Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 1/2008

Open Access 01.12.2008 | Research

The epidemiology and medical management of low back pain during ambulatory medical care visits in the United States

verfasst von: John C Licciardone

Erschienen in: Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care | Ausgabe 1/2008

Abstract

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a common symptom.

Methods

Patient visits attributed to LBP in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) during 2003–2004 served as the basis for epidemiological analyses (n = 1539). The subset of patient visits in which LBP was the primary reason for seeking care (primary LBP patient visits) served as the basis for medical management analyses (n = 1042). National population estimates were derived using statistical weighting techniques.

Results

There were 61.7 million (SE, 4.0 million) LBP patient visits and 42.4 million (SE, 3.1 million) primary LBP patient visits. Only 55% of LBP patient visits were provided by primary care physicians. Age, geographic region, chronicity of symptoms, injury, type of physician provider, and physician specialty were associated with LBP patient visits. Age, injury, primary care physician status, type of physician provider, and shared physician care were associated with chronicity of LBP care. Osteopathic physicians were more likely than allopathic physicians to provide medical care during LBP patient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75–3.92) and chronic LBP patient visits (OR, 4.39; 95% CI, 2.47–7.80). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and narcotic analgesics were ordered during 14.2 million (SE, 1.2 million) and 10.5 million (SE, 1.1 million) primary LBP patient visits, respectively. Drugs (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.62) and, specifically, NSAIDs (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25–0.64) were ordered less often during chronic LBP patient visits compared with acute LBP patient visits. Overall, osteopathic physicians were less likely than allopathic physicians to order NSAIDs for LBP (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.76). Almost two million surgical procedures were ordered, scheduled, or performed during primary LBP patient visits.

Conclusion

The percentage of LBP visits provided by primary care physicians in the United States remains suboptimal. Medical management of LBP, particularly chronic LBP, appears to over-utilize surgery relative to more conservative measures such as patient counseling, non-narcotic analgesics, and other drug therapies. Osteopathic physicians are more likely to provide LBP care, and less likely to use NSAIDs during such visits, than their allopathic counterparts. In general, LBP medical management does not appear to be in accord with evidence-based guidelines.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1750-4732-2-11) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

JCL is Editor-in-Chief of Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care. He was not involved in the review of the manuscript or in the editorial decision with regard to its suitability for publication.

Background

Back pain is a common symptom in industrialized nations that is responsible for substantial morbidity, impairment, and disability. Low back problems have been leading reasons for patient visits and health care costs despite measures to control access to services and contain costs [1]. Health care costs and productivity losses, most often associated with chronicity [2], may be in excess of $50 billion annually in the United States [3].
Back problems almost always consist of or co-exist with pain, including back-related leg pain or sciatica [4]. Although generically referred to as "back problems"[4] or "back pain," most cases involve the lower back. Low back pain (LBP) is defined as pain localized between the twelfth rib and the inferior gluteal folds, with or without leg pain [5]. Low back pain is often classified as acute when it lasts for less than 6 weeks, subacute when it lasts between 6 weeks and 3 months, and chronic when it persists for longer than 3 months [6]. The vast majority of LBP cases involve a non-specific etiology. Yellow flags (including individual, psychosocial, and occupational factors [7]) are prognostic factors for occurrence and chronicity of such non-specific LBP, whereas red flags are signs or symptoms that have come to be associated with specific pathological causes of LBP [5].
Historically, LBP has taken up a large part of primary care practice [8]. It has been the second leading cause of office visits to primary care physicians [9], and the most common reason for office visits to occupational medicine physicians, orthopedic surgeons, and neurosurgeons [4]. Allopathic family (general) medicine physicians, osteopathic physicians, chiropractors, orthopedic surgeons, and other specialists are the main providers of LBP care in the United States [10]. A variety of treatments for LBP have been introduced into clinical practice, including educational interventions, exercise, weight reduction, various classes of analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, behavioral therapy, physical therapy, spinal manipulation, other complementary and alternative therapies, and surgery [11, 12].
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the epidemiology and medical management of LBP during ambulatory medical care visits in the United States.

