Literature DB >> 33342429

Concordance of patient beliefs and expectations regarding the management of low back pain with guideline recommendations - a cross-sectional study in Germany.

Simone Kiel1, Christina Raus2, Elizabeth Sierocinski2, Peggy Knauthe3, Jean-François Chenot2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Physician non-adherence to clinical guidelines has been observed. We investigated the extent to which patient expectations correspond to recommendations of the German national guideline for management of low back pain (G-LBP) and whether patient characteristics, history of LBP and previous treatment experience are associated with expectations.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study including patients from 13 general practices was conducted. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Inverse probability weights were used to address non-response bias. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 977 patients were included in analyses (median age 57 years, 39% male). 75% of patients reported experiencing LBP currently or within the last year. More than 65% indicated they would agree to forgo further examinations if their LBP was judged by their physician to be of no serious concern. This was associated with the highest level of education and no prior imaging, and negatively associated with good-to-poor health status and moderate-to-severe pain intensity. 40% of participants expected imaging. The highest educational level, female gender and no prior imaging were associated with a decreased expectation of imaging. 70% expected prescriptions for massages. Females, participants with good-to-poor health status, current LBP or LBP in the last 12 months had an increased expectation for massages. Expectations for injection therapy (45%) were mainly associated with previous injections. Expectations for physiotherapy (64%) were associated with female gender, lower educational level, good-to-poor health status, current LBP or in the last 12 months. The perspective that daily activities should be continued (66%) was associated with female gender and higher educational level. Participants who agreed to the statement 'There is no effective treatment for LBP' (11%) had a poor health status, current LBP and a severe pain intensity.
CONCLUSION: Patient views regarding LBP management are partially concordant with guideline recommendations and are strongly influenced by previous treatment experiences and education level. Exploration of patient expectations and experiences in LBP treatment may help minimize dissatisfaction of patients expecting treatments not endorsed by guidelines and simultaneously increase physician guideline adherence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical guidelines; Low back pain; Non-adherence; Patient expectations; Patient preferences

Year:  2020        PMID: 33342429      PMCID: PMC7751122          DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01352-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Fam Pract        ISSN: 1471-2296            Impact factor:   2.497


  41 in total

Review 1.  Non-specific low back pain.

Authors:  Federico Balagué; Anne F Mannion; Ferran Pellisé; Christine Cedraschi
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Evaluation of a Canadian back pain mass media campaign.

Authors:  Douglas P Gross; Anthony S Russell; Robert Ferrari; Michele C Battié; Donald Schopflocher; Richard Hu; Gordon Waddell; Rachelle Buchbinder
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview.

Authors:  Crystian B Oliveira; Chris G Maher; Rafael Z Pinto; Adrian C Traeger; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Jean-François Chenot; Maurits van Tulder; Bart W Koes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Non-specific low back pain.

Authors:  Chris Maher; Martin Underwood; Rachelle Buchbinder
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Low back pain and best practice care: A survey of general practice physicians.

Authors:  Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Mark J Hancock; James H McAuley; Andrew J McLachlan; Helena Britt; Salma Fahridin; Christopher Harrison; Jane Latimer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-08

Review 6.  Potential of magnetic resonance imaging findings to refine case definition for mechanical low back pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alison Endean; Keith T Palmer; David Coggon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  How important are back pain beliefs and expectations for satisfactory recovery from back pain?

Authors:  Chris J Main; Nadine Foster; Rachelle Buchbinder
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.098

8.  Implementation of RCGP guidelines for acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Paola Dey; Carl W R Simpson; Stuart I Collins; G Hodgson; Christopher F Dowrick; A J M Simison; M J Rose
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Relationship between social desirability and self-report in chronic pain patients.

Authors:  T L Deshields; R C Tait; J D Gfeller; J T Chibnall
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.442

10.  Big Five Personality Traits and Disabling Chronic Low Back Pain: Association with Fear-Avoidance, Anxious and Depressive Moods.

Authors:  Maha Emad Ibrahim; Kerstin Weber; Delphine S Courvoisier; Stéphane Genevay
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.133

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.