Advertisement

Can Primary Care for Back and/or Neck Pain in the Netherlands Benefit From Stratification for Risk Groups According to the STarT Back Tool Classification?

      Abstract

      Objective

      To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT).

      Design

      Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up.

      Setting

      Primary care.

      Participants

      General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both.

      Interventions

      Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Prevalence of patients' risk profile and clinicians' applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment.

      Results

      In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patients with NP received the low-risk treatment approach. The medium-risk treatment approach was offered the most (90.8%), and the high-risk approach was applied in only 3.1% of the patients. The specific agreement between the risk profile and received treatment for patients with NP was poor for low-risk and medium-risk patients (6.3% and 48.0%, respectively); agreement for high-risk patients could not be calculated.

      Conclusions

      Current Dutch primary care for patients with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both does not correspond to the recommended stratified-care approach based on the SBT, as most patients receive medium-risk treatment. Most low-risk patients are overtreated, and most high-risk patients are undertreated. Although the stratified-care approach has not yet been validated in Dutch primary care, these results indicate there may be substantial room for improvement.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      GP (general practitioner), LBP (low back pain), NDI (Neck Disability Index), NP (neck pain), RDQ (Roland Disability Questionnaire), SBT (STarT Back-Screening Tool)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Vos T.
        • Flaxman A.D.
        • Naghavi M.
        • et al.
        Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 2163-2196
        • Côté P.
        • Cassidy J.D.
        • Carroll L.
        The treatment of neck and low back pain: who seeks care? Who goes where?.
        Med Care. 2001; 39: 956-967
        • Walker B.F.
        • Muller R.
        • Grant W.D.
        Low back pain in Australian adults. Health provider utilization and care seeking.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004; 27: 327-335
        • Mannion A.F.
        • Wieser S.
        • Elfering A.
        Association between beliefs and care-seeking behavior for low back pain.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38: 1016-1025
      1. Bier JD, Scholten-Peeters W, Pool JJ, Staal JB, van Tulder MW, Verhagen AP. KNGF-Richtlijn Nekpijn. Available at: https://www.fysionet-evidencebased.nl/images/pdfs/richtlijnen/nekpijn_2016/nekpijn_praktijkrichtlijn.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2017.

        • Koes B.W.
        • van Tulder M.
        • Lin C.-W.C.
        • Macedo L.G.
        • McAuley J.
        • Maher C.
        An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care.
        Eur Spine J. 2010; 19: 2075-2094
        • Chavannes A.W.
        • Mens J.M.
        • Koes B.W.
        • et al.
        NHG-Standaard Aspecifieke lagerugpijn j NHG.
        Huisarts Wet. 2005; 48 (Available at:): 113-123
      2. Staal JB, Hendriks EJM, Heijmans M, et al. KNGF-richtlijn Lage rugpijn. Available at: https://www.fysionet-evidencebased.nl/images/pdfs/richtlijnen/lage_rugpijn_2013/lage_rugpijn_praktijkrichtlijn.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2017.