Methods

Overview of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey design

The concept of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) to collect data on medical care provided in physician offices in the United States was developed over 30 years ago [13]. Detailed documentation of the NAMCS instrument, methodology, and data files that served as the basis for this study is available elsewhere [14, 15]. Patient visits were selected using a multistage probability sample design. The first stage included primary sampling units (PSUs) which consisted of counties, groups of counties, county equivalents (e.g. parishes), towns, townships, minor civil divisions, or metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). These PSUs comprised a probability subsample of those used in the 1985–1994 National Health Interview Surveys [16]. The latter, which covered all 50 states and the District of Columbia, were stratified by demographic and socioeconomic variables and then selected with probability proportional to their size. Stratification was done within four geographic regions by MSA and non-MSA status.
The second stage consisted of a probability sample of practicing physicians selected from the master files of the American Medical Association (AMA) and American Osteopathic Association (AOA). Within each PSU, all eligible physicians were further stratified by specialty. The third stage involved selection of patient visits within the practices of participating physicians. Initially, physicians were randomly assigned to one of the 52 weeks within a calendar year. Then, a systematic random sample of patient visits was selected for each physician during the assigned week. The sampling rate of patient visits varied from a 20% sample for very large practices to 100% for very small practices as determined by a presurvey interview [17]. In this manner, data from about 30 patient visits were recorded by each physician during the assigned week.

Sampling frame and sample size

The sampling frame for NAMCS included physicians who met the criteria of being: (1) office-based; (2) principally engaged in patient care activities; (3) nonfederally employed; and (4) not in the specialties of anesthesiology, pathology, or radiology. During 2003 and 2004, a total of 6000 physicians were initially screened. Of these, 2032 (34%) did not meet the four inclusion criteria, most commonly because the physician was retired, deceased, or employed in teaching, research, or administration. Of the remaining 3968 eligible physicians, 2779 (70%) participated in NAMCS. However, among these "participating" physicians, 544 (20%) saw no patients during their assigned reporting period because of vacations, illness, or other reasons for being temporarily not in practice. The NAMCS provides data on 25,288 patient visits to 1114 physician offices during the 2003 calendar year and 25,286 patient visits to 1121 physician offices during the 2004 calendar year.

Patient visits and weights

The basic sampling unit for the NAMCS is the physician-patient encounter or "patient visit." The following types of contacts were excluded: telephone calls, visits outside the physician's office (e.g., house calls), visits made in hospital settings (unless the physician had a private office in a hospital), visits made in institutional settings that had primary responsibility for the patient's care (e.g., nursing homes), and visits to the physician's office for administrative purposes only (e.g., to leave a specimen, pay a bill, or pick up insurance forms). Each patient visit was assigned a weight based on four factors: (1) probability of being selected by the three-stage sampling design; (2) adjustment for nonresponse; (3) adjustment for physician specialty group; and (4) weight smoothing to minimize the impact of a few physician outliers whose final visit weights were large relative to those for the remaining physicians. Thus, by applying these weights to each of the 50,574 patient visits in the 2003 and 2004 NAMCS data files, an estimated 1.8 billion physician office visits in the United States were available to derive unbiased national estimates of ambulatory medical care services and to further characterize such services.

Data collection and processing

Data for the NAMCS were collected by the physician with assistance from office staff when possible. Patient record forms were used to collect the data for each selected visit. The NAMCS field staff performed completeness checks of the patient record forms prior to submission for central data processing. Detailed editing instructions were provided to reclassify or recode ambiguous or inconsistent data entries. Quality control measures, which were used to verify the accuracy of computer data entry, indicated that the mean keying error rate was 0.1% for nonmedical items and that discrepancy rates ranged from 0.0% to 1.1% for required medical items.
Item nonresponse rates were 5% or less for most variables. Major exceptions (nonresponse rate) included: ethnicity (20%), race (18%), tobacco use (30%), and time spent with physician (16%). Missing data for birth year (4%), sex (4%), race (18%), ethnicity (20%), and time spent with physician (16%) were imputed by assigning the value from a randomly selected patient record form representing another patient with similar known characteristics. Such imputations were performed according to physician specialty, geographic region (state was used instead of geographic region to impute ethnicity), and primary diagnosis codes.

