Lars Morso1, Alice Kongsted2,3, Lise Hestbaek2,3, Peter Kent3. 1. Centre for Quality, Region of Southern Denmark, P.V. Tuxensvej 5, 5500, Middelfart, Denmark. lars.morsoe@rsyd.dk. 2. Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) reportedly varies, but the factors affecting this are unclear. This study investigated the influences of care setting (chiropractic, GP, physiotherapy, spine centre), episode duration (0-2, 3-4, 4-12, >12 weeks), and outcome time period (3, 6, 12 months) on SBT prognostic ability. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from three primary care cohorts [chiropractic (n = 416), GP (n = 265), and physiotherapy (n = 200) practices] and one cohort from a secondary care outpatient spine centre (n = 974) in Denmark. Care pathways were not systematically affected by SBT risk subgroup (non-stratified care). Using generalised estimating equations, we investigated statistical interactions between SBT risk subgroups and potentially influential factors on the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups, when Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores were the outcome. RESULTS: SBT risk subgroup, age, care setting, and episode duration were all independent prognostic factors. The only investigated factor that modified the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups was episode duration. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the prognostic ability of the SBT in these non-stratified care settings was unaffected by care setting on its own. However, the prognosis of patients is affected by diverse clinical characteristics that differ between patient populations, many of which are not assessed by the SBT. When controlling for some of those factors and testing potential interactions, the results showed that only episode duration affected the SBT prognostic ability and, specifically, that the SBT was less predictive in very acute patients (<2 weeks duration).
PURPOSE: The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) reportedly varies, but the factors affecting this are unclear. This study investigated the influences of care setting (chiropractic, GP, physiotherapy, spine centre), episode duration (0-2, 3-4, 4-12, >12 weeks), and outcome time period (3, 6, 12 months) on SBT prognostic ability. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from three primary care cohorts [chiropractic (n = 416), GP (n = 265), and physiotherapy (n = 200) practices] and one cohort from a secondary care outpatient spine centre (n = 974) in Denmark. Care pathways were not systematically affected by SBT risk subgroup (non-stratified care). Using generalised estimating equations, we investigated statistical interactions between SBT risk subgroups and potentially influential factors on the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups, when Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores were the outcome. RESULTS: SBT risk subgroup, age, care setting, and episode duration were all independent prognostic factors. The only investigated factor that modified the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups was episode duration. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the prognostic ability of the SBT in these non-stratified care settings was unaffected by care setting on its own. However, the prognosis of patients is affected by diverse clinical characteristics that differ between patient populations, many of which are not assessed by the SBT. When controlling for some of those factors and testing potential interactions, the results showed that only episode duration affected the SBT prognostic ability and, specifically, that the SBT was less predictive in very acute patients (<2 weeks duration).
Entities:
Keywords:
Back pain; Care settings; Prediction; Prognosis; STarT Back Tool
Authors: Narcís Gusi; Borja del Pozo-Cruz; Pedro R Olivares; Miguel Hernández-Mocholi; Jonathan C Hill Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2011-02-05 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Geertruida E Bekkering; Henricus J M Hendriks; Maurits W van Tulder; Dirk L Knol; Maureen J Simmonds; Rob A B Oostendorp; Lex M Bouter Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Lise Hestbaek; Anders Munck; Lisbeth Hartvigsen; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl; Jens Søndergaard; Alice Kongsted Journal: Int J Family Med Date: 2014-11-04
Authors: Emma L Karran; James H McAuley; Adrian C Traeger; Susan L Hillier; Luzia Grabherr; Leslie N Russek; G Lorimer Moseley Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Anne Molgaard Nielsen; Lise Hestbaek; Werner Vach; Peter Kent; Alice Kongsted Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 2.362