Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: a randomised trial. Effect of distributing an evidence-based guideline for prevention of osteoporosis on health education programs in municipal health centers: a randomized controlled trial. Electronic medical record reminder improves osteoporosis management after a fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. Effects of an exercise and manual therapy program on physical impairments, function and quality-of-life in people with osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a randomised, single-blind controlled pilot trial. Multifaceted intervention to improve rheumatologists' management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. An outreach program improved osteoporosis management after a fracture. Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain. An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in nonspecific low-back pain. Improving care of patients at-risk for osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. The effect of restricting the indications for lumbosacral spine radiography in patients with acute back symptoms. Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss by a low-magnitude, high-frequency mechanical stimuli: a clinical trial assessing compliance, efficacy, and safety. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Interventions to improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture. A prospective, randomized trial. Can evidence change the rate of back surgery? A randomized trial of community-based education. Can just-in-time, evidence-based "reminders" improve pain management among home health care nurses and their patients? Osteoporosis improvement: a large-scale randomized controlled trial of patient and primary care physician education. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Improving osteoporosis screening: results from a randomized cluster trial. Challenges in improving the quality of osteoporosis care for long-term glucocorticoid users: a prospective randomized trial. General practitioners' use of magnetic resonance imaging: an open randomized trial comparing telephone and written requests and an open randomized controlled trial of different methods of local guideline dissemination. The role of radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration: a randomised (unblinded) controlled trial. Efficacy of home-based exercise for improving quality of life among elderly women with symptomatic osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures. A randomised controlled trial of postural interventions for prevention of musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users. Efficacy of treating low back pain and dysfunction secondary to osteoarthritis: chiropractic care compared with moist heat alone. Positive effects of physiotherapy on chronic pain and performance in osteoporosis. Effect of nursing assistance tools on preventing musculoskeletal pain among staff in schools for disabled children. A randomized controlled trial of two strategies to implement active sick leave for patients with low back pain.
Radiological tests are often used by general practitioners (GPs). These tests can be overused and contribute little to clinical management. We aimed to assess two methods of reducing GP requests for radiological tests in accordance with the UK Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on lumbar spine and knee radiographs.
                We assessed audit and feedback, and educational reminder messages in six radiology departments and 244 general practices that they served. The study was a before-and-after, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with a 232 factorial design. A random subset of GP patients' records were examined for concordance with the guidelines. The main outcome measure was number of radiograph requests per 1000 patients per year. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                The effect of educational reminder messages (ie, the change in request rate after intervention) was an absolute change of -1.53 (95% CI -2.5 to -0.57) for lumbar spine and of -1.61 (-2.6 to -0.62) for knee radiographs, both relative reductions of about 20%. The effect of audit and feedback was an absolute change of -0.07 (-1.3 to 0.9) for lumbar spine of 0.04 (-0.95 to 1.03) for knee radiograph requests, both relative reductions of about 1%. Concordance between groups did not differ significantly.
                6-monthly feedback of audit data is ineffective but the routine attachment of educational reminder messages to radiographs is effective and does not affect quality of referrals. Any department of radiology that handles referrals from primary care could deliver this intervention to good effect. Current health education programs for osteoporosis prevention are not strictly evidence-based. We assessed whether distribution of an evidence-based guideline improved such programs at municipal health centers.
                This randomized controlled trial evaluated 100 municipal health centers throughout Japan that were randomly selected from those that planned to revise osteoporosis prevention programs. The implementation status of educational items recommended by the guideline was assessed before and after the intervention by evaluators blinded to the allocation. After the pre-intervention assessment, centers were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to intervention and control groups by a minimization method defining region and city/town as stratification factors. Centers in the intervention group were given copies of the guideline; centers in the control group were instructed to use any information except the guideline. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
                The guideline was used by 50% of the intervention group. Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the evidence-based status of health education between the groups. The post-intervention assessment showed that the implementation rates of health education on dietary calcium intake for postmenopausal women and exercise for elderly persons were higher in the intervention group. Specific advice on intakes of calcium and vitamin D and exercise became more evidence-based in the intervention group.
                The findings suggest that the guideline helped healthcare professionals to improve health education programs by making them more evidence-based. However, the improvements seemed to be limited to items that the professionals felt prepared to improve. Osteoporosis treatment rates after a fracture are low. This study evaluated methods to increase guideline-recommended osteoporosis care postfracture.
                Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or one of two interventions. Analysis of primary outcomes used electronic data and linear regression.
                A Pacific Northwest nonprofit health maintenance organization.
                Female patients aged 50 to 89 who suffered a fracture in 1999 and had not received bone mineral density (BMD) measurement or medication for osteoporosis (n=311) and their primary care providers (n=159).
                Patient-specific clinical guideline advice to the primary care provider delivered by electronic medical record (EMR) message or electronic reminder to the provider plus an educational letter mailed to the patient.