Data management and statistical analyses

This study focused on patient visits for LBP. These were initially identified using the "reason for visit" (RFV) item of the NAMCS patient record form. Specifically, patient visits were included only if back symptoms (RFV classification code number, 1905) or low back symptoms (RFV classification code number, 1910) were reported as one of the three most important reasons for the visit in the patient's own words. Subsequently, any patient visits attributed to a lump, mass, or tumor of the back or low back were excluded. Exploratory analyses of the data stratified according to RFV classification code numbers (1905 vs. 1910) and importance of symptoms (primary reason for visit vs. secondary or tertiary reason for visit) revealed few substantive differences between groups. Consequently, to maximize statistical power, all epidemiological analyses combined RFV classification code numbers 1905 and 1910 to represent prevalent cases of LBP (i.e., back symptoms, other than those attributed to a lump, mass, or tumor, were the primary, secondary, or tertiary reason for the patient visit). However, only those patient visits in which LBP was the primary reason for seeking medical care ("primary LBP patient visits") were included in the medical management analyses to minimize potential confounding by other secondary or tertiary reasons for the patient visit. Patient visits attributed to neck symptoms (RFV classification code number, 1900) exclusive of LBP were not included in the study. National population estimates derived from the NAMCS may be unreliable if they are based on fewer than 30 unweighted patient visits or if the relative standard error (standard error divided by the national population estimate) is greater than 0.30 [14, 15].
Patient sociodemographic characteristics included age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, and MSA status of residence. Patient visit context characteristics included episode of care, chronicity of symptoms, and whether the visit was related to an injury, poisoning, or adverse effect (IPA). Physician provider characteristics included primary care physician status, type of physician provider (Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy), physician specialty, and whether multiple physicians shared responsibility for medical care of the patient. The elements of LBP medical management included any diagnostic tests, patient counseling, drugs, physiotherapy, or surgical procedures that were ordered, scheduled, or performed during the patient visit. Drugs were broadly defined as any medications or injections, including immunizations, allergy shots, anesthetics, or dietary supplements, that were ordered, supplied, administered, or continued during the visit, regardless of prescription or over-the-counter status. Up to eight drugs may have been listed on the NAMCS patient record form during a patient visit. For each drug listed, up to three therapeutic class codes were assigned based on the standard classifications used in the National Drug Code (NDC) Directory [18]. The drugs portion of this study focused exclusively on three common drugs for relief of pain (NDC code, 1700): (1) non-narcotic analgesics (NDC code, 1722); (2) narcotic analgesics (NDC code, 1721); and (3) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (NDC code, 1727), including antiarthritics (NDC code, 1724). To maintain consistency with the NDC codes used in the NAMCS patient record form, the term "narcotic analgesic" will be used herein rather than "opioid." Physiotherapy consisted of treatments using heat, light, sound, physical pressure, or movement, including manipulative therapy.
To study the epidemiology of LBP, national population estimates of patient visits were derived and stratified according to patient sociodemographic, patient visit context, and physician provider characteristics. Multiple logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with LBP patient visits compared with patient visits for all other reasons. Similar analyses were repeated according to chronicity of LBP: (1) initial visits for acute LBP and (2) follow-up visits for chronic LBP. To study the LBP medical management, national population estimates of the use of diagnostic tests, patient counseling, drugs, physiotherapy, and surgical procedures were derived for patient visits in which LBP was the primary reason for seeking medical care. Simple logistic regression was initially performed to compute crude ORs and 95% CIs for the elements of chronic LBP medical management compared with acute LBP medical management. Multiple logistic regression was subsequently used to compute adjusted ORs and 95% CIs for the most commonly used elements of LBP medical management. All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of statistical significance.
The electronic files containing the 2003 and 2004 NAMCS data were acquired from the National Center for Health Statistics. The files were merged and analyzed using SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Because the multistage probability design of the NAMCS includes clustering, stratification, and the assignment of unequal probabilities of selection to sample units, all analyses were performed with the SPSS complex samples module to accurately compute estimates of population parameters and their standard errors [19]. A check of these statistical procedures, which involved the entire 2003 and 2004 NAMCS databases, verified that the computed marginal totals for national population estimates were identical to those published by the National Center for Health Statistics [14, 15].

