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?

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... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Bier, Jasper D.
Sandee-Geurts, Janneke J.W.
Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.
Koes, Bart W.
Verhagen, Arianne P.
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2018
Reihe/Periodikum: Bier , J D , Sandee-Geurts , J J W , Ostelo , R W J G , Koes , B W & Verhagen , A P 2018 , ' 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? ' , Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , vol. 99 , no. 1 , pp. 65-71 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.011
Schlagwörter: General practitioners / Low back pain / Neck pain / Physical therapists / Rehabilitation / /dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/good_health_and_well_being / name=SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27229436
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/7499a472-2bd1-4d1e-a3ca-2bf044d6f5bc

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 ...