                BMD measurement and osteoporosis medication.
                At 6 months, provider reminder resulted in 51.5% of patients receiving BMD measurement or osteoporosis medication, provider reminder plus patient education resulted in 43.1%, and usual care resulted in 5.9% (P<.001). The effect of provider advice combined with patient education was not significantly different from provider advice alone (P=.88). Patients aged 60 to 69 were 18% (95% confidence interval=3-34) more likely to receive BMD measurement or an osteoporosis medication than those aged 80 to 89.
                Patient-specific postfracture advice to the provider through an EMR message significantly increased BMD measurement and osteoporosis medication. As EMRs become more widespread, this intervention could improve osteoporosis management for many postfracture patients. Future research should identify barriers to and facilitators of care for older, high-risk patients. This randomised, single-blind controlled pilot trial aimed to determine the effectiveness of a physiotherapy program, including exercise and manual therapy, in reducing impairments and improving physical function and health-related quality of life in people with a history of painful osteoporotic vertebral fracture.
                20 participants were randomly allocated to an intervention (n = 11) or control (n = 9) group. The intervention group attended individual sessions with an experienced clinician once a week for 10 weeks and performed daily home exercises with adherence monitored by a self-report diary. The control group received no treatment. Blinded assessment was conducted at baseline and 11 weeks. Questionnaires assessed self-reported changes in back pain, physical function, and health-related quality of life. Objective measures of thoracic kyphosis, back and shoulder muscle endurance (Timed Loaded Standing Test), and function (Timed Up and Go test) were also taken.
                Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed significant reductions in pain during movement (mean difference (95% CI) -1.8 (-3.5 to -0.1)) and at rest (-2.0 (-3.8 to -0.2)) and significantly greater improvements in Qualeffo physical function (-4.8 (-9.2 to -0.5)) and the Timed Loaded Standing test (46.7 (16.1 to 77.3) secs). For the perceived change in back pain over the 10 weeks, 9/11 (82%) participants in the intervention group rated their pain as 'much better' compared with only 1/9 (11%) participants in the control group.
                Despite the modest sample size, these results support the benefits of exercise and manual therapy in the clinical management of patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures, but need to be confirmed in a larger sample.
                NCT00638768. To assess the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
                Of 21 rheumatologists, 11 were randomly assigned to a 3-part intervention consisting of a lecture and discussion regarding optimal management of GIOP, a confidential doctor-specific audit regarding management of GIOP, and a reminder mailing including concise pharmacologic recommendations. The remaining 10 rheumatologists received no special education. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking oral glucocorticoids seen in the 2 months after the intervention were followed for 6 months. Medical records were assessed to determine the proportion undergoing bone mineral density testing or receiving pharmacologic interventions for GIOP during the 6 months before and 6 months after the intervention.
                There were 373 patients with RA taking oral glucocorticoids whose records were assessed. Patients in both arms of the trial were similar with respect to age, sex, menopausal status, glucocorticoid dosage and duration, duration of RA, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and the proportion with comorbid conditions. At baseline, there was no significant difference between the patients with respect to osteoporosis medication use (intervention 32% versus control 34%) or bone densitometry use (intervention 9% versus control 5%). After the intervention and a 6-month followup period, there were no differences in treatment (intervention 33% versus control 38%) or bone densitometry use (intervention 8% versus control 8%). Adjusting for patient and physician characteristics did not significantly change these results.
                A multifaceted intervention for GIOP, including doctor education, practice audit, and treatment suggestions, had no significant benefit on testing or treatment by rheumatologists over a 6-month followup period. Other intervention approaches need to be tested. This longitudinal retrospective cohort study evaluated implementation of an intervention to improve management of osteoporosis after a fracture in a nonprofit group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) in the U.S. Pacific Northwest with 480,000 members and electronic medical record data. Participants were female HMO members aged 67 and older who sustained a qualifying clinical fracture(s) and who had not received a bone mineral density (BMD) measurement or osteoporosis treatment in the 12 months before the fracture (N=3,588). Phase 1 included outreach to clinicians and patients; Phase 2 added clinician and staff incentives. Primary outcome was "osteoporosis management"--receipt of a BMD measurement or osteoporosis medication in the 6 months after an index fracture. Before the intervention, 13.4% (95% confidence interval (CI)=12.0-14.8%) of patients had received osteoporosis management, and the time trend was not significant. Post-intervention, the probability of osteoporosis management increased on average 3.1% (95% CI=2.6-3.5%) every 2 months throughout both study phases without a significant added improvement in Phase 2. Improvement varied according to clinic and was less likely for patients with dementia. Overall, the probability of osteoporosis management increased from the baseline level of 13.4% to 44.0% (95% CI=40.0-48.0%) by the end of the study period (20 months post-intervention). The study found that an outreach program to primary care providers and patients improved the management of osteoporosis after a fracture. If widely implemented, this intervention could substantially improve the secondary prevention of osteoporosis. More-individualized interventions may be necessary for high-risk subgroups. The effect of clinical guidelines on resource utilization for complex conditions with substantial barriers to clinician behavior change has not been well studied. We report the impact of a multifaceted guideline implementation intervention on primary care clinician utilization of radiologic and specialty services for the care of acute low back pain.