Results

National population estimates of patient visits for low back pain

There were an estimated 31 million (3%) patient visits annually attributed to LBP in the United States. For the 2003–2004 period, 1539 patient record forms representing 61.7 million (SE, 4.0 million) LBP patient visits and 1042 patient record forms representing 42.4 million (SE, 3.1 million) primary LBP patient visits were included in the analyses reported herein (Figure 1). The physician specialties most commonly seen during LBP patient visits were family (general) medicine, 25.2 million (SE, 2.3 million); internal medicine, 14.4 million (SE, 3.0 million); and orthopedics, 5.6 million (SE, 0.9 million). In orthopedics, one of every 16 patient visits involved LBP (one of every 11 working-age patients seen for reasons other than preventive or surgery-related care). In family (general) medicine, one of every 17 patient visits involved LBP (one of every 13 working-age patients seen for reasons other than preventive or surgery-related care). Patient visits for LBP were attributed to the following factors: (1) back pain, ache, soreness, or discomfort, 94%; (2) other back symptoms, including cramps, contractures, spasms, limitation of movement or stiffness, or weakness, 2%; and (3) other unspecified back symptoms, 4%. Prior to combining LBP patient visits, they were originally designated as RFV classification code number 1905 in 39.0 million (SE, 2.7 million) patient visits and as RFV classification code number 1910 in 22.8 million (SE, 2.0 million) patient visits. A total of 42.4 million (SE, 3.1 million) patient visits (69%) involved LBP as the primary reason for seeking medical care.
There were few differences in patient visit characteristics according to the importance of LBP (primary reason for seeking medical care vs. secondary or tertiary reasons for seeking medical care) or RFV classification code number (1905 vs. 1910) (Table 1). Neurologists were less likely than other physician specialties to provide care for primary LBP (P = .05). Hispanics were more likely than non-Hispanics (P = .02) and osteopathic physicians were more likely than allopathic physicians (P = .04) to involve RFV classification code number 1910 rather than 1905.
Table 1
Patient Visits for Low Back Pain According to Importance and Classification of Reason for Visit, 2003–2004 (N = 1,539)*
 
Importance of Reason for Visit
Reason for Visit Classification Code†
 
Primary
Secondary or Tertiary
1905
1910
Characteristic
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
Patient age, y
                
<25
73
2,828
420
7
42
1,595
316
8
81
3,257
430
8
34
1,167
274
5
25–44
340
14,052
1,194
33
133
5,308
553
28
289
11,598
1,091
30
184
7,763
666
34
45–64
392
16,122
1,796
38
206
7,476
934
39
364
14,192
1,279
36
234
9,406
1,432
41
≥ 65
237
9,424
1,118
22
126
4,910
620
25
249
9,918
1,209
25
114
4,417
655
19
Patient sex
                
Female
589
24,275
1,941
57
319
12,377
875
64
582
23,178
1,852
59
326
13,474
1,074
59
Male
453
18,152
1,716
43
188
6,913
749
36
401
15,786
1,312
41
240
9,279
1,277
41
Patient race
                
White
936
37,791
2,951
89
439
16,567
1,140
86
870
33,905
2,480
87
505
20,453
1,815
90
Non-White
106
4,635
637
11
68
2,724
604
14
113
5,059
924
13
61
2,300
366
10
Patient ethnicity
                
