Search

Objectives: To test the hypotheses that: (1) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with improved patient outcomes, including pain, disability, health status, sickness absence, reassurance, and patient satisfaction or belief in the value of radiography. (2) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with changes in patient management, including medication use, and the use of primary and secondary care services, physical therapies and complementary therapies. (3) Participants choosing their treatment group (i.e. radiography or no radiography) do not have better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group. (4) Lumbar spine radiography is not cost-effective compared with usual care without lumbar spine radiography., Design: A randomised unblinded controlled trial., Setting: Seventy-three general practices in Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, Southern Derbyshire, North Lincolnshire and North Leicestershire. Fifty-two practices recruited participants to the trial., Subjects: Randomised arm: 421 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 10 weeks. Patient preference arm: 55 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 11 weeks., Intervention: Lumbar spine radiography and usual care versus usual care without radiography., Main Outcome Measures: Roland adaptation of the Sickness Impact Profile, visual analogue pain scale, health status scale, EuroQol, use of primary and secondary care services, and physical and complementary therapies, sickness absence, medication use, patient satisfaction, reassurance and belief in value of radiography at 3 and 9 months post-randomisation., Results: Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were more likely to report low back pain at 3 months (odds ratio (OR) = 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 2.40) and had a lower overall health status score (p = 0.02). There were no differences in health or functional status at 9 months. A higher proportion of participants consulted the general practitioner (GP) in the 3 months following an X-ray (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.80 to 4.10). There were no differences in use of any other services, medication use or sickness absence at 3 or 9 months. No serious spinal pathology was identified in either group. The commonest X-ray reports were of discovertebral degeneration and normal findings. Many patients did not perceive their information needs were met within the consultation. Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at 9 months. Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were not less worried, or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. Satisfaction was associated with meeting participants' information needs and reduced belief in the necessity for investigations for low back pain, including X-rays and blood tests. In both groups, at 3 and 9 months 80% of participants would choose to have an X-ray if the choice was available. Participants in the patient preference group achieved marginally better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group, but the clinical significance of these differences is unclear. Lumbar spine radiography was associated with a net economic loss at 3 and 9 months., Conclusions: Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration is not associated with improved functioning, severity of pain or overall health status, and is associated with an increase in GP workload. Participants receiving X-rays are more satisfied with their care, but are not less worried or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further work is required to develop and test an educational package that educates patients and GPs about the utility of radiography and provides strategies for identifying and meeting the information needs of patients, and the needs of patients and GPs to be reassured about missing serious disease. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending lumbar spine radiography in patients with low back pain in the absence of red flags for serious spinal pathology, even if the pain has persisted for at least 6 weeks.

Background: Teenagers are believed to have health concerns that are not adequately addressed in primary care because of perceived barriers that inhibit them from consulting a general practitioner (GP). We report the results of a study examining links between potential attitudinal barriers and actual help-seeking behaviour., Aim: To determine whether the attitudes of teenagers towards general practice are associated with differences in consultation patterns., Method: Results of a postal questionnaire survey of attitudes to general practice, performed among teenage patients aged 13 to 15 years registered with five general practices in the East Midlands, were analysed in relation to consultation data from retrospective casenote analysis for the preceding 12 months., Results: Matched questionnaire and consultation data were available for 678 teenagers. We found few significant differences in overall consultation rates between teenagers expressing differing attitudes about aspects of general practice. Differences did exist in relation to perceived difficulty in getting an appointment, feeling able to confide in a GP, and perception of adequate time being given in the consultation. Fear of embarrassment was associated with lower consultation rates for gynaecological problems and contraception., Conclusions: Negative perceptions of general practice by teenagers may have less of an influence on actual consultation behaviour than previously believed. However, there are some aspects of care that merit further attention if teenagers are to feel able to consult their GP more easily.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of safety advice at child health surveillance consultations, provision of low cost safety equipment to families receiving means tested state benefits, home safety checks, and first aid training on frequency and severity of unintentional injuries in children at home., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: 36 general practices in Nottingham., Subjects: All children aged 3-12 months registered with participating practices., Interventions: A package of safety advice at child health surveillance consultations at 6-9, 12-15, and 18-24 months; provision of low cost safety equipment to families on means tested state benefits; and home safety checks and first aid training by health visitors., Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes measures were frequency and severity of medically attended injuries. Secondary outcome measures were self reported safety practices, possession and use of safety equipment, knowledge and confidence in dealing with first aid, and perceptions of risk of injury and risk of hazards assessed by postal questionnaire at baseline and follow up at 25 months., Results: At baseline, both groups had similar risk factors for injury, sociodemographic characteristics, safety practices, possession and use of safety equipment, knowledge and confidence in dealing with first aid, and perceptions of risk. No significant difference was found in frequency of at least one medically attended injury (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.30), at least one attendance at an accident and emergency department for injury (1.02, 0.76 to 1.37), at least one primary care attendance for injury (0.75, 0.48 to 1.17), or at least one hospital admission for injury (0.69, 0.42 to 1.12). No significant difference in the secondary outcome measures was found between the intervention and control groups., Conclusions: The intervention package was not effective in reducing the frequency of minor unintentional injuries in children at home, and larger trials are required to assess the effect on more severe injuries.

This study examines whether a clinical outcome (stage of breast or bowel cancer at referral) was related to variations in GP referral rates. A multivariate analysis of breast and bowel cancer patients referred from 183 Nottinghamshire practices during 1993 showed no adverse outcome associated with low GP referral rates. Variables included in the analysis were total and surgical referral rates, fundholding status, UPA(8) score of the practice, partnership size, and age and sex of the referred patient.

Objective: To determine the effect of deprivation on variations in general practitioners' referral rates using the Jarman underprivileged area (UPA(8)) score as a proxy measure., Design: Cross sectional survey of new medical and surgical referrals from general practices to hospitals (determined from hospital activity data)., Setting: All of the 183 general practices in Nottinghamshire and all of the 19 hospitals in Trent region., Main Outcome Measures: The relation between the referral rates per 1000 registered patients and the practice population's UPA(8) score (calculated on the basis of electoral ward), with adjustment for the number of partners, percentage of patients aged over 65 years, and fundholding status of each practice., Results: There was a significant independent association between deprivation, as measured by the UPA(8) score, and high total referral rates and high medical referral rates (P < 0.0001). The UPA(8) score alone explained 23% of the total variation in total referral rates and 32% of the variation in medical referral rates. On multivariate analysis, where partnership size, fundholding status, and percentage of men and women aged over 65 years were included, the UPA(8) score explained 29% and 35% of the variation in total and medical referral rates respectively., Conclusion: Of the variables studied, the UPA(8) score was the strongest predictor of variations in referral rates. This association is most likely to be through a link with morbidity, although it could reflect differences in patients' perceptions, doctors' behaviour, or the use and provision of services.