ICF-Based Assessment of Functioning in Daily Clinical Practice. A Promising Direction Toward Patient-Centred Care in Patients With Low Back Pain

Background: Patient-centred care has received increased attention in recent years. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and shared decision-making are key components of Patient-Centred care. Low back pain (LBP) is a complex symptom affected by multiple, interacting factors. Therefore, evidence strongly recommend a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach in the assessment and management. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provide a biopsychosocial model for describing functioning and disability. ICF is widely acknowledged, but implementation into clinical practice is lacking. To support the use of a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach in daily clinical practice among patients with LBP we developed a practice-friendly tool based on ICF; the LBP assessment tool.Objective: To compare an ICF-based assessment facilitated by the LBP assessment tool with standard care in terms of the use of PROs and shared decision-making in order to promote patient-centred care in patients with LBP.Methods: A non-randomized controlled design was used. Eligible patients were allocated to one of two groups: the ICF group, assessed with the LBP assessment tool or the control group, assessed with a conventional LBP assessment. Primary outcome includes use of PROs. Secondary outcomes include use of a graphical overview displaying the patient profile and shared decision-making. A patient evaluation questionnaire was used to collect data.Results: Seven hundred ten patients were assessed for eligibility of whom 531 were allocated to the ICF group (n = 299) or the control group (n = 232). A significantly higher use of PRO data (p < 0.00) and the patient profile (p < 0.00) was reported in favor of the ICF group. Patients in the ICF group also experienced being more involved in decision-making (p = 0.01).Conclusions: This study showed that a functioning assessment, by means of the LBP assessment tool, increased use of PROs and shared decision-making when compared to a conventional LBP assessment. Additionally, this study demonstrated that routine use of ICF-based PRO data and shared decision-making promoted patient-centred care in patients with LBP. The LBP assessment tool may be a strong candidate for a user-friendly ICF-based tool with the potential to support health professionals in a shift toward a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach to patients with LBP

Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a multifaceted intervention directed at general practitioners on six year mortality, morbidity, and risk factors of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, controlled trial with randomisation of practices to structured personal care or routine care; analysis after 6 years. SETTING: 311 Danish practices with 474 general practitioners (243 in intervention group and 231 in comparison group). PARTICIPANTS: 874 (90.1%) of 970 patients aged ⩾40 years who had diabetes diagnosed in 1989-91 and survived until six year follow up. INTERVENTION: Regular follow up and individualised goal setting supported by prompting of doctors, clinical guidelines, feedback, and continuing medical education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predefined clinical non-fatal outcomes, overall mortality, risk factors, and weight. RESULTS: Predefined non-fatal outcomes and mortality were the same in both groups. The following risk factor levels were lower for intervention patients than for comparison patients (median values): fasting plasma glucose concentration (7.9 v 8.7 mmol/l, P=0.0007), glycated haemoglobin (8.5% v 9.0%, P<0.0001; reference range 5.4-7.4%), systolic blood pressure (145 v 150 mm Hg, P=0.0004), and cholesterol concentration (6.0 v 6.1 mmol/l, P=0.029, adjusted for baseline concentration). Both groups had lost weight since diagnosis (2.6 v 2.0 kg). Metformin was the only drug used more frequently in the intervention group (24% (110/459) v 15% (61/415)).Intervention doctors arranged more follow up consultations, referred fewer patients to diabetes clinics, and set more optimistic goals. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, individualised goals with educational and surveillance support may for at least six years bring risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes to a level that has been shown to reduce diabetic complications but without weight gain