Non-Hispanic
943
38,746
3,055
91
458
17,455
1,155
90
903
36,011
2,604
92
498
20,189
1,821
89
Hispanic
99
3,681
509
9
49
1,836
378
10
80
2,953
484
8
68
2,563
395
11
Geographic region
                
Northeast
292
13,189
2,211
31
149
5,376
760
28
253
10,157
1,582
26
188
8,408
1,689
37
Midwest
222
8,102
1,146
19
107
3,602
400
19
216
7,966
1,170
20
113
3,739
447
16
South
313
11,984
1,319
28
146
5,964
607
31
315
12,592
1,411
32
144
5,356
558
24
West
215
9,152
1,313
22
105
4,348
580
23
199
8,249
1,090
21
121
5,250
683
23
MSA status
                
MSA
861
36,579
3,208
86
432
17,125
1,344
89
815
33,342
2,882
86
478
20,362
2,034
89
Non-MSA
181
5,848
1,653
14
75
2,166
599
11
168
5,623
1,497
14
88
2,391
652
11
Episode of care
                
Initial
351
14,286
1,126
34
158
6,210
614
32
322
13,279
1,093
34
187
7,217
743
32
Follow-up
617
24,754
2,483
58
304
10,893
1,011
56
586
22,309
1,962
57
335
13,338
1,699
59
Other or missing
74
3,387
545
8
45
2,188
373
11
75
3,376
543
9
44
2,198
371
10
Chronicity of symptoms
                
Acute
402
16,819
1,260
40
169
6,632
685
34
360
14,820
1,292
38
211
8,631
712
38
Chronic, routine
398
16,797
2,342
40
211
7,096
845
37
380
14,874
1,685
38
229
9,019
1,603
40
Chronic, flare-up
176
6,494
779
15
79
2,990
404
15
171
6,280
724
16
84
3,203
513
14
Other or missing‡
66
2,317
402
5
48
2,573
471
13
72
2,990
388
8
42
1,900
340
8
IPA etiology
                
No
722
28,796
2,161
68
341
13,215
1,006
69
698
27,443
2,195
70
365
14,568
1,201
64
Yes
320
13,631
1,449
32
166
6,075
716
31
285
11,522
1,040
30
201
8,185
1,100
36
PCP status
                
Non-PCP or unknown
589
18,744
2,306
44
314
9,241
918
48
532
16,465
1,940
42
371
11,519
1,564
51
PCP
453
23,683
1,845
56
193
10,049
958
52
451
22,499
1,823
58
195
11,233
934
49
Type of physician
                
Doctor of Medicine
782
31,845
2,192
75
407
15,399
1,080
80
762
30,832
2,257
79
427
16,412
1,132
72
Doctor of Osteopathy
260
10,582
2,130
25
100
3,892
600
20
221
8,132
1,434
21
139
6,341
1,631
28
Physician specialty
                
Family (general) medicine
404
18,523
1,737
44
145
6,687
692
35
382
17,484
1,879
45
167
7,725
1,011
34
Internal medicine
107
9,702
2,264
23
54
4,703
1,008
24
96
8,199
1,257
21
65
6,206§
2,234
27
Neurology
141
1,244
218
3
96
1,011
213
5
132
1,138
181
3
105
1,116
322
5
Orthopedics
151
3,618
546
9
66
2,020
489
10
121
3,025
478
8
96
2,613
505
11
All other specialties
239
9,340
1,278
22
146
4,869
586
25
252
9,118
1,160
23
133
5,092
697
22
Shared physician care
                
No or unknown
715
31,694
2,633
75
336
13,417
1,007
70
690
28,951
2,184
74
361
16,160
1,692
71
Yes
327
10,733
1,017
25
171
5,873
672
30
293
10,013
963
26
205
6,593
703
29
Total
1,042
42,427
3,108
100
507
19,290
1,201
100
983
38,964
2,655
100
566
22,753
1,957
100
Abbreviations: IPA, injury, poisoning, or adverse effect of medical treatment; MSA, metropolitan statistical area; NPE, national population estimate for the two-year interval; PCP, primary care physician, SE, standard error of the national population estimate.
*Table entries for NPE and SE are in thousands; percentages are based on NPE.
†1905 represents back pain and 1910 represents low back pain.
‡Other options included pre- or post-surgery visits, prenatal care, and health maintenance visits.
§NPE may be unreliable because SE>30% of NPE.

