Advertisement

Predictive Validity of the STarT Back Tool for Risk of Persistent Disabling Back Pain in a U.S. Primary Care Setting

  • Pradeep Suri
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author Pradeep Suri, MD, MS, Division of Rehabilitation Care Services/Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center (ERIC), VA Puget Sound Healthcare System, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108.
    Affiliations
    Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center (ERIC), Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Seattle, Washington

    Division of Rehabilitation Care Services, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington

    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kristin Delaney
    Affiliations
    Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente, Seattle, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sean D. Rundell
    Affiliations
    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

    Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Daniel C. Cherkin
    Affiliations
    Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente, Seattle, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
Published:April 03, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.02.016

      Abstract

      Objective

      To examine the predictive validity of the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) tool for classifying people with back pain into categories of low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling back pain in U.S. primary care.

      Design

      Secondary analysis of data from participants receiving usual care in a randomized clinical trial.

      Setting

      Primary care clinics.

      Participants

      Adults (N = 1109) ≥18 years of age with back pain. Those with specific causes of back pain (pregnancy, disc herniation, vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis) and work-related injuries were not included.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      The original 9-item version of the STarT Back tool, administered at baseline, stratified patients by their risk (low, medium, high) of persistent disabling back pain (STarT Back risk group). Persistent disabling back pain was defined as Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of ≥7 at 6-month follow-up.

      Results

      The STarT Back risk group was a significant predictor of persistent disabling back pain (P<.0001) at 6-month follow-up. The proportion of individuals with persistent disabling back pain at follow-up was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25) in the low-risk group, 62% (95% CI 57-67) in the medium-risk group, and 80% (95% CI 75-85) in the high-risk group. The relative risk of persistent disabling back pain was 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.5) in the medium-risk group compared to the low-risk group, and 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) in the high-risk group.

      Conclusions

      The STarT Back risk groups successfully separated people with back pain into distinct categories of risk for persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up in U.S. primary care. These results were very similar to those in the original STarT Back validation study. This validation study is a necessary first step toward identifying whether the entire STarT Back approach, including matched/targeted treatment, can be effectively used for primary care in the United States.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      CI (confidence interval), EHR (electronic health record), MATCH (Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumers’ Healthcare Needs study), NRS (numeric pain rating scale), RMDQ (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), RR (relative risk), STarT Back (Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment tool), U.K. (United Kingdom), U.S. (United States)
      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

        • Hoy D.
        • March L.
        • Brooks P.
        • et al.
        The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 73: 968-974
        • Dieleman J.L.
        • Baral R.
        • Birger M.
        • et al.
        US spending on personal health care and public health, 1996-2013.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 2627-2646
        • 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
        • 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.
        • Mullis R.
        • Hill J.C.
        • et al.
        Effect of stratified care for low back pain in family practice (IMPaCT Back): a prospective population-based sequential comparison.
        Ann Fam Med. 2014; 12: 102-111
        • 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
        • Morso L.
        • Kent P.
        • Albert H.B.
        • Hill J.C.
        • Kongsted A.
        • Manniche C.
        The predictive and external validity of the STarT Back Tool in Danish primary care.
        Eur Spine J. 2013; 22: 1859-1867
        • Mehling W.E.
        • Avins A.L.
        • Acree M.C.
        • Carey T.S.
        • Hecht F.M.
        Can a back pain screening tool help classify patients with acute pain into risk levels for chronic pain?.
        Eur J Pain. 2015; 19: 439-446
        • Newell D.
        • Field J.
        • Pollard D.
        Using the STarT Back Tool: does timing of stratification matter?.
        Man Ther. 2015; 20: 533-539
        • Fritz J.M.
        • Beneciuk J.M.
        • George S.Z.
        Relationship between categorization with the STarT Back Screening Tool and prognosis for people receiving physical therapy for low back pain.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 722-732
        • Morso L.
        • Kent P.
        • Manniche C.
        • Albert H.B.
        The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting.
        Eur Spine J. 2014; 23: 120-128
        • Morso L.
        • Kongsted A.
        • Hestbaek L.
        • Kent P.
        The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool was affected by episode duration.
        Eur Spine J. 2016; 25: 936-944
        • Cherkin D.
        • Balderson B.
        • Brewer G.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of a risk-stratification strategy to improve primary care for low back pain: the MATCH cluster randomized trial protocol.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17: 361
        • Jensen M.P.
        • Turner J.A.
        • Romano J.M.
        • Fisher L.D.
        Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures.
        Pain. 1999; 83: 157-162
        • Patrick D.L.
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Atlas S.J.
        • Singer D.E.
        • Chapin A.
        • Keller R.B.
        Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20 (discussion 909): 1899-1908
        • Lauridsen H.H.
        • Hartvigsen J.
        • Manniche C.
        • Korsholm L.
        • Grunnet-Nilsson N.
        Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 82
        • Jensen M.P.
        • Strom S.E.
        • Turner J.A.
        • Romano J.M.
        Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland scale as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patients.
        Pain. 1992; 50: 157-162
        • Roland M.
        • Fairbank J.
        The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 3115-3124
        • Bier J.D.
        • Ostelo R.
        • 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
        • Rundell S.D.
        • Sherman K.J.
        • Heagerty P.J.
        • Mock C.N.
        • Jarvik J.G.
        The clinical course of pain and function in older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015; 63: 524-530
        • Von Korff M.
        • Dunn K.M.
        Chronic pain reconsidered.
        Pain. 2008; 138: 267-276
        • Von Korff M.
        • Ormel J.
        • Keefe F.J.
        • Dworkin S.F.
        Grading the severity of chronic pain.
        Pain. 1992; 50: 133-149
        • Von Korff M.
        • Shortreed S.M.
        • Saunders K.W.
        • et al.
        Comparison of back pain prognostic risk stratification item sets.
        J Pain. 2014; 15: 81-89