seventy-two percent (68 of 93) of patients rated radiography as very important. The proportion was higher for men than women (85% vs. 65%, P = 0.04), higher for those with worsening than those with improving/unchanged symptoms (86% vs. 65%, P = 0.03), and higher for inappropriately than appropriately referred patients (NR: 76% vs. 61%, P = 0.17; BR: 81% vs. 56%, P = 0.01). The qualitative analysis showed that the patients related their views on the importance and usefulness of receiving radiography to seven different issues: symptoms and clinical history, information and advice (especially from health care providers), need for emotional support from the physician, need for certainty and reassurance, need for symptom explanation and diagnosis, reliability of radiography compared with clinical evaluation, and expected practical consequences of the radiologic examination.
CONCLUSIONS: The finding that inappropriately referred patients tended to rate their radiography referral as more important than appropriately referred patients indicates that the patient's view may be a substantial barrier to appropriate use of radiography. The study identified seven issues underlying the patients' views on importance and usefulness of receiving radiography. Strategies to prevent unnecessary use of plain radiography for low back pain that address these issues are suggested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11426152     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200106150-00020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  18 in total

1.  Occupational and personal factors associated with acquired lumbar spondylolisthesis of urban taxi drivers.

Authors:  J-C Chen; W P Chan; J N Katz; W P Chang; D C Christiani
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Healthcare provider back pain beliefs unaffected by a media campaign.

Authors:  Erik L Werner; Douglas P Gross; Stein Atle Lie; Camilla Ihlebaek
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.581

3.  Reasons for ordering spinal x-ray investigations: how they influence general practitioners' management.

Authors:  P H H Houben; T der van Weijden; J Sijbrandij; R P T M Grol; R A Winkens
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  How radiological findings can help or hinder patients' recovery in the rehabilitation management of patients with low back pain: what can clinicians do?

Authors:  Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme; Christian Longtin; Jean-Michel Brismée
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2017-04-07

5.  Acute low back pain management in general practice: uncertainty and conflicting certainties.

Authors:  Ben Darlow; Sarah Dean; Meredith Perry; Fiona Mathieson; G David Baxter; Anthony Dowell
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 2.267

6.  Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain.

Authors:  Joel M Schectman; W Scott Schroth; Dante Verme; John D Voss
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Identifying factors likely to influence compliance with diagnostic imaging guideline recommendations for spine disorders among chiropractors in North America: a focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Authors:  André E Bussières; Andrea M Patey; Jill J Francis; Anne E Sales; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Melissa Brouwers; Gaston Godin; Jan Hux; Marie Johnston; Louise Lemyre; Marie-Pascale Pomey; Anne Sales; Merrick Zwarenstein
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  The use and diagnostic yield of radiology in subjects with longstanding musculoskeletal pain--an eight year follow up.

Authors:  Hans Lindgren; Stefan Bergman
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2005-11-03       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Acceptance and perceived barriers of implementing a guideline for managing low back in general practice.

Authors:  Jean-François Chenot; Martin Scherer; Annette Becker; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Erika Baum; Corinna Leonhardt; Stefan Keller; Michael Pfingsten; Jan Hildebrandt; Heinz-Dieter Basler; Michael M Kochen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Factors affecting general practitioners' decisions about plain radiography for back pain: implications for classification of guideline barriers--a qualitative study.

Authors:  Ansgar Espeland; Anders Baerheim
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-03-24       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.