4.6 Article

Guideline adherence and socioeconomic factors in Danish patients referred to secondary care for low back pain: a cross sectional study

Journal

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16633-4

Keywords

Low back pain; Practice guideline; Musculoskeletal manipulation; Exercise therapy; Chiropractic; Physiotherapy; Socioeconomic factors; Health inequity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the pre-referral history of low back pain patients referred to a spine clinic in a Danish hospital. It found that one third of the patients had not received an adequate course of treatment in primary care before referral. Unemployment and lack of health insurance were associated with a higher likelihood of not receiving appropriate treatment. Therefore, reevaluating the compensation structure for back pain patients is necessary to address health inequality in low back pain management.
BackgroundThe pre-referral history of patients with low back pain referred to secondary care is poorly documented, and it is unclear whether it complies with clinical guideline recommendations; specifically, whether they have received appropriate treatment in primary care. This study describes the patient population referred to a spine clinic at a Danish hospital and investigates whether they have received an adequate course of treatment in primary care before referral. Furthermore, a possible association between primary care treatment and socioeconomic factors is estimated.MethodsWe examined self-reported data from 1035 patients with low back pain of at least eight weeks duration referred to secondary care at a medical spine clinic using a cross-sectional design. As an approximation to national clinical guidelines, the definition of an adequate course of treatment in primary care was at least five visits to a physiotherapist or chiropractor prior to referral.ResultsPatients were on average 53 years old, and 56% were women. The average Oswestry Disability Index score was 36, indicating a moderate level of disability. Nearly half of the patients reported pain for over a year, and 75% reported pain below knee level.Prior to referral, 33% of the patients had not received an adequate course of treatment in primary care. Based on multiple logistic regression with the three socioeconomic variables, age and sex in the model, those who were unemployed had an odds ratio of 2.35 (1.15-4.79) for not receiving appropriate treatment compared to employed patients. Similarly, the odds ratio for patients without vs. with health insurance was 1.71 (1.17-2.50). No significant association was observed with length of education.ResultsPatients were on average 53 years old, and 56% were women. The average Oswestry Disability Index score was 36, indicating a moderate level of disability. Nearly half of the patients reported pain for over a year, and 75% reported pain below knee level.Prior to referral, 33% of the patients had not received an adequate course of treatment in primary care. Based on multiple logistic regression with the three socioeconomic variables, age and sex in the model, those who were unemployed had an odds ratio of 2.35 (1.15-4.79) for not receiving appropriate treatment compared to employed patients. Similarly, the odds ratio for patients without vs. with health insurance was 1.71 (1.17-2.50). No significant association was observed with length of education.ConclusionsDespite national clinical guidelines recommending management for low back pain in primary care, one third of the patients had not received an adequate course of treatment before referral to secondary care. Moreover, the high probability of not having received recommended treatment for patients who were unemployed or lacked health insurance indicates an economic obstacle to adequate care. Therefore, reconsidering the compensation structure for the treatment of back pain patients is imperative to mitigate health inequality within low back pain management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available