Feasibility of the STarT back screening tool in chiropractic clinics: a cross-sectional study of patients with low back pain

The STarT back screening tool (SBT) allocates low back pain (LBP) patients into three risk groups and is intended to assist clinicians in their decisions about choice of treatment. The tool consists of domains from larger questionnaires that previously have been shown to be predictive of non-recovery from LBP. This study was performed to describe the distribution of depression, fear avoidance and catastrophising in relation to the SBT risk groups. A total of 475 primary care patients were included from 19 chiropractic clinics. They completed the SBT, the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Associations between the continuous scores of the psychological questionnaires and the SBT were tested by means of linear regression, and the diagnostic performance of the SBT in relation to the other questionnaires was described in terms of sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios

Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: An observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study is part of a nationwide evaluation of complementary medicine in Switzerland (Programme Evaluation of Complementary Medicine PEK) and was funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. The main objective of this study is to investigate patient satisfaction and perception of side effects in homeopathy compared with conventional care in a primary care setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined data from two cross-sectional studies conducted in 2002–2003. The first study was a physician questionnaire assessing structural characteristics of practices. The second study was conducted on four given days during a 12-month period in 2002/2003 using a physician and patient questionnaire at consultation and a patient questionnaire mailed to the patient one month later (including Europep questionnaire).</p> <p>The participating physicians were all trained and licensed in conventional medicine. An additional qualification was required for medical doctors providing homeopathy (membership in the Swiss association of homeopathic physicians SVHA).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 6778 adult patients received the questionnaire and 3126 responded (46.1%). Statistically significant differences were found with respect to health status (higher percentage of chronic and severe conditions in the homeopathic group), perception of side effects (higher percentage of reported side effects in the conventional group) and patient satisfaction (higher percentage of satisfied patients in the homeopathic group).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Overall patient satisfaction was significantly higher in homeopathic than in conventional care. Homeopathic treatments were perceived as a low-risk therapy with two to three times fewer side effects than conventional care</p

Health behaviors and risk factors in those who use complementary and alternative medicine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveys have generally found that individuals more likely to use complementary and alternative medicine are female, live in the western United States, are likely to have a health complaint, and have a higher socioeconomic status than do nonusers. What is not known is the extent to which those who use complementary and alternative medicine also engage in positive health behaviors, such as smoking cessation or increased physical activity and/or exhibit fewer health risk factors such as obesity. This has been identified as a key research question in a recent Institute of Medicine report. In the present study we sought to determine whether the use of complementary and alternative medicine is associated with health behaviors or risk factors known to impact on health status.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The current study is a cross-sectional regression analysis using data from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey. Data were collected in-person from 31,044 adults throughout the 50 states and the District of Columbia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After controlling for a range of other factors, we found that engaging in leisure-time physical activity, having consumed alcohol in one's life but not being a current heavy drinker, and being a former smoker are independently associated with the use of CAM. Obese individuals are slightly less likely to use CAM than individuals with a healthy body-mass index. No significant associations were observed between receipt of an influenza vaccine and CAM use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Those engaging in positive health behaviors and exhibiting fewer health risk factors are more likely to use CAM than those who forgo positive health behaviors or exhibit more health risk factors. The fact that users of CAM tend to pursue generally healthy lifestyles suggests that they may be open to additional recommendations toward optimizing their health.</p

Effects of work ability and health promoting interventions for women with musculoskeletal symptoms: A 9-month prospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Women working in the public human service sector in 'overstrained' situations run the risk of musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term sick leave. In order to maintain the level of health and work ability and strengthen the potential resources for health, it is important that employees gain greater control over decisions and actions affecting their health – a process associated with the concept of self-efficacy. The aim of this study was to describe the effects of a self-efficacy intervention and an ergonomic education intervention for women with musculoskeletal symptoms, employed in the public sector.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The design of the study was a 9-month prospective study describing the effects of two interventions, a comprehensive self-efficacy intervention (<it>n </it>= 21) and an ergonomic education intervention (<it>n </it>= 21). Data were obtained by a self-report questionnaire on health- and work ability-related factors at baseline, and at ten weeks and nine months follow-up. Within-group differences over time were analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over the time period studied there were small magnitudes of improvements within each group. Within the self-efficacy intervention group positive effects in perceived work ability were shown. The ergonomic education group showed increased positive beliefs about future work ability and a more frequent use of pain coping strategies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both interventions showed positive effects on women with musculoskeletal symptoms, but in different ways. Future research in this area should tailor interventions to participants' motivation and readiness to change.</p

Translation and discriminative validation of the STarT Back Screening Tool into Danish

Objective: The STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT) is a nine-item patient self-report questionnaire that classifies low back pain patients into low, medium or high risk of poor prognosis. When assessed by GPs, these subgroups can be used to triage patients into different evidence-based treatment pathways. The objective of this study was to translate the English version of STarT into Danish (STarTdk) and test its discriminative validity. Methods: Translation was performed using methods recommended by best practice translation guidelines. Psychometric validation of the discriminative ability was performed using the Area Under the Curve statistic. The Area Under the Curve was calculated for seven of the nine items where reference standards were available and compared with the original English version. Results: The linguistic translation required minor semantic and layout alterations. The response options were changed from ''agree/disagree'' to ''yes/no'' for four items. No patients reported item ambiguity using the final version. The Area Under the Curve ranged from 0.735 to 0.855 (CI95% 0.678-0.897) in a Danish cohort (n = 311) and 0.840 to 0.925 (CI95% 0.772-0.948) in the original English cohort (n = 500). On four items, the Area Under the Curve was statistically similar between the two cohorts but lower on three psychosocial sub-score items. Conclusions: The translation was linguistically accurate and the discriminative validity broadly similar, with some differences probably due to differences in severity between the cohorts and the Danish reference standard questionnaires not having been validated. Despite those differences, we believe the results show that the STarT-dk has sufficient patient acceptability and discriminative validity to be used in Denmark