STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study using primary care physician case notes and a self-report questionnaire on the same randomly selected population sample. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence, management, and outcomes of low back pain in the community, comparing, in the same random sample of registered patients, self-report questionnaire data and primary care physicians' records. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The financial and resource implications of low back pain are extensive. Data on consultations, investigations, and the management of low back pain are fragmentary and there are no comparisons estimating prevalence from case notes and self-report. METHODS: A retrospective study of prevalence, management, referral, and outcome covering the previous 12 months was carried out in three general practices using case notes and a self-report postal questionnaire on a sample of 900 patients over 18 years. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence of low back pain was 62%. Annual prevalence was 48%, with 16% reporting low back pain at the time of report. Twenty-four percent consulted their primary care physician for low back pain, of whom 17% were referred to a hospital specialist. The annual consultation rate of patients with low back pain was similar to the rate for patients with chronic conditions. The activities of daily living were restricted in less than half, with few taking sick leave. The general health status of those reporting recent low back pain was significantly lower than those not reporting low back pain. Most felt that low back pain was self-limiting and would not consult health professionals for future episodes. There were substantial discrepancies between case notes recorded at consultation with the primary care physician and self-report regarding consultation and investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence rates were comparable with those reported in other studies. The significant discrepancies between data sources suggest patient recall bias or underrecording in case notes. The low consultation rate, time off, and day-to-day disability indicate that most episodes are self-limiting.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study using primary care physician case notes and a self-report questionnaire on the same randomly selected population sample. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence, management, and outcomes of low back pain in the community, comparing, in the same random sample of registered patients, self-report questionnaire data and primary care physicians' records. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The financial and resource implications of low back pain are extensive. Data on consultations, investigations, and the management of low back pain are fragmentary and there are no comparisons estimating prevalence from case notes and self-report. METHODS: A retrospective study of prevalence, management, referral, and outcome covering the previous 12 months was carried out in three general practices using case notes and a self-report postal questionnaire on a sample of 900 patients over 18 years. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence of low back pain was 62%. Annual prevalence was 48%, with 16% reporting low back pain at the time of report. Twenty-four percent consulted their primary care physician for low back pain, of whom 17% were referred to a hospital specialist. The annual consultation rate of patients with low back pain was similar to the rate for patients with chronic conditions. The activities of daily living were restricted in less than half, with few taking sick leave. The general health status of those reporting recent low back pain was significantly lower than those not reporting low back pain. Most felt that low back pain was self-limiting and would not consult health professionals for future episodes. There were substantial discrepancies between case notes recorded at consultation with the primary care physician and self-report regarding consultation and investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence rates were comparable with those reported in other studies. The significant discrepancies between data sources suggest patient recall bias or underrecording in case notes. The low consultation rate, time off, and day-to-day disability indicate that most episodes are self-limiting.
Authors: William Hollingworth; Christopher J Todd; Hugh King; Tony Males; Adrian K Dixon; Kanti R Karia; Ann Louise Kinmonth Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Christina A Niosi; Qingan A Zhu; Derek C Wilson; Ory Keynan; David R Wilson; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2005-10-11 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: John D Heintzman; Steffani R Bailey; John Muench; Marie Killerby; Stuart Cowburn; Miguel Marino Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Andrew D M Kennedy; Anne P Leigh-Brown; David J Torgerson; James Campbell; Adrian Grant Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2002-01-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Hosam Alzahrani; Debra Shirley; Sonia W M Cheng; Martin Mackey; Emmanuel Stamatakis Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 7.179