Jonathan Field

Relationship between STarT Back Screening Tool and prognosis for low back pain patients receiving spinal manipulative therapy

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is common and costly and few treatments have been shown to be markedly superior to any other. Effort has been focused on stratifying patients to better target treatment. Recently the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) has been developed for use in primary care to enable sub grouping of patients based on modifiable baseline characteristics and has been shown to be associated with differential outcomes. In the UK the SBT is being recommended to assist in care decisions for those presenting to general practitioners with LBP. In the light of growing recommendation for widespread use of this tool, generalisability to other LBP populations is important. However, studies to date have focused only on patients attending physiotherapy whereas LBP patients seeking other treatment have not been investigated.AimsThis study aims to investigate the utility of the SBT to predict outcomes in LBP patients presenting for chiropractic management.MethodsA total of 404 patients undergoing chiropractic care were asked to complete the SBT before initial treatment. Clinical outcomes were collected at 14, 30 and 90 days following this initial consultation. The clinical course was described comparing SBT categories and logistic regression analysis performed to examine the tool’s prognostic utility.ResultsAlthough the high-risk categories had greater pain at baseline this difference rapidly faded, with both change in composite outcome scores and pain scores being statistically insignificant between the risk groups at 30 and 90 days follow up. In addition, both univariate and adjusted analysis showed no prognostic utility of the SBT categorisations to differentiate clinical outcomes between risk groups.ConclusionWhilst the SBT appears useful in some back pain populations it does not appear to differentiate outcomes in LBP patients seeking chiropractic care.

Using the STarT Back Tool: Does timing of stratification matter?

It is likely that individuals with nonspecific LBP (nsLBP) constitute a heterogenic group and targeting treatment appropriately to those most likely to respond is of major relevance. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) has been developed to stratify patients into risk groups to aid management choices. However, there is controversy over its generalisability and uncertainty as to the timing of use. This study investigated whether SBT categorisation early in a course of treatment would prove more prognostic than categorising patients at baseline. Seven hundred and forty nine patients over the age of 16 were recruited at 11 chiropractic clinics within the UK. The SBT was used to categorise these patients at presentation and 2 days following initial treatment with patient characteristics and condition specific markers also collected at baseline. The primary outcome was the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) collected at 14, 30 and 90 days following the initial visit. In this population undergoing chiropractic care, patients had similar outcomes irrespective of their STarT back risk ranking. Multivariate prognostic models included only the post initial visit SBT as an independent predictor of favourable outcome for the medium risk group but only at 30 days. Follow up improvement was dominated by previous improvement in 30 and 90-day models. Over one third of patients swapped SBT risk groups in the 2 day period between initial stratification and post initial visit although there was little difference in eventual improvement at follow-up. Understanding the impact of timing of SBT stratification is indicated.

Preliminary study into the components of the fear-avoidance model of LBP: change after an initial chiropractic visit and influence on outcome

BackgroundIn the last decade the sub grouping of low back pain (LBP) patients according to their likely response to treatment has been identified as a research priority. As with other patient groups, researchers have found few if any factors from the case history or physical examination that are helpful in predicting the outcome of chiropractic care. However, in the wider LBP population psychosocial factors have been identified that are significantly prognostic. This study investigated changes in the components of the LBP fear-avoidance beliefs model in patients pre- and post- their initial visit with a chiropractor to determine if there was a relationship with outcomes at 1 month.MethodsSeventy one new patients with lower back pain as their primary complaint presenting for chiropractic care to one of five clinics (nine chiropractors) completed questionnaires before their initial visit (pre-visit) and again just before their second appointment (post-visit). One month after the initial consultation, patient global impression of change (PGIC) scores were collected. Pre visit and post visit psychological domain scores were analysed for any association with outcomes at 1 month.ResultsGroup mean scores for Fear Avoidance Beliefs (FAB), catastrophisation and self-efficacy were all improved significantly within a few days of a patients initial chiropractic consultation. Pre-visit catastrophisation as well as post-visit scores for catastrophisation, back beliefs (inevitability) and self-efficacy were weakly correlated with patients global impression of change (PGIC) at 1 month. However when the four assessed psychological variables were dichotomised about pre-visit group medians those individuals with 2 or more high variables post-visit had a substantially increased risk (OR 36.4 (95% CI 6.2-213.0) of poor recovery at 1 month. Seven percent of patients with 1 or fewer adverse psychological variables described poor benefit compared to 73% of those with 2 or more.ConclusionsThe results presented suggest that catastrophisation, FAB and low self-efficacy could be potential barriers to early improvement during chiropractic care. In most patients presenting with higher psychological scores these were reduced within a few days of an initial chiropractic visit. Those patients who exhibited higher adverse psychology post-initial visit appear to have an increased risk of poor outcome at 1 month.

ECU convention 2017 research presentations

O-01 Care seeking patterns during one year after visiting a chiropractor Alice Kongsted, Lise Hestbaek Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark; Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark Correspondence: Alice Kongsted (a.kongsted@nikkb.dk) Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2017, 25(Suppl 1):O-01

Clinical Outcomes in a Large Cohort of Musculoskeletal Patients Undergoing Chiropractic Care in the United Kingdom: A Comparison of Self- and National Health Service–Referred Routes

OBJECTIVE An innovative commissioning pathway has recently been introduced in the United Kingdom allowing chiropractic organizations to provide state-funded chiropractic care to patients through referral from National Health Service (NHS) primary care physicians. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of NHS and private patient groups presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to chiropractors under the Any Qualified Provider scheme and compare the clinical outcomes of these patients with those presenting privately. METHODS A prospective cohort design monitoring patient outcomes comparing self-referring and NHS-referred patients undergoing chiropractic care was used. The primary outcome was the change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores. Within- and between-group analyses were performed to explore differences between outcomes with additional analysis of subgroups as categorized by the STarT back tool. RESULTS A total of 8222 patients filled in baseline questionnaires. Of these, NHS patients (41%) had more adverse health measures at baseline and went on to receive more treatment. Using percent change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores categorized at minimal clinical change cutoffs and adjusting for baseline differences, patients with low back and neck pain presenting privately are more likely to report improvement within 2 weeks and to have slightly better outcomes at 90 days. However, these patients were more likely to be attending consultations beyond 30 days. CONCLUSIONS This study supports the contention that chiropractic services as provided in United Kingdom are appropriate for both private and NHS-referred patient groups and should be considered when general medical physicians make decisions concerning referral routes and pain pathways for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.