The epidemiology of ambulatory medical care visits for low back pain

Patient visits for LBP predominantly involved persons aged 25 to 64 years (69%) and females (59%) (Table 2). A majority of patient visits were for follow-up care. Patient visits were about evenly divided between acute and routine chronic LBP, and about one-third of visits were attributed to an IPA. Among the estimated 8.4 million patient visits in which an IPA was specified, 7.4 million (88%) involved injuries (primarily overuse syndromes, motor vehicle accidents, or falls) and 0.9 million (11%) involved adverse effects of surgical procedures, drugs, or environmental agents. Thus, IPAs served as a useful surrogate for injuries. Only slightly more than half (55%) of the patient visits were provided by primary care physicians.
Table 2
Patient Visits According to Presence or Absence of Low Back Pain, 2003–2004 (N = 50,558)*
 
LBP Status
    
 
LBP Present
LBP Absent
LBP Visits
Primary LBP Visits†
Characteristic
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
OR‡
95% CI
OR‡
95% CI
Patient age, y
            
<25
115
4,423
572
7
10,764
431,753
24,165
25
0.30
0.22 0.41
0.26
0.18 – 0.38
25–44
473
19,360
1,410
31
10,212
378,110
19,956
22
1.00
...
1.00
...
45–64
598
23,599
2,409
38
14,426
497,737
25,996
28
0.84
0.71 – 1.00
0.78
0.65 – 0.95
≥ 65
363
14,335
1,443
23
13,607
447,079
23,110
25
0.60
0.47 – 0.75
0.54
0.41 – 0.70
Patient sex
            
Female
908
36,652
2,539
59
27,581
1,035,915
46,027
59
1.00
...
1.00
...
Male
641
25,065
2,042
41
21,428
718,765
32,578
41
0.93
0.81 – 1.06
1.01
0.85 – 1.20
Patient race
            
White
1,375
54,358
3,825
88
42,716
1,497,330
71,034
85
1.00
...
1.00
...
Non-White
174
7,359
1,015
12
6,293
257,349
16,925
15
0.88
0.68 – 1.14
0.80
0.61 – 1.06
Patient ethnicity
            
Non-Hispanic
1,401
56,201
3,846
91
44,432
1,565,163
68,318
89
1.00
...
1.00
...
Hispanic
148
5,516
676
9
4,577
189,516
22,488
11
1.02
0.81 – 1.29
1.01
0.76 – 1.34
Geographic region
            
Northeast
441
18,566
2,856
30
10,111
340,535
31,296
19
1.00
...
1.00
...
Midwest
329
11,704
1,608
19
11,056
367,864
38,458
21
0.56
0.40 – 0.77
0.53
0.37 – 0.75
South
459
17,948
1,584
29
17,262
674,752
49,514
38
0.56
0.40 – 0.77
0.52
0.36 – 0.75
West
320
13,499
1,630
22
10,580
371,528
29,742
21
0.75
0.52 – 1.07
0.71
0.48 – 1.06
MSA status
            
MSA
1,293
53,704
4,318
87
42,768
1,534,434
99,888
87
1.00
...
1.00
...
Non-MSA
256
8,013
2,093
13
6,241
220,245
51,084
13
1.00
0.78 – 1.28
1.06
0.79 – 1.43
Episode of care
            