                Physician groups were randomized to receive guideline education and individual feedback, supporting patient education materials, both, or neither. The impact on guideline adherence and resource utilization was evaluated during the 12-month period before and after implementation.
                Fourteen physician groups with 120 primary care physician and associate practitioners from 2 group model HMO practices.
                Guideline implementation utilized an education/audit/feedback model with local peer opinion leaders. The patient education component included written and videotaped materials on the care of low back pain.
                The clinician intervention was associated with an absolute increase in guideline-consistent behavior of 5.4% in the intervention group versus a decline of 2.7% in the control group (P =.04). The patient education intervention produced no significant change in guideline-consistent behavior, but was poorly adopted. Patient characteristics including duration of pain, prior history of low back pain, and number of visits during the illness episode were strong predictors of service utilization and guideline-consistent behavior.
                Implementation of an education and feedback-supported acute low back pain care guideline for primary care clinicians was associated with an increase in guideline-consistent behavior. Patient education materials did not enhance guideline effectiveness. Implementation barriers could limit the utility of this approach in usual care settings. An open controlled pilot trial on nonspecific low-back pain sufferers demonstrated responsiveness to osteopathic manipulation of some patients presenting with pain durations of 14 to 28 days. No response was demonstrated in those with shorter episodes at presentation. The advantage to manipulated patients was maximal between 1 and 2 weeks after commencing treatment, but was not discernable after 4 weeks. The demonstration of a similar responsive stratum by other investigators, with both teams totally unaware of each other's work during data collection, suggests a high degree of reliability for this finding. Despite accurate diagnostic tests and effective therapies, the management of osteoporosis has been observed to be suboptimal in many settings. We tested the effectiveness of an intervention to improve care in patients at-risk of osteoporosis.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Primary care physicians and their patients at-risk of osteoporosis, including women 65 years and over, men and women 45 and over with a prior fracture, and men and women 45 and over who recently used > or =90 days of oral glucocorticoids.
                A multifaceted program of education and reminders delivered to primary care physicians as well as mailings and automated telephone calls to patients. Outcome: Either undergoing a bone mineral density (BMD) testing or filling a prescription for a bone-active medication during the 10 months of follow-up.
                After the intervention, 144 (14%) patients in the intervention group and 97 (10%) patients in the control group received either a BMD test or filled a prescription for an osteoporosis medication. This represents a 4% absolute increase and a 45% relative increase (95% confidence interval 9-93%, p = 0.01) in osteoporosis management between the intervention and control groups. No differences between groups were observed in the incidence of fracture.
                An intervention targeting primary care physicians and their at-risk patients increased the frequency of BMD testing and/or filling prescriptions for osteoporosis medications. However, the absolute percentage of at-risk patients receiving osteoporosis management remained low. A prospective study was performed to evaluate the effect of using a special requisition form on the utilization of lumbosacral spine radiography for patients presenting in the emergency room with acute lower back complaints. Over a 1-year period, emergency room house officers were encouraged to complete a special form that listed only three acceptable indications for lumbosacral spine radiographs: history of trauma, evidence of focal neurologic abnormality, and "other." Neurologic abnormalities included hypesthesia, hyperesthesia or anesthesia of lumbar or sacral dermatomes, weakness or hyporeflexia of the lower extremities, and bladder or bowel incontinence. If the indication "other" was chosen, radiographs were done only if the form contained both a one- to two-sentence history and the signed approval of a supervising attending physician. The number and results of lumbosacral spine examinations were compared with those from the previous year, which served as a control. In the control year 1443 examinations were performed, and in the experimental year only 759 were done (a decrease of 47%). The percentage of patients with vertebral fractures increased from 5.1% to 5.8% in the experimental year if only the detection of new fractures was considered positive, and from 9.1% to 13.4% if the detection of fractures of all ages was regarded as significant. The use of the special requisition form appears to be a simple and effective means of reducing unnecessary lumbosacral radiography in the emergency room setting. A randomized controlled trial was conducted.
                To determine the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment as a complementary treatment for chronic nonspecific low back pain.
                Osteopathic manipulative treatment may be useful for acute or subacute low back pain. However, its role in chronic low back pain is unclear.
                This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.
                As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.
