Implementation of Evidence-based Guidelines for Assessment and Counseling of Patients With Neck and Back Pain in Health Care Centers

Backpain, Neck and Shoulder Pain

community health centers, eveidence-based practice, manual therapy, interprofessionalrealtions, low backpain, neckpain

The overall aim is to investigate the health outcomes and consequences, from an individual and a societal perspective, of adding licensed Manual Therapists as first-contact healthcare providers in Primary Health Care centers to triage (not treat) patients seeking care for Neck and Back Pain. A hybrid, quasi-experimental Target Trial Emulation design employing mixed methods contextualized to participating Primary Health Care centers will be used. Neck and Back Pain patients with a physician's appointment at a participating Primary Health Care center will be included and followed one year; * 300 patients with care as usual who see their physician (control group), * 300 patients who see a licensed naprapath/chiropractor for an initial evidence-based assessment/screening before the physicians' visit. Patient outcomes include recovery, function and work ability, as well as health economy are compared between the groups.

Many visits to primary healthcare centers (PHCs) concern neck and/or back pain (NBP). Evidence-based clinical guidelines are often not considered, and low-value care, including unnecessary imaging, prescription of medications, injections, unnecessary surgery, and sick leave, is instead used, leading to poor patient outcomes and high societal costs. The primary healthcare system is severely pressured, and there is a need to reduce the burden of this common patient group on the physicians. Licensed naprapaths and chiropractors (manual therapist (MT)) have been part of Swedish healthcare for \>30 years, but their competence is seldom utilized at PHCs. MT as first-contact providers within PHCs may reduce the burden of NBP in the population by improving adherence to evidence-based guidelines, reducing the workload on physicians, minimizing unnecessary healthcare procedures, and reducing expenditure. Patient reported outcomes include pain, function, work ability and satisfaction, and health economy are based on sickness absence, care consumption, referrals and pharmaceutical use will be compared between groups. Our hypothesis is that the intervention will lead to symptom improvement and work ability, as well as decrease the risk of sickness absence and low value care (sickness absence, care consumption, referrals and pharmaceutical use) for these patients. Thus, we hypothesize positive consequences for the individual and for society. Advanced epidemiological/statistical methods address confounding when comparing the groups. Physicians' and patients' experiences, facilitators, and barriers to the implementation of the intervention will also be studied.

No related papers found yet.

Sweden