Initial
509
20,495
1,431
33
14,004
526,779
23,102
30
1.00
...
1.00
...
Follow-up
921
35,647
3,256
58
26,324
829,669
41,893
47
0.98
0.83 – 1.16
1.02
0.83 – 1.26
Other or missing
119
5,575
706
9
8,681
398,231
23,040
23
0.80
0.56 – 1.14
0.88
0.57 – 1.36
Chronicity of symptoms
            
Acute
571
23,451
1,602
38
15,741
615,627
25,898
35
1.00
...
1.00
...
Chronic, routine
609
23,893
2,932
39
17,885
561,484
30,854
32
1.37
1.08 – 1.74
1.36
1.03 – 1.79
Chronic, flare-up
255
9,483
985
15
4,493
139,324
9,200
8
2.09
1.65 – 2.65
2.03
1.58 – 2.63
Other or missing§
114
4,890
618
8
10,890
438,244
24,905
25
0.52
0.35 – 0.77
0.33
0.20 – 0.56
IPA etiology
            
No
1,063
42,011
2,824
68
43,823
1,569,266
68,357
89
1.00
...
1.00
...
Yes
486
19,707
1,785
32
5,186
185,413
10,269
11
3.38
2.75 – 4.14
3.33
2.64 – 4.21
PCP status
            
Non-PCP or unknown
903
27,985
2,959
45
33,809
925,652
54,734
53
1.00
...
1.00
...
PCP
646
33,732
2,345
55
15,200
829,027
38,795
47
0.84
0.61 – 1.16
0.82
0.55 – 1.21
Type of physician
            
Doctor of Medicine
1,189
47,244
2,859
77
45,316
1,636,480
72,120
93
1.00
...
1.00
...
Doctor of Osteopathy
360
14,474
2,718
23
3,693
118,199
12,647
7
2.61
1.75 – 3.92
2.68
1.77 – 4.06
Physician specialty
            
Family (general) medicine
549
25,210
2,259
41
8,240
405,563
26,625
23
3.28
2.26 – 4.77
3.59
2.26 – 5.72
Internal medicine
161
14,405
3,074
23
3,044
273,218
23,834
16
3.34
2.11 – 5.27
3.38
1.95 – 5.85
Neurology
237
2,255
405
4
3,202
25,403
2,685
1
3.97
2.69 – 5.85
3.25
2.07 – 5.08
Orthopedics
217
5,638
896
9
2,521
82,010
9,469
5
2.27
1.48 – 3.49
2.19
1.35 – 3.53
All other specialties
385
14,209
1,688
23
32,002
968,485
49,844
55
1.00
...
1.00
...
Shared physician care
            
No or unknown
1,051
45,111
3,282
73
35,679
1,339,868
60,278
76
1.00
...
1.00
...
Yes
498
16,606
1,413
27
13,330
414,812
22,483
24
1.17
0.99 – 1.39
1.09
0.88 – 1.35
Total
1,549
61,717
3,988
100
49,009
1,754,679
76,123
100
 
...
 
