What factors explain the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients referred with low back pain; a multilevel analysis

BACKGROUND: It is well-known that the number of physical therapy treatment sessions varies over treatment episodes. Information is lacking, however, on the source and explanation of the variation. The purposes of the current study are: 1) to determine how the variance in the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands is distributed over patient level, therapist level and practice level; and 2) to determine the factors that explain the variance. METHODS: Data were used from a national registration network on physical therapy. Our database contained information on 1,733 patients referred with LBP, treated by 97 therapists working in 41 practices. The variation in the number of treatment sessions was investigated by means of multilevel regression analyses. RESULTS: Eighty-eight per cent of the variation in the number of treatment sessions for patients with LBP is located at patient level and seven per cent is located at practice level. It was possible to explain thirteen per cent of all variance. The duration of the complaint, prior therapy, and the patients' age and gender in particular are related to the number of physical therapy treatment sessions. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients with LBP mainly depends on patient characteristics. More variation needs to be explained, however, to improve the transparency of care. Future research should examine the contribution of psychosocial factors, baseline disability, and the ability to learn motor behavior as possible factors in the variation in treatment sessions

Prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in men and women with type 2 diabetes

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is associated with the development of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). T2D patients with LVSD are at higher risk of mortality and morbidity than patients without LVSD, while progression of LVSD can be delayed or halted by the use of proven therapies. As estimates of the prevalence are scarce and vary considerably, the aim of this study was to retrieve summary estimates of the prevalence of LVSD/HFrEF in T2D and to see if there were any sex differences. Methods: A systematic search of Medline and Embase was performed to extract the prevalence of LVSD/HFrEF in T2D (17 studies, mean age 50.1 ± 6.3 to 71.5 ± 7.5), which were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: The pooled prevalence of LVSD was higher in hospital populations (13 studies, n = 5835, 18% [95% CI 17-19%]), than in the general population (4 studies, n = 1707, 2% [95% CI 2-3%]). Seven studies in total reported sex-stratified prevalence estimates (men: 7% [95% CI 5-8%] vs. women: 1.3% [95% CI 0.0.2.2%]). The prevalence of HFrEF was available in one general population study (5.8% [95% CI 3.7.6%], men: 6.8% vs. women: 3.0%). Conclusions: The summary prevalence of LVSD is higher among T2D patients from a hospital setting compared with from the general population, with a higher prevalence in men than in women in both settings. The prevalence of HFrEF among T2D in the population was only assessed in a single study and again was higher among men than women

Factors associated with physiotherapy provision in a population of elderly nursing home residents; a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Although physiotherapy (PT) plays an important role in improving activities of daily living (ADL functioning) and discharge rates, it is unclear how many nursing home residents receive treatment. Furthermore, there is a lack of insight into the determinants that influence the decision for treatment. In this study, we investigated how many nursing home residents receive PT. In addition, we analysed the factors that contribute to the variation in the provision of PT both between nursing homes and between residents. METHODS: A random sample of 600 elderly residents was taken from a random sample of 15 nursing homes. Residents had to be admitted for rehabilitation or for long-term care. Data were collected through interviews with the nursing home physician and the physiotherapist. Multilevel analysis was used to define the variation in the provision of PT and the factors that are associated with the question whether a resident receives PT or not. Furthermore the amount of PT provided was analysed and the factors that are associated with this. RESULTS: On average 69% of the residents received PT. The percentage of patients receiving treatment differed significantly across nursing homes, and especially the number of physiotherapists available, explained this difference between nursing homes. Residents admitted to a somatic ward for rehabilitation, and male residents in general, were most likely to receive PT. Residents who were treated by a physiotherapist received on average 55 minutes (sd 41) treatment a week. Residents admitted for rehabilitation received more PT a week, as were residents with a status after a total hip replacement. CONCLUSION: PT is most likely to be provided to residents on a somatic ward, recently admitted for rehabilitation to a nursing home, which has a relatively large number of physiotherapists. This suggests a potential under-use of PT for long-term residents with cognitive problems. It is recommended that physiotherapists reconsider which residents may benefit from treatment. This may require a shift in the focus of physiotherapists from 'recovery and discharge' to 'quality of life and well-being'