                Osteopathic manipulative treatment and sham manipulation both appear to provide some benefits when used in addition to usual care for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. It remains unclear whether the benefits of osteopathic manipulative treatment can be attributed to the manipulative techniques themselves or whether they are related to other aspects of osteopathic manipulative treatment, such as range of motion activities or time spent interacting with patients, which may represent placebo effects. A 1-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial of 70 postmenopausal women demonstrated that brief periods (<20 minutes) of a low-level (0.2g, 30 Hz) vibration applied during quiet standing can effectively inhibit bone loss in the spine and femur, with efficacy increasing significantly with greater compliance, particularly in those subjects with lower body mass.
                Indicative of the anabolic potential of mechanical stimuli, animal models have demonstrated that short periods (<30 minutes) of low-magnitude vibration (<0.3g), applied at a relatively high frequency (20-90 Hz), will increase the number and width of trabeculae, as well as enhance stiffness and strength of cancellous bone. Here, a 1-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial in 70 women, 3-8 years past the menopause, examined the ability of such high-frequency, low-magnitude mechanical signals to inhibit bone loss in the human.
                Each day, one-half of the subjects were exposed to short-duration (two 10-minute treatments/day), low-magnitude (2.0 m/s2 peak to peak), 30-Hz vertical accelerations (vibration), whereas the other half stood for the same duration on placebo devices. DXA was used to measure BMD at the spine, hip, and distal radius at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months. Fifty-six women completed the 1-year treatment.
                The detection threshold of the study design failed to show any changes in bone density using an intention-to-treat analysis for either the placebo or treatment group. Regression analysis on the a priori study group demonstrated a significant effect of compliance on efficacy of the intervention, particularly at the lumbar spine (p = 0.004). Posthoc testing was used to assist in identifying various subgroups that may have benefited from this treatment modality. Evaluating those in the highest quartile of compliance (86% compliant), placebo subjects lost 2.13% in the femoral neck over 1 year, whereas treatment was associated with a gain of 0.04%, reflecting a 2.17% relative benefit of treatment (p = 0.06). In the spine, the 1.6% decrease observed over 1 year in the placebo group was reduced to a 0.10% loss in the active group, indicating a 1.5% relative benefit of treatment (p = 0.09). Considering the interdependence of weight, the spine of lighter women (<65 kg), who were in the highest quartile of compliance, exhibited a relative benefit of active treatment of 3.35% greater BMD over 1 year (p = 0.009); for the mean compliance group, a 2.73% relative benefit in BMD was found (p = 0.02). These preliminary results indicate the potential for a noninvasive, mechanically mediated intervention for osteoporosis. This non-pharmacologic approach represents a physiologically based means of inhibiting the decline in BMD that follows menopause, perhaps most effectively in the spine of lighter women who are in the greatest need of intervention. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. Treatment of osteoporosis following a hip fracture has been notoriously poor. Many efforts have been made to improve treatment rates. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a perioperative inpatient intervention program, involving patient education and providing a list of questions for the primary care physician, increased the percentage of patients in whom osteoporosis was addressed following a hip fracture.
                A prospective, randomized trial involving eighty patients who had been admitted to an academic medical center with a low-energy hip fracture was conducted. During their hospitalization, the study group patients were engaged in a fifteen-minute discussion regarding the association between osteoporosis and hip fractures, the efficacy of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans in the diagnosis of osteoporosis and of bisphosphonates in its treatment, and the importance of medical follow-up for osteoporosis management. These patients were also provided with five questions regarding osteoporosis treatment to be given to their primary medical physician, and they were reminded about the questions during a follow-up telephone call six weeks later. The patients in the control group received a brochure describing methods for preventing falls. Both groups were contacted by telephone at six months after discharge to determine whether osteoporosis had been addressed. Positive indicators of intervention included assessment of bone mineral density with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and initiation of antiresorptive therapy.
                The average age in each group was eighty-two years, and 78% of the patients were female. Four patients in each group did not survive through the six-month follow-up period and were excluded from the trial. Fifteen (42%) of the thirty-six patients who had been randomized to the study group, compared with only seven (19%) of the thirty-six patients in the control group, had their osteoporosis addressed by their primary physician. This difference between the groups was significant (p = 0.036).
                Patients who were provided with information and questions for their primary care physician about osteoporosis were more likely to receive appropriate therapeutic intervention than were patients who had not received the information and questions. Orthopaedic surgeons have a unique opportunity to improve the rate of osteoporosis treatment in the perioperative period following a hip fracture by educating patients and directing them toward channels for long-term osteoporosis management. Timely adoption of clinical practice guidelines is more likely to happen when the guidelines are used in combination with adjuvant educational strategies that address social as well as rational influences.
                To implement the conservative, evidence-based approach to low-back pain recommended in national guidelines, with the anticipated effect of reducing population-based rates of surgery.
                A randomized, controlled trial.
                Ten communities in western Washington State with annual rates of back surgery above the 1990 national average (158 operations per 100,000 adults).
                Spine surgeons, primary care physicians, patients who were surgical candidates, and hospital administrators.
