Background
National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP, and the demographic, health-related, and care-seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the past 14 years.
Methods
A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina (NC) households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. 4,437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5,357 households were contacted in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized, adults 21 years and older with chronic, impairing (pain>3 months that limits daily activities). These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and care-seeking.
Results
The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14 year interval, from 3.9% (95% CI:3.4–4.4) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI:9.3–11.0) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in males and females, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI:65.2–79.8) to 84.0% (95% CI:80.8–86.8), while mean number of visits to all providers were similar (19.5 vs 19.4).
Conclusions
The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in NC, with continuing high levels of disability and care utilization. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past two decades may be related to this rising prevalence..
Among patients with acute low back pain, the outcomes are similar whether they receive care from primary care practitioners, chiropractors, or orthopedic surgeons. Primary care practitioners provide the least expensive care for acute low back pain.
Background
Feeding problems are common in dementia, and decision-makers have limited understanding of treatment options.
Objectives
To test whether a decision aid improves quality of decision-making about feeding options in advanced dementia.
Design
Cluster randomized controlled trial.
Setting
24 nursing homes in North Carolina
Participants
Residents with advanced dementia and feeding problems and their surrogates.
Intervention
Intervention surrogates received an audio or print decision aid on feeding options in advanced dementia. Controls received usual care.
Measurements
Primary outcome was the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 1–5) measured at 3 months; other main outcomes were surrogate knowledge, frequency of communication with providers, and feeding treatment use.
Results
256 residents and surrogate decision-makers were recruited. Residents’ average age was 85; 67% were Caucasian and 79% were women. Surrogates’ average age was 59; 67% were Caucasian, and 70% were residents’ children. The intervention improved knowledge scores (16.8 vs 15.1, p<0.001). After 3 months, intervention surrogates had lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores than controls (1.65 vs. 1.90, p<0.001) and more often discussed feeding options with a health care provider (46% vs. 33%, p=0.04). Residents in the intervention group were more likely to receive a dysphagia diet (89% vs.76%, p=0.04), and showed a trend toward increased staff eating assistance (20% vs.10%, p=0.08). Tube feeding was rare in both groups even after 9 months (1 intervention vs. 3 control, p=0.34).
Limitations
Cluster randomization was necessary to avoid contamination, but limits blinding and may introduce bias by site effect.
Conclusion
A decision aid about feeding options in advanced dementia reduced decisional conflict for surrogates and increased their knowledge and communication about feeding options with providers.
A large number of studies include diagnostic and supportive testing data. However, these studies do not define clear indications for such testing or the impact of testing on relevant patient outcomes. Given the high prevalence of this disease, prospective studies of the utility of such testing are needed and feasible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.