Search

Background: Inappropriate imaging and low-value care for low back pain (LBP) are common. A new patient-education booklet was created to overcome identified barriers to the delivery of recommended care, including the use of inappropriate imaging. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of this booklet as part of primary care for LBP patients in comparison to usual care., Methods: A cluster-randomized trial was performed. The intervention involved providing practitioners with the new patient-education booklet and a 30-min training session on its use. The booklet was provided during the clinical consult to all consenting LBP patients in the intervention group. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients presenting with LBP who underwent imaging examinations during the first three months of follow-up and PROMIS PF-20 (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 20-item physical functioning short form) change between baseline and three-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes, including sick leave and imaging examinations at 12 months, were investigated. Logistic regression using GEE-estimation was used for dichotomous outcomes, Poisson regression using GEE-estimation for count outcomes, and linear mixed models for continuous outcomes., Results: Using the patient education booklet appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of LBP patients who underwent an imaging examination at three months, but the result was not statistically significant (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.27 to 1.22). At 12 months, the effect was slightly larger and statistically significant (OR 0.50, 95%Cl 0.30 to 0.83, p = 0.008). No difference was observed in the PROMIS PF-20 T-score change between baseline and 3 months or 12 months (p = 0.365 and p = 0.923, respectively). The number of sick leave days in the intervention group was less than that in the control group at 3 months (RR 0.47, 95%Cl 0.26 to 0.83, p = 0.010) and at 12 months (RR 0.36, 95%Cl 0.18 to 0.72, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: The booklet appeared to be effective in reducing the proportion of LBP patients who underwent imaging examinations over 12 months. The intervention had no discernible effect on the PROMIS PF20 T-score change. The number of sick leave days was substantially lower in the intervention group., Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14389368 , Registered 4 April 2019-Retrospectively registered., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Many adults are insufficiently physically active for health. Counselling is the main method to promote physical activity (PA) in primary care but often implemented inadequately. The aim of this study was to increase health professionals' i) know-how about health-related PA and PA counselling, ii) implementation and quality of PA counselling, iii) familiarity with and use of Physical Activity Prescription (PAP), iv) internal and external collaboration and v) use of electronic patient record system in PA counselling., Methods: Four Finnish health centres participated. Each nominated a working group for reaching the goals through a 6-month development work, which was supported with monthly tutorials by the research group. The outcome evaluation of the development work included 19 variables, which reflected the five goals and were assessed before (baseline) and after the development work (follow-up). Variable-specific differences in proportions (%) and their 95 % confidence intervals (CI) between the time points indicated change. The measures were questionnaires to the health professionals (N = 75 at baseline and N = 80 at follow-up) and patients (N = 441 and N = 431), professionals' record sheets on patient visits (N = 1008 and N = 1000), and telephone interviews to external partners (N = 48 and N = 28). The process was evaluated with the extent the working group members participated in the development work and with the implementation of development actions. Assessment was based on meeting minutes of tutorials and working group meetings., Results: Health professionals' familiarity with PAP (questionnaire, change 39 %-points; 95 % CI 26.5 to 52.5) and use of PAP (questionnaire, 32 %-points; 95 % CI 18.9 to 45.1 and record sheet, 4 %-points; 95 % CI 2.7 to 5.3) increased. A greater proportion of professionals had agreed in their working unit on using PAP (questionnaire, 32 %-points; 95 % CI 20.3 to 43.7) and used PAP as a referral to other health professionals (record sheet, 1 %-point; 95 % CI 0.3 to 1.7). Also the know-how of PA and PA counselling showed improvement but not statistically significantly. The working group members participated unevenly in the development work and had difficulties in allocating time for the work. This was seen in limited number of actions implemented., Conclusions: The study was able to achieve some improvements in the familiarity with and use of PAP and to lesser extent in the know-how of health-related PA and PA counselling. To observe changes in other goals, which targeted more at organisational, inter-professional and multi-sectorial level, may have required more long-term actions.