                The five communities randomized to the intervention group received a package of six educational activities tailored to local needs by community planning groups. Surgeon study groups, primary care continuing medical education conferences, administrative consensus processes, videodisc-aided patient decision making, surgical outcomes management, and generalist academic detailing were serially implemented over a 30-month intervention period.
                Quarterly observations of surgical rates.
                After implementation of the intervention, surgery rates declined in the intervention communities but increased slightly in the control communities. The net effect of the intervention is estimated to be a decline of 20.9 operations per 100,000, a relative reduction of 8.9% (P = 0.01).
                We were able to use scientific evidence to engender voluntary change in back pain practice patterns across entire communities. The purpose of this randomized, controlled, home care intervention was to test the effectiveness of two nurse-targeted, e-mail-based interventions to increase home care nurses' adherence to pain assessment and management guidelines, and to improve patient outcomes. Nurses from a large urban non-profit home care organization were assigned to usual care or one of two interventions upon identification of an eligible cancer patient with pain. The basic intervention consisted of a patient-specific, one-time e-mail reminder highlighting six pain-specific clinical recommendations. The augmented intervention supplemented the initial e-mail reminder with provider prompts, patient education material, and clinical nurse specialist outreach. Over 300 nurses were randomized and outcomes of 673 of their patients were reviewed. Data collection involved clinical record abstraction of nurse care practices and patient interviews completed approximately 45 days after start of care. The intervention had limited effect on nurse-documented care practices but patient outcomes were positively influenced. Patients in the augmented group improved significantly over the control group in ratings of pain intensity at its worst, whereas patients in the basic group had better ratings of pain intensity on average. Other outcomes measures were also positively influenced but did not reach statistical significance. Our findings suggest that although reminders have some role in improving cancer pain management, a more intensive approach is needed for a generalized nursing workforce with limited recent exposure to state-of-the-art pain management practices. We conducted a randomized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries. Primary care physicians and their patients were randomized to usual care, patient intervention only, physician intervention only, or both interventions. There was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint (BMD test or osteoporosis medication) or in either of its components comparing the combined intervention group with usual care (risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.26).
                Fractures from osteoporosis are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. However, only a minority of at-risk older adults receives screening and/or treatment for this condition. We evaluated the effect of educational interventions for osteoporosis targeting at-risk patients, primary care physicians, or both.
                We conducted a randomized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries. Primary care physicians and their patients were randomized to usual care, patient intervention only, physician intervention only, or both interventions. The at-risk patients were women >or=65 yr of age, men and women >or=65 yr of age with a prior fracture, and men and women >or=65 yr of age who used oral glucocorticoids. The primary outcome studied was a composite of either undergoing a BMD test or initiating a medication used for osteoporosis. The secondary outcome was a hip, humerus, spine, or wrist fracture.
                We randomized 828 primary care physicians and their 13,455 eligible at-risk patients into four study arms. Physician and patient characteristics were very similar across all four groups. Across all four groups, the rate of the composite outcome was 10.3 per 100 person-years and did not differ between the usual care and the combined intervention groups (p = 0.5). In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, there was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint comparing the combined intervention group with usual care (risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.26). There was also no difference in either of the components of the composite endpoint. The probability of fracture during follow-up was 4.2 per 100 person-years and did not differ by treatment assignment (p = 0.9).
                In this trial, a relatively brief program of patient and/or physician education did not work to improve the management of osteoporosis. More intensive efforts should be considered for future quality improvement programs for osteoporosis. Single blind randomized study.
                To compare the effectiveness of lumbar instrumented fusion with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration.
                To the authors' best knowledge, only one randomized study has evaluated the effectiveness of lumbar fusion. The Swedish Lumbar Spine Study reported that lumbar fusion was better than continuing physiotherapy and care by the family physician.
                Sixty-four patients aged 25-60 years with low back pain lasting longer than 1 year and evidence of disc degeneration at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1 at radiographic examination were randomized to either lumbar fusion with posterior transpedicular screws and postoperative physiotherapy, or cognitive intervention and exercises. The cognitive intervention consisted of a lecture to give the patient an understanding that ordinary physical activity would not harm the disc and a recommendation to use the back and bend it. This was reinforced by three daily physical exercise sessions for 3 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index.
                At the 1-year follow-up visit, 97% of the patients, including 6 patients who had either not attended treatment or changed groups, were examined. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly reduced from 41 to 26 after surgery, compared with 42 to 30 after cognitive intervention and exercises. The mean difference between groups was 2.3 (-6.7 to 11.4) (P = 0.33). Improvements inback pain, use of analgesics, emotional distress, life satisfaction, and return to work were not different. Fear-avoidance beliefs and fingertip-floor distance were reduced more after nonoperative treatment, and lower limb pain was reduced more after surgery. The success rate according to an independent observer was 70% after surgery and 76% after cognitive intervention and exercises. The early complication rate in the surgical group was 18%.
