IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0229265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in low back pain patients consulted in primary care

Author

Listed:
  • Eduardo B Cruz
  • Helena Canhão
  • Rita Fernandes
  • Carmen Caeiro
  • Jaime C Branco
  • Ana M Rodrigues
  • Fernando Pimentel-Santos
  • Luís A Gomes
  • Sofia Paiva
  • Isabel Pinto
  • Rubina Moniz
  • Carla Nunes

Abstract

Background: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition in western countries and is associated with persistent disability and high consumption of health care resources. NSLBP patients first seek primary health care services but the outcomes are often uncertain. This study aimed to examine the clinical course of the outcomes and to identify prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in NSLBP patients who consulted primary care. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 115 patients seeking treatment for NSLBP in primary care was conducted. Participants were consecutively recruited by their General Practitioners (GPs) and then assessed at baseline and 2 and 6 months later. Baseline assessment included socio-demographic and clinical data, psychosocial factors, pain, disability, and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Pain, disability, HRQoL and global perception of change were also assessed at 2 and 6-months’ follow-up. In addition, information regarding the GP’ practice was collected. Poor outcomes were determined according to the cut-off point used to define a persistent disabling condition and the minimal important change established for disability, pain and for global perception of change. The relationship between variables on baseline and poor outcomes was modulated through binary logistic regression analysis. The significance of associations was evaluated at ≤ 0.05 p-value with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR). Results: 110 (94.8%) and 104 (89.7%) participants completed the follow-up assessment at 2 and 6 months, respectively. The mean age (±SD) was 48.06 ± 11.41, with 53.9%, (N = 62) reporting an acute presentation of NSLBP. Six months after GP consultation, 53.8% (N = 56) of the participants reported a persistent disabling condition. An “LBP episode of less than 12 weeks” [AOR: 0.26; 95% CI (0.10, 0.65); AOR: 0.34; 95% CI (0.14, 0.81); AOR: 0.21; 95% CI (0.09, 0.53)],”maladaptive psychosocial factors” [AOR: 2.06; 95% CI (1.40, 3.04); AOR: 1.82; 95% CI (1.27, 2.59); AOR: 1.72; 95% CI (1.20, 2.47)] were significantly associated with poor outcomes on disability, pain and global perception of change, respectively. Besides these factors, being employed reduces the chances of poor outcomes on disability [AOR 0.31; 95% CI (0.11, 0.92)]. Conclusions: A large proportion of LBP patients seeking primary health care reported poor outcomes 6 months after GP consultation. Patients who report chronic LBP, maladaptive psychosocial factors and are unemployed have a significant increase in the risk of poor outcome. These findings suggest the need of implementing effective models of care able to provide early screening and appropriate treatment to those at greatest risk of a poor outcome. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials NCT04046874 (August 6, 2019). Retrospectively registered.

Suggested Citation

  • Eduardo B Cruz & Helena Canhão & Rita Fernandes & Carmen Caeiro & Jaime C Branco & Ana M Rodrigues & Fernando Pimentel-Santos & Luís A Gomes & Sofia Paiva & Isabel Pinto & Rubina Moniz & Carla Nunes, 2020. "Prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in low back pain patients consulted in primary care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229265
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229265
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229265&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0229265?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.