Patient and Provider Characteristics Associated with Receipt of Image-guided Interventions for Low Back Pain.

Ghazaleh Safazadeh, Ruth C Carlos, Lubdha M Shah, Gregory J Stoddard, Rebecca Steed, Troy A Hutchins, Miriam E Peckham
{"title":"Patient and Provider Characteristics Associated with Receipt of Image-guided Interventions for Low Back Pain.","authors":"Ghazaleh Safazadeh, Ruth C Carlos, Lubdha M Shah, Gregory J Stoddard, Rebecca Steed, Troy A Hutchins, Miriam E Peckham","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Low back pain commonly causes disability, often managed with conservative image-guided interventions before surgery. Research has documented racial disparities with these and other non-pharmacologic treatments. We posited that individual chart reviews may provide insight into the disparity of care types through documented patient/provider discussions and their effect on treatment plans.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis involved adults newly diagnosed with low back pain within a large Utah healthcare system. The primary outcome was the association of provider and patient variables with the frequency of image-guided interventions received within one year of low back pain diagnosis between White/non-Hispanic and underrepresented minority cohorts. Secondary outcomes were receipt of additional treatment types (physical therapy and lumbar surgery), time to any treatment, time to image-guided intervention, and discussion/receipt of therapy between cohorts within one year of diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 812 subjects (59% White/non-Hispanic and 41% underrepresented minority), more White/non-Hispanic patients had at least one image-guided intervention within 12 months compared to underrepresented minority patients (7.2% vs. 12.5%, p = .001), despite underrepresented minorities having higher presenting pain scores (64.5% vs. 49.3%; pain intensity > 5, p = .001). Underrepresented minority patients more often saw generalists (71.7% vs. 52.6%, p < .001) and advanced practice clinician providers (33.6% vs. 25.6%, p < .02) compared to the White/non-Hispanic cohort. Both cohorts were referred to a specialist at the same rate (17.7% vs. 19.8%, p = .20); however, referral completion was noted less often (60.4% vs. 77.7%, p = .02) and took longer to complete in underrepresented minority patients (54 vs. 27.5; mean day, p = .003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Underrepresented minority patients had more severe low back pain on presentation but received image-guided interventions less often than White/non-Hispanic patients. While there may be systematic provider barriers, such as absence of a decision-making discussion, data do not support provider bias as a contributing factor to differences in receipt of image-guided interventions. Non-medical barriers to referral completion should be further investigated to improve access to more specialized low back pain care.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>IGI = image-guided intervention; LBP = low back pain; URM = underrepresented minority; WNH = White/non-Hispanic; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Low back pain commonly causes disability, often managed with conservative image-guided interventions before surgery. Research has documented racial disparities with these and other non-pharmacologic treatments. We posited that individual chart reviews may provide insight into the disparity of care types through documented patient/provider discussions and their effect on treatment plans.

Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis involved adults newly diagnosed with low back pain within a large Utah healthcare system. The primary outcome was the association of provider and patient variables with the frequency of image-guided interventions received within one year of low back pain diagnosis between White/non-Hispanic and underrepresented minority cohorts. Secondary outcomes were receipt of additional treatment types (physical therapy and lumbar surgery), time to any treatment, time to image-guided intervention, and discussion/receipt of therapy between cohorts within one year of diagnosis.

Results: Among 812 subjects (59% White/non-Hispanic and 41% underrepresented minority), more White/non-Hispanic patients had at least one image-guided intervention within 12 months compared to underrepresented minority patients (7.2% vs. 12.5%, p = .001), despite underrepresented minorities having higher presenting pain scores (64.5% vs. 49.3%; pain intensity > 5, p = .001). Underrepresented minority patients more often saw generalists (71.7% vs. 52.6%, p < .001) and advanced practice clinician providers (33.6% vs. 25.6%, p < .02) compared to the White/non-Hispanic cohort. Both cohorts were referred to a specialist at the same rate (17.7% vs. 19.8%, p = .20); however, referral completion was noted less often (60.4% vs. 77.7%, p = .02) and took longer to complete in underrepresented minority patients (54 vs. 27.5; mean day, p = .003).

Conclusions: Underrepresented minority patients had more severe low back pain on presentation but received image-guided interventions less often than White/non-Hispanic patients. While there may be systematic provider barriers, such as absence of a decision-making discussion, data do not support provider bias as a contributing factor to differences in receipt of image-guided interventions. Non-medical barriers to referral completion should be further investigated to improve access to more specialized low back pain care.

Abbreviations: IGI = image-guided intervention; LBP = low back pain; URM = underrepresented minority; WNH = White/non-Hispanic; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受影像引导下腰背痛干预治疗的患者和提供者特征。
背景和目的:腰背痛通常会导致残疾,通常在手术前采用图像引导下的保守治疗。研究记录了这些治疗方法和其他非药物治疗方法的种族差异。我们认为,通过记录患者/医疗服务提供者之间的讨论及其对治疗计划的影响,个人病历审查可以帮助我们深入了解护理类型的差异:这项回顾性分析涉及犹他州大型医疗系统中新诊断出腰背痛的成年人。主要结果是医疗服务提供者和患者变量与白人/非西班牙裔和代表性不足的少数民族群体在腰背痛确诊后一年内接受图像引导干预的频率之间的关系。次要结果包括接受其他治疗类型(物理治疗和腰椎手术)的情况、接受任何治疗的时间、接受图像引导干预的时间以及在诊断后一年内各组群之间讨论/接受治疗的情况:在812名受试者中(59%为白人/非西班牙裔,41%为代表性不足的少数族裔),与代表性不足的少数族裔患者相比,更多的白人/非西班牙裔患者在12个月内至少接受过一次图像引导干预(7.2% vs. 12.5%,p = .001),尽管代表性不足的少数族裔患者的疼痛评分更高(64.5% vs. 49.3%;疼痛强度大于5,p = .001)。与白人/非西班牙裔队列相比,代表性不足的少数族裔患者更常去看全科医生(71.7% 对 52.6%,p < .001)和高级临床医生(33.6% 对 25.6%,p < .02)。两组患者被转诊至专科医生的比例相同(17.7% vs. 19.8%,p = .20);但少数族裔患者完成转诊的比例较低(60.4% vs. 77.7%,p = .02),完成转诊的时间也较长(54 vs. 27.5;平均一天,p = .003):结论:与白人/非西班牙裔患者相比,代表性不足的少数族裔患者在就诊时腰背痛更严重,但接受影像引导干预的频率却更低。虽然可能存在系统性的医疗服务提供者障碍,如缺乏决策讨论,但数据并不支持医疗服务提供者的偏见是导致接受图像引导干预的差异的因素。应进一步调查完成转诊的非医疗障碍,以改善获得更专业腰背痛治疗的机会:缩写:IGI = 影像引导干预;LBP = 腰背痛;URM = 代表性不足的少数民族;WNH = 白人/非西班牙裔;ICC = 类内相关系数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quantification of Infarct Core Volume in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Using Cerebral Metabolic Rate of Oxygen in CT Perfusion. Cerebrovascular Anomalies in the Fetus. Imaging Findings in Giant Cell Arteritis: Don't Turn a Blind Eye to the Obvious! An Extended Follow-up of Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation. Prevalence of Rathke Cleft and Other Incidental Pituitary Gland Findings on Contrast-Enhanced 3D Fat-Saturated T1 MPRAGE at 7T MRI.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1