text: “Yes” responses were followed by questions regarding 
  the quantity of services utilized (i.e. number of opioid 
  painkillers, number of diagnostic tests or number of 
  emergency room visits). All utilization questions were 
  answered on a categorical scale (0, 1, 2–5, 5–10, or > 10) 
  indicating the quantity of a particular service received 
  during the applicable follow-up timeframe. At 6-month 
  follow-up, study participants reported their use of ser- 
  vices for the previous 2 months, allowing a timeframe of 
  4 months from initial evaluation for them to complete 
  physical therapy. At 12-month follow-up, study partici- 
  pants reported their use of services over the previous 
  6 months since their last survey. This method provided 
  an 8-month overall follow-up period after physical ther- 
  apy and two follow-up points were included to minimize 
  recall bias. 
  
  Intervention 
  All physical therapy treatment was provided at the discre- 
  tion of the treating clinician. The duration of the episode, 
  the number of physical therapy visits, and individual treat- 
  ment parameters (type, 
  frequency) 
  were not collected for pragmatic reasons. In particular, 
  clinical and utilization data are not commonly collected in 
  a standardized format and would need to be extracted 
  from disparate medical record databases across different 
  health care systems to assess treatment. This was not feas- 
  ible given the scope and design of 
  this multisite 
  survey-based study. However, instead of coding treatment 
  type we included baseline-to-4 week change in pain inten- 
  sity, region-specific disability, and OSPRO-YF scores in 
  each model as measures of treatment response. In that 
  manner the individual effects of the treatment received 
  were included in the predictive models, without directly 
  accounting for the type of treatment. 
  
  intensity, duration, 