                The main outcome measure showed equal improvement in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration randomized to cognitive intervention and exercises, or lumbar fusion. Despite recommendations, osteoporosis screening rates among women aged 65 years and older remain low. We present results from a clustered, randomized trial evaluating patient mailed reminders, alone and in combination with physician prompts, to improve osteoporosis screening and treatment.
                Primary care clinics (n = 15) were randomized to usual care, mailed reminders alone, or mailed reminders with physician prompts. Study patients were females aged 65-89 years (N = 10,354). Using automated clinical and pharmacy data, information was collected on bone mineral density testing, pharmacy dispensings, and other patient characteristics. Unadjusted/adjusted differences in testing and treatment were assessed using generalized estimating equation approaches.
                Osteoporosis screening rates were 10.8% in usual care, 24.1% in mailed reminder, and 28.9% in mailed reminder with physician prompt. Results adjusted for differences at baseline indicated that mailed reminders significantly improved testing rates compared to usual care, and that the addition of prompts further improved testing. This effect increased with patient age. Treatment rates were 5.2% in usual care, 8.4% in mailed reminders, and 9.1% in mailed reminders with prompt. No significant differences were found in treatment rates between those receiving mailed reminders alone or in combination with physician prompts. However, women receiving usual care were significantly less likely to be treated.
                The use of mailed reminders, either alone or with physician prompts, can significantly improve osteoporosis screening and treatment rates among insured primary care patients (Clinical Trials.gov number NCT00139425). In light of widespread undertreatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP), we designed a group randomized controlled trial to increase bone mineral density (BMD) testing and osteoporosis medication prescribing among patients receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy.
                Using administrative databases of a large US health plan, we identified physicians who prescribed long-term glucocorticoid therapy to at least 3 patients. One hundred fifty-three participating physicians were randomized to receive a 3-module Web-based GIOP intervention or control course. Intervention modules focused on GIOP management and incorporated case-based continuing medical education and personalized audit and feedback of GIOP management compared with that of the top 10% of study physicians. In the year following the intervention, we compared rates of BMD testing and osteoporosis medication prescribing between intervention and control physicians.
                Following the intervention, intent-to-treat analyses showed that 78 intervention physicians (472 patients) vs 75 control physicians (477 patients) had similar rates of BMD testing (19% vs 21%, P = .48; rate difference, -2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8% to 4%) and osteoporosis medication prescribing (32% vs 29%, P = .34; rate difference, 3%; 95% CI, -3% to 9%). Among 45 physicians completing all modules (343 patients), intervention physicians had numerically but not significantly higher rates of BMD testing (26% vs 16%, P =.04; rate difference, 10%; 95% CI, 1%-20%) and bisphosphonate prescribing (24% vs 17%, P =.09; rate difference, 7%; 95% CI, -1% to 16%) or met a combined end point of BMD testing or osteoporosis medication prescribing (54% vs 44%, P =.07; rate difference, 10%; 95% CI, -1% to 21%) compared with control physicians.
                In the main analysis, a Web-based intervention incorporating performance audit and feedback and case-based continuing medical education had no significant effect on the quality of osteoporosis care. However, dose-response trends showed that physicians with greater exposure to the intervention had higher rates of GIOP management. New cost-effective modalities are needed to improve the quality of osteoporosis care. To determine the impact and cost-effectiveness of telephone versus written access to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and of different strategies for disseminating locally produced guidelines, upon requests by general practitioners (GPs) for knee and lumbar spine investigation.
                Two sequential pragmatic open cluster-randomized trials were conducted within 39 general practices. The outcome measure in each trial was concordance of request with local guidelines. Trial 1: practices requested MRI by telephone or in writing. Trial 2: all practices received guidelines, plus either: a practice-based seminar, practice-specific audit feedback, both seminar and feedback, or neither.
                A total of 414 requests were assessed in the two trials. Trial 1: telephone access cost pound4.86 more per request but rates of concordant requests were equivalent (65%/64%: telephone/written). Trial 2: compared to the control group, costs per practice were pound1911 higher in seminar group, pound1543 higher in feedback group and pound3578 higher for those receiving both. Concordance was greater following the intervention (74% vs 65%; P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the four study groups.
                Method of access did not affect concordance. Written access was more cost-effective. Seminars and feedback were no more effective in modifying practice than guidelines alone, which was thus the most cost-effective option.
                Copyright 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists. To test the hypotheses that: (1) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with improved patient outcomes, including pain, disability, health status, sickness absence, reassurance, and patient satisfaction or belief in the value of radiography. (2) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with changes in patient management, including medication use, and the use of primary and secondary care services, physical therapies and complementary therapies. (3) Participants choosing their treatment group (i.e. radiography or no radiography) do not have better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group. (4) Lumbar spine radiography is not cost-effective compared with usual care without lumbar spine radiography.
