GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 328, No. 23 ( 2022-12-20), p. 2334-
    Abstract: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months’ duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst] ; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were −5.8 (95% CI, −7.7 to −3.9; P   & amp;lt; .001) for ICE and −4.3 (95% CI, −5.9 to −2.6; P   & amp;lt; .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were −$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P  = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P   & amp;lt; .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2958-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2018410-4
    SSG: 5,21
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 23, No. 1 ( 2023-08-03)
    Abstract: Prediction calculators can help set outcomes expectations following orthopaedic surgery, however effective implementation strategies for these tools are unknown. This study evaluated provider and patient perspectives on clinical implementation of web-based prediction calculators developed using national prospective spine surgery registry data from the Quality Outcomes Database. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews in two health systems, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Duke University Health System (DUHS) of orthopedic and neurosurgery health care providers (VUMC: n = 19; DUHS: n = 6), health care administrators (VUMC: n = 9; DUHS: n = 9), and patients undergoing elective spine surgery (VUMC: n = 16). Qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data, with a focus on end-user perspectives regarding clinical implementation of web-based prediction tools. Results Health care providers, administrators and patients overwhelmingly supported the use of the calculators to help set realistic expectations for surgical outcomes. Some clinicians had questions about the validity and applicability of the calculators in their patient population. A consensus was that the calculators needed seamless integration into clinical workflows, but there was little agreement on best methods for selecting which patients to complete the calculators, timing, and mode of completion. Many interviewees expressed concerns that calculator results could influence payers, or expose risk of liability. Few patients expressed concerns over additional survey burden if they understood that the information would directly inform their care. Conclusions Interviewees had a largely positive opinion of the calculators, believing they could aid in discussions about expectations for pain and functional recovery after spine surgery. No single implementation strategy is likely to be successful, and strategies vary, even within the same healthcare system. Patients should be well-informed of how responses will be used to deliver better care, and concerns over how the calculators could impact payment and liability should be addressed prior to use. Future research is necessary to determine whether use of calculators improves management and outcomes for people seeking a surgical consult for spine pain.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1472-6947
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2046490-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Elsevier BV, Vol. 111 ( 2021-12), p. 106602-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1551-7144
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2176813-4
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 10, No. 6 ( 2022-06-01), p. 232596712210984-
    Abstract: The Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sports (SPORTS) score is a single-item scale that measures athletes' ability to return to their preinjury sport based on effort and performance. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the SPORTS score and a modified score within the first year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The modified version replaced “same sport” with “any sport” in the answer choices. It was hypothesized that both versions of the SPORTS score would have acceptable floor and ceiling effects and internal responsiveness, moderate convergent validity, and excellent test-retest reliability. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients were recruited preoperatively from 2 academic medical centers. The authors collected responses to the 1-item SPORTS scores at 6 and 12 months after ACLR and the Tegner activity scale, Lysholm knee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–sport/recreation subscale, and Marx activity rating scale preoperatively and 6 and 12 months after ACLR. Ceiling and floor effects and responsiveness were assessed using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations, respectively, at both follow-up time points. Spearman correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to examine convergent validity and test-retest reliability, respectively. Results: Follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 100% and 99%, respectively. Test-retest follow-up was 77%. Floor effects for the SPORTS scores were not observed, while ceiling effects at 12 months ranged from 38% to 40%. Cross-tabulation of the SPORTS scores showed that 64% to 66% of patients reported a change in their score from 6 to 12 months, with significant differences noted between the proportions that improved versus worsened for return to any sport. Convergent validity was observed at 6 and 12 months via moderate correlations with the Tegner, Lysholm, KOOS–sport/recreation, and Marx scores ( r = 0.31 to 0.47). Fair to good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.58 and 0.60) was found at 12 months after ACLR. Conclusion: The SPORTS score appears to be a reliable, responsive, and valid 1-item scale that can be used during the first year after ACLR. No differences in psychometric properties were found between the SPORTS score and the modified version.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2325-9671 , 2325-9671
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2706251-X
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...