Adrian C Traeger1,2, Markus Hübscher1,2, Nicholas Henschke3, Christopher M Williams4,5, Christopher G Maher4, G Lorimer Moseley1,6, Hopin Lee1,2, James H McAuley7,8. 1. Neuroscience Research Australia, Barker Street, Randwick, Sydney, Australia. 2. Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. Institute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Hunter Medical Research Institute and School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 5. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 6. Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 7. Neuroscience Research Australia, Barker Street, Randwick, Sydney, Australia. j.mcauley@neura.edu.au. 8. Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. j.mcauley@neura.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether emotional distress reported at the initial consultation affects subsequent healthcare use either directly or indirectly via moderating the influence of symptoms. METHODS: Longitudinal observational study of 2891 participants consulting primary care for low back pain. Negative binomial regression models were constructed to estimate independent effects of emotional distress on healthcare use. Potential confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs. RESULTS: After the initial consultation, participants had a mean (SD) of one (1.2) visit for back pain over 3 months, and nine (14) visits for back pain over 12 months. Higher reports of anxiety during the initial consultation led to increased short-term healthcare use (IRR 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01-1.11) and higher reports of depression led to increased long-term healthcare use (IRR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.02-1.07). The effect sizes suggest that a patient with a high anxiety score (8/10) would consult 50 % more frequently over 3 months, and a person with a high depression score (8/10) would consult 30 % more frequently over 12 months, compared to a patient with equivalent pain and disability and no reported anxiety or depression. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional distress in the acute stage of low back pain increased subsequent consultation rates. Interventions that target emotional distress during the initial consultation are likely to reduce costly and potentially inappropriate future healthcare use for patients with non-specific low back pain.
PURPOSE: To determine whether emotional distress reported at the initial consultation affects subsequent healthcare use either directly or indirectly via moderating the influence of symptoms. METHODS: Longitudinal observational study of 2891 participants consulting primary care for low back pain. Negative binomial regression models were constructed to estimate independent effects of emotional distress on healthcare use. Potential confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs. RESULTS: After the initial consultation, participants had a mean (SD) of one (1.2) visit for back pain over 3 months, and nine (14) visits for back pain over 12 months. Higher reports of anxiety during the initial consultation led to increased short-term healthcare use (IRR 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01-1.11) and higher reports of depression led to increased long-term healthcare use (IRR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.02-1.07). The effect sizes suggest that a patient with a high anxiety score (8/10) would consult 50 % more frequently over 3 months, and a person with a high depression score (8/10) would consult 30 % more frequently over 12 months, compared to a patient with equivalent pain and disability and no reported anxiety or depression. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional distress in the acute stage of low back pain increased subsequent consultation rates. Interventions that target emotional distress during the initial consultation are likely to reduce costly and potentially inappropriate future healthcare use for patients with non-specific low back pain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Depressive symptoms; Low back pain; Medical overuse; Primary healthcare
Authors: Oliver Hirsch; Konstantin Strauch; Heiko Held; Marcus Redaelli; Jean-François Chenot; Corinna Leonhardt; Stefan Keller; Erika Baum; Michael Pfingsten; Jan Hildebrandt; Heinz-Dieter Basler; Michael M Kochen; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Annette Becker Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; Markus Hübscher; Nicholas Henschke; G Lorimer Moseley; Hopin Lee; James H McAuley Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Manuela L Ferreira; Gustavo Machado; Jane Latimer; Christopher Maher; Paulo H Ferreira; Rob J Smeets Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 3.931
Authors: Nicholas Henschke; Christopher G Maher; Kathryn M Refshauge; Robert D Herbert; Robert G Cumming; Jane Bleasel; John York; Anurina Das; James H McAuley Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-07-07
Authors: Andreas Gerhardt; Sabine Leisner; Mechthild Hartmann; Susanne Janke; Günter H Seidler; Wolfgang Eich; Jonas Tesarz Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 4.157