                A randomised unblinded controlled trial.
                Seventy-three general practices in Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, Southern Derbyshire, North Lincolnshire and North Leicestershire. Fifty-two practices recruited participants to the trial.
                Randomised arm: 421 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 10 weeks. Patient preference arm: 55 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 11 weeks.
                Lumbar spine radiography and usual care versus usual care without radiography.
                Roland adaptation of the Sickness Impact Profile, visual analogue pain scale, health status scale, EuroQol, use of primary and secondary care services, and physical and complementary therapies, sickness absence, medication use, patient satisfaction, reassurance and belief in value of radiography at 3 and 9 months post-randomisation.
                Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were more likely to report low back pain at 3 months (odds ratio (OR) = 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 2.40) and had a lower overall health status score (p = 0.02). There were no differences in health or functional status at 9 months. A higher proportion of participants consulted the general practitioner (GP) in the 3 months following an X-ray (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.80 to 4.10). There were no differences in use of any other services, medication use or sickness absence at 3 or 9 months. No serious spinal pathology was identified in either group. The commonest X-ray reports were of discovertebral degeneration and normal findings. Many patients did not perceive their information needs were met within the consultation. Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at 9 months. Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were not less worried, or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. Satisfaction was associated with meeting participants' information needs and reduced belief in the necessity for investigations for low back pain, including X-rays and blood tests. In both groups, at 3 and 9 months 80% of participants would choose to have an X-ray if the choice was available. Participants in the patient preference group achieved marginally better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group, but the clinical significance of these differences is unclear. Lumbar spine radiography was associated with a net economic loss at 3 and 9 months.
                Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration is not associated with improved functioning, severity of pain or overall health status, and is associated with an increase in GP workload. Participants receiving X-rays are more satisfied with their care, but are not less worried or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further work is required to develop and test an educational package that educates patients and GPs about the utility of radiography and provides strategies for identifying and meeting the information needs of patients, and the needs of patients and GPs to be reassured about missing serious disease. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending lumbar spine radiography in patients with low back pain in the absence of red flags for serious spinal pathology, even if the pain has persisted for at least 6 weeks. This randomized controlled trial was designed to investigate the effect of a 6-month home-based exercise program versus control (usual activities) on quality of life for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who had at least one vertebral fracture. Twelve-month assessments of outcomes were completed to determine if women would continue exercising with minimal supervision and if benefit could be sustained. The home exercise program followed a "lifestyle exercise" approach where participants completed exercises 60 min per day, 3 days a week and could complete exercises in small periods of time throughout the day. Exercise activities included stretching, strength training and aerobics (i.e. walking). Participants were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using the Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ), the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), a balance test, and the Timed Up And Go test. Bone mineral density was assessed at baseline and 12 months for both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Quality of life (OQLQ) improved over 6 months in the exercise group compared to the control group in the domains of symptoms (P=0.003), emotion (P=0.01) and leisure (P=0.03). Results from the balance test indicated a greater effect in the exercise group over 12 months (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between groups in measures of Timed Up and Go, SIP at 6 and 12 months, and femoral neck and lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months. Home-based exercise with minimal supervision improves quality of life in elderly women with vertebral fractures. Future research is needed to determine if home exercise programs reduce falls and fall-related injuries in the elderly. To examine the effect of two workstation and postural interventions on the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users.
                Randomised controlled trial of two distinct workstation and postural interventions (an alternate intervention and a conventional intervention) among 376 persons using computer keyboards for more than 15 hours per week. The incidence of neck/shoulder symptoms and hand/arm symptoms during six months of follow up among individuals in the intervention groups was compared to the incidence in computer users who did not receive an intervention (comparison group). For individuals in the intervention groups, study staff adjusted workstations, where possible, and trained individuals to assume the intervention postures. Individuals reported musculoskeletal symptoms in a weekly diary. Participants who reported discomfort intensity of 6 or greater on a 0-10 visual analogue scale or who reported musculoskeletal symptoms requiring use of analgesic medication were considered symptomatic.
                There were no significant differences in the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms among the three intervention groups. Twenty two (18.5%) participants in the alternate intervention group, 25 (20.2%) in the conventional intervention group, and 25 (21.7%) in the comparison group developed incident arm or hand symptoms. Thirty eight (33.3%) participants in the alternate intervention group, 36 (31.0%) in the conventional intervention group, and 33 (30.3%) in the comparison group developed incident neck or shoulder symptoms. Compliance with all components of the intervention was attained for only 25-38% of individuals, due mainly to the inflexibility of workstation configurations.
                This study provides evidence that two specific workplace postural interventions are unlikely to reduce the risk of upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users. To evaluate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulation, manual flexion/distraction, and hot pack application for the treatment of low back pain from osteoarthritis (OA) compared with moist heat alone.
