Diana De Carvalho1, André Bussières2,3, Simon D French4, Darrell Wade5, Debbie Brake-Patten6, Lino O'Keefe7, Barbara Elliott8,9, Ken Budgell5, Sara O'Reilly10, Daphne To11, Amanda Hall10. 1. Division of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada. ddecarvalho@mun.ca. 2. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. 3. Département chiropratique, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada. 4. Department of Chiropractic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Private Practice, St. John's, NL, Canada. 6. Private Practice, Bay St. George, NL, Canada. 7. Private Practice, Terra Nova, NL, Canada. 8. Patient Engagement Partner, North Bay, ON, Canada. 9. Faculty of Education and Professional Studies - School of Nursing, Nipissing University, North Bay, ON, Canada. 10. Primary Healthcare Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada. 11. Division of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) rarely requires routine imaging of the lumbar spine in the primary care setting, as serious spinal pathology is rare. Despite evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommending delaying imaging in the absence of red flags, chiropractors commonly order imaging outside of these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to survey chiropractors to determine the level of knowledge, adherence to, and beliefs about, clinical practice guidelines related to the use of lumbar radiography for LBP in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of chiropractors in NL (n = 69) was conducted between May and June 2018, including questions on demographics, awareness of radiographic guidelines, and beliefs about radiographs for LBP. We assessed behavioural simulation using clinical vignettes to determine levels of adherence to LBP guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The response rate was 77% (n = 53). Half of the participants stated they were aware of current radiographic guideline recommendations, and one quarter of participants indicated they did not use guidelines to inform clinical decisions. The majority of participants agreed that x-rays of the lumbar spine are useful for patients with suspected pathology, are indicated when a patient is non-responsive to 4 weeks of conservative treatment for LBP, and when there are neurological signs associated with LBP. However, a small proportion indicated that there is a role for full spine x-rays (~ 21%), x-rays to evaluate patients with acute LBP (~ 13%), and that patient expectations play a role in decision making (4%). Adherence rate to radiographic guidelines measured using clinical vignettes was 75%. CONCLUSIONS: While many chiropractors in this sample reported being unsure of specific radiographic guidelines, the majority of respondents adhered to guideline recommendations measured using clinical vignettes. Nonetheless, a small proportion still hold beliefs about radiographs for LBP that are discordant with current radiographic guidelines. Future research should aim to determine barriers to guideline uptake in this population in order to design and evaluate tailored knowledge translation strategies to reduce unnecessary LBP imaging.
BACKGROUND:Low back pain (LBP) rarely requires routine imaging of the lumbar spine in the primary care setting, as serious spinal pathology is rare. Despite evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommending delaying imaging in the absence of red flags, chiropractors commonly order imaging outside of these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to survey chiropractors to determine the level of knowledge, adherence to, and beliefs about, clinical practice guidelines related to the use of lumbar radiography for LBP in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of chiropractors in NL (n = 69) was conducted between May and June 2018, including questions on demographics, awareness of radiographic guidelines, and beliefs about radiographs for LBP. We assessed behavioural simulation using clinical vignettes to determine levels of adherence to LBP guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The response rate was 77% (n = 53). Half of the participants stated they were aware of current radiographic guideline recommendations, and one quarter of participants indicated they did not use guidelines to inform clinical decisions. The majority of participants agreed that x-rays of the lumbar spine are useful for patients with suspected pathology, are indicated when a patient is non-responsive to 4 weeks of conservative treatment for LBP, and when there are neurological signs associated with LBP. However, a small proportion indicated that there is a role for full spine x-rays (~ 21%), x-rays to evaluate patients with acute LBP (~ 13%), and that patient expectations play a role in decision making (4%). Adherence rate to radiographic guidelines measured using clinical vignettes was 75%. CONCLUSIONS: While many chiropractors in this sample reported being unsure of specific radiographic guidelines, the majority of respondents adhered to guideline recommendations measured using clinical vignettes. Nonetheless, a small proportion still hold beliefs about radiographs for LBP that are discordant with current radiographic guidelines. Future research should aim to determine barriers to guideline uptake in this population in order to design and evaluate tailored knowledge translation strategies to reduce unnecessary LBP imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chiropractors; Diagnostic imaging; Guidelines; Knowledge and beliefs; Low back pain
Authors: Debbie Bonetti; Martin Eccles; Marie Johnston; Nick Steen; Jeremy Grimshaw; Rachel Baker; Anne Walker; Nigel Pitts Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2004-12-08 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Randy W Beck; Kelly R Holt; Marina A Fox; Kristin L Hurtgen-Grace Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Nandini D Patel; Daniel F Broderick; Judah Burns; Tejaswini K Deshmukh; Ian Blair Fries; H Benjamin Harvey; Langston Holly; Christopher H Hunt; Bharathi D Jagadeesan; Tabassum A Kennedy; John E O'Toole; Joel S Perlmutter; Bruno Policeni; Joshua M Rosenow; Jason W Schroeder; Matthew T Whitehead; Rebecca S Cornelius; Amanda S Corey Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Roger Chou; Amir Qaseem; Vincenza Snow; Donald Casey; J Thomas Cross; Paul Shekelle; Douglas K Owens Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lance M Mabry; Richard Severin; Angela S Gisselman; Michael D Ross; Todd E Davenport; Brian A Young; Aaron P Keil; Don L Goss Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2022-08-13
Authors: Hazel J Jenkins; Alice Kongsted; Simon D French; Tue Secher Jensen; Klaus Doktor; Jan Hartvigsen; Mark Hancock Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2021-11-23
Authors: Hazel J Jenkins; Alice Kongsted; Simon D French; Tue Secher Jensen; Klaus Doktor; Jan Hartvigsen; Mark Hancock Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2022-04-04
Authors: Daphne To; Amanda Hall; André Bussières; Simon D French; Rebecca Lawrence; Andrea Pike; Andrea M Patey; Debbie Brake-Patten; Lino O'Keefe; Barbara Elliott; Diana De Carvalho Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2022-05-09