        • Hill J.C.
        • Dunn K.M.
        • Lewis M.
        • et al.
        A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 59: 632-641
        • Foster N.E.
        • Hill J.C.
        • Hay E.M.
        Subgrouping patients with low back pain in primary care: are we getting any better at it?.
        Man Ther. 2011; 16: 3-8
        • Bier J.D.
        • Ostelo R.W.
        • van Hooff M.L.
        • Koes B.W.
        • Verhagen A.P.
        Validity and reproducibility of the STarT Back Tool (Dutch version) in patients with low back pain in primary care settings.
        Phys Ther. 2017; 97: 561-570
        • Abedi M.
        • Manshadi F.D.
        • Khalkhali M.
        • et al.
        Translation and validation of the Persian version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with nonspecific low back pain.
        Man Ther. 2015; 20: 850-854
        • Pilz B.
        • Vasconcelos R.A.
        • Marcondes F.B.
        • Lodovichi S.S.
        • Mello W.
        • Grossi D.B.
        The Brazilian version of STarT Back Screening Tool–translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability.
        Braz J Phys Ther. 2014; 18: 453-461
        • Luan S.
        • Min Y.
        • Li G.
        • et al.
        Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Chinese version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with low back pain.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39: E974-E979
        • Piironen S.
        • Paananen M.
        • Haapea M.
        • et al.
        Transcultural adaption and psychometric properties of the STarT Back Screening Tool among Finnish low back pain patients.
        Eur Spine J. 2016; 25: 287-295
        • Bruyere O.
        • Demoulin M.
        • Brereton C.
        • et al.
        Translation validation of a new back pain screening questionnaire (the STarT Back Screening Tool) in French.
        Arch Public Health. 2012; 70: 12
        • Gusi N.
        • del Pozo-Cruz B.
        • Olivares P.R.
        • Hernández-Mocholi M.
        • Hill J.C.
        The Spanish version of the “STarT Back Screening Tool” (SBST) in different subgroups.
        Aten Primaria. 2011; 43: 356-361
        • Morso L.
        • Albert H.
        • Kent P.
        • et al.
        Translation and discriminative validation of the STarT Back Screening Tool into Danish.
        Eur Spine J. 2011; 20: 2166-2173
        • Bier J.D.
        • Ostelo R.W.J.G.
        • Koes B.W.
        • Verhagen A.P.
        Validity and reproducibility of the modified BTarT Back Tool (Dutch version) for patients with neck pain in primary care.
        Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017; 31: 22-29
        • Hill J.C.
        • Whitehurst D.G.
        • Lewis M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2011; 378: 1560-1571
        • Murphy S.E.
        • Blake C.
        • Power C.K.
        • Fullen B.M.
        Comparison of a stratified group intervention (STarT Back) with usual group care in patients with low back pain: a nonrandomized controlled trial.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41: 645-652
        • Hjermstad M.J.
        • Fayers P.M.
        • Haugen D.F.
        • et al.
        Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011; 41: 1073-1093
        • Vernon H.
        • Mior S.
        The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14: 409-415
        • Brouwer S.
        • Kuijer W.
        • Dijkstra P.U.
        • Goeken L.N.
        • Groothoff J.W.
        • Geertzen J.H.
        Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: intraclass correlation and limits of agreement.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2004; 26: 162-165
        • Roland M.
        • Morris R.
        A study of the natural history of low-back pain. Part II: development of guidelines for trials of treatment in primary care.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983; 8: 145-150
        • Vlaeyen J.W.
        • Kole-Snijders A.M.
        • Boeren R.G.
        • van Eek H.
        Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance.
        Pain. 1995; 62: 363-372
        • Sullivan M.J.
        • Bishop S.R.
        • Pivik J.
        The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: development and validation.
        Psychol Assess. 1995; 7: 524-532
        • Salen B.A.
        • Spangfort E.V.
        • Nygren A.L.
        • Nordemar R.
        The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1994; 47: 1423-1435
        • Hay E.M.
        • Dunn K.M.
        • Hill J.C.
        • et al.
        A randomised clinical trial of subgrouping and targeted treatment for low back pain compared with best current care. The STarT Back Trial Study Protocol.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9: 58
        • de Vet H.C.
        • Mokkink L.B.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Hoekstra O.S.
        • Knol D.L.
        Clinicians are right not to like Cohen's κ.
        BMJ. 2013; 346 (Available at: https://www.fysionet-evidencebased.nl/images/pdfs/richtlijnen/nekpijn_2016/nekpijn_praktijkrichtlijn.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2017): f2125
        • van Tulder M.W.
        • Koes B.W.
        Evidence-based handelen bij lage rugpijn, 2nd ed.
        Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, Houten, Netherlands2013
        • Jarvik J.G.
        • Hollingworth W.
        • Martin B.
        • et al.
        Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs radiographs for patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2003; 289: 2810-2818
        • Karel Y.H.
        • Verkerk K.
        • Endenburg S.
        • Metselaar S.
        • Verhagen A.P.
        Effect of routine diagnostic imaging for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a meta-analysis.
        Eur J Intern Med. 2015; 26: 585-595