                Two hundred fifty-two patients with low back pain secondary to OA were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (moist hot pack plus chiropractic care) or the moist heat group subjects, which attended 20 treatment sessions over several weeks. At sessions 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, they rated pain using a visual analog pain scale, activities of daily living using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire, and a range of motion (ROM) using the J-Tech Dual Digital Inclinometer (JTECH Medical Model no. AA036).
                Session I ratings indicated that the two groups were equivalent on all pain and flexion scores. The treatment group reported greater and more rapid pain reduction and greater and more rapid ROM improvement than the moist heat group. The treatment group also had greater improvements than the moist heat group in daily living activities in 4 of the 9 areas measured.
                Chiropractic care combined with heat is more effective than heat alone for treating OA-based lower back pain. Pain reduction occurs more rapidly and to a greater degree, and ROM increases more rapidly and to a greater degree. The aim of this placebo-controlled, randomized, single-masked study was to establish the effects of a 10-week ambulatory exercise programme for osteoporotic patients on pain, use of analgesics, functional status, quality of life, balance and muscle strength. Fifty-three ambulatory postmenopausal women with at least one spinal crush fracture and pains within the last 3 years were randomized for physiotherapeutic training twice a week for 10 weeks or no training. The training included general training of balance and muscle strength, with stabilization of the lumbar spine. The participants were tested at baseline, week 5 and week 10 with a balance test, muscle strength test and questionnaires on pain, use of analgesics, functional status and quality of life. Twelve weeks after the supervised training had finished (week 22) they answered the same questionnaires. The study groups were comparable at baseline. The training group had a significant reduction in use of analgesics (p = 0.02) and pain level (p = 0.01) during the training period. Distribution of functional score improved; the improvement was reduced at week 22. Quality of life score improved significantly throughout the study (p = 0.0008), even after week 22. Balance improved non-significantly (p = 0.08). Quadriceps muscle strength improved significantly after 5 weeks (p = 0.04). Back extensor muscle strength improved almost significantly (p = 0.09). In conclusion, this training programme for osteoporotic patients improved balance and level of daily function and decreased experience of pain and use of analgesics. Quality of life was improved even beyond the active training period. Objective is to clarify whether nursing assistance tools (a mat with attached handles, a pair of trousers with knee pads and a waist holding belt) prevent musculoskeletal pain, such as low back pain and upper arm pain, and depression, and improve the burden on the lower back and upper arm among staff in schools for disabled children. This study design was a non-randomized intervention trial. The subjects were 41 staff in two schools for disabled children in Japan. Nursing assistance tools were used with the intervention group to help with their nursing activities. We investigated the one-month prevalence of low back pain and the degree of burden on the lower back using a questionnaire at the baseline and at the end point 4 to 6 months later. The prevalence of low back pain did not change significantly in either group. In the intervention group, the prevalence of upper arm pain decreased from 47.6% at the baseline to 23.8% at the end point (p=0.063). The percentage of participants with a high level of burden on the lower back from excretory nursing activity decreased from 57.1% at the baseline to 33.3% at the end point (p=0.063) in the intervention group. These results suggest that nursing assistance tools may prevent upper arm pain and improve the burden on the lower back among staff in schools for disabled children; however, these tools did not significantly prevent low back pain and depression. Cluster randomized controlled trial.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of two strategies to improve the use of active sick leave (ASL) for patients with low back pain.
                ASL is a public sickness benefit scheme offered to promote early return to modified work for temporarily disabled workers. It was poorly used, and the authors designed two community interventions to strengthen the implementation of ASL based on the results of a study of barriers to use among back pain patients, employers, general practitioners (GPs), and local National Insurance Administration staff.
                Sixty-five municipalities in three counties in Norway, randomly assigned to a passive intervention, a proactive intervention, or a control group. The interventions were targeted at patients on sick leave for low back pain for more than 16 days (n = 6176), their GPs, employers, and local insurance officers. The passive intervention included reminders about ASL on the sick leave form that GPs must complete, a standard agreement to facilitate ASL, targeted information, and a desktop summary for GPs of clinical practice guidelines for low back pain, emphasizing the importance of advice to stay active. The proactive intervention included these elements plus a resource person to facilitate the use of ASL and a continuing education workshop for GPs. The main outcome measure reported here is the proportion of eligible patients that used ASL.
                ASL was used significantly more in the proactive intervention municipalities (17.7%) compared with the passive intervention and control municipalities (11.5%, P = 0.018).
                A passive intervention that addressed identified barriers to the use of ASL did not increase its use. Although modest, a proactive intervention did increase its use. The main impact of the intervention was through direct contact and motivating telephone calls to patients. To the extent that GPs' practice was changed, it was either patient mediated or by patients bypassing their GP.
For improving the use of imaging in osteoporosis, most professional interventions demonstrated benefit, and patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for benefit. For low back pain studies interventions showed varying effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, no firm conclusions can be drawn.