...
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IPA, injury, poisoning, or adverse effect of medical treatment; LBP, low back pain; MSA, metropolitan statistical area; NPE, national population estimate for the two-year interval; OR, odds ratio; PCP, primary care physician, SE, standard error of the national population estimate.
*Table entries for NPE and SE are in thousands; percentages are based on NPE.
†Includes only patient visits in which LBP was the primary reason for seeking medical care (n = 1042).
‡Adjusted for all variables shown.
§Other options included pre- or post-surgery visits, prenatal care, and health maintenance visits.
When compared with the 1.8 billion (SE, 7.6 million) patient visits for reasons other than back symptoms, LBP visits were associated with several factors (Table 2). Low back pain was less likely the reason for a patient visit in all younger and older age categories compared with the referent category (25–44 years) (P < .001). There was a geographic variation in patient visits attributed to LBP (P = .001), with fewer visits in the Midwest and South than in the Northeast. Patient visits for LBP were more likely to reflect chronicity of symptoms, either routine ongoing problems or flare-ups, than were patient visits for other reasons (P < .001). However, injuries, as reflected by the surrogate IPA item, were important predictors of LBP patient visits (P < .001). The type of physician provider (P < .001) and physician specialty (P < .001) were associated with LBP patient visits, with osteopathic physicians, family (general) medicine physicians, internal medicine physicians, neurologists, and orthopedic surgeons being more likely to provide medical care during such visits. Similar findings were observed when the analyses involved only primary LBP patient visits rather than all LBP patient visits.
A total of 15.8 million (SE, 1.0 million) LBP patient visits were initial visits for an acute problem (less than three months since onset) and 27.4 million (SE, 2.8 million) LBP patient visits were follow-up visits for chronic LBP (Table 3). Age <25 years (P < .001), injury (P < .001), and being seen by a primary care physician (P = .01) were inversely associated with LBP chronicity, whereas being seen by an osteopathic physician (P < .001) and shared physician care (P = .003) were directly associated with LBP chronicity. Again, similar findings were observed when the analyses involved only primary LBP patient visits rather than all LBP patient visits.
Table 3
Patient Visits for Low Back Pain According to Chronicity, 2003–2004 (n = 1,062)*
 
Chronicity
    
 
Acute Problem
(Initial Visit)
Chronic Problem
(Follow-Up Visit)
Chronic Problem Visits
Primary Chronic Problem Visits†
Characteristic
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
OR‡
95% CI
OR‡
95% CI
Patient age, y
            
<25
49
2,012
287
13
26
836§
197
3
0.27
0.13-0.55
0.20
0.09-0.45
25–44
112
5,351
565
34
195
7,920
907
29
1.00
...
1.00
...
45–64
123
5,157
597
33
287
11,025
1,867
40
1.27
0.84-1.93
1.24
0.81-1.91
≥ 65
80
3,237
542
21
190
7,585
1,110
28
1.42
0.84-2.40
1.29
0.66-2.50
Patient sex
            
Female
218
9,242
757
59
400
15,815
1,684
58
1.00
...
1.00
...
Male
146
6,515
775
41
298
11,551
1,463
42
1.17
0.79-1.73
1.22
0.81-1.85
Patient race
            
White
329
13,955
966
89
619
24,498
2,821
90
1.00
...
1.00
...
Non-White
35
1,802
404
11
79
2,867
554
10
1.03
0.60-1.76
0.85
0.45-1.60
Patient ethnicity
            
Non-Hispanic
326
14,164
984
90
642
25,299
2,718
92
1.00
...
1.00
...
Hispanic
38
1,593
334
10
56
2,066
386
8
0.74
0.42-1.32
0.86
0.41-1.77
Geographic region
            
Northeast
91
3,494
363
22
211
9,671
2,386
35
1.00
...
1.00
...
Midwest
76
3,189
495
20
133
3,918
452
14
0.65
0.40-1.08
0.66
0.33-1.32
South
131
5,775
670
37
201
7,569
848
28
0.86
0.52-1.40
0.90
0.51-1.61
West
66
3,299
460
21
153
6,207
1,214
23
1.23
0.62-2.46
1.03
0.45-2.38
MSA status
            
MSA
307
13,706
1,113
87
588
24,113
2,917
88
1.00
...
1.00
...
Non-MSA
57
2,050
572
13
110
3,252
973
12
1.16
0.67-1.99
1.05
0.58-1.92
IPA etiology
            
No
224
9,611
860
61
518
20,345
1,874
74
1.00
...
1.00
...
Yes
140
6,146
586
39
180
7,020
1,350
26
0.46
0.31-0.67
0.49
0.32-0.75
PCP status
            
Non-PCP or unknown
170
4,733
518
30
437
13,841
2,151
51
1.00
...
1.00
...
PCP
194
11,024
963
70
261
13,524
1,366
49
0.45
0.26-0.79
0.48
0.25-0.90
Type of physician
            
Doctor of Medicine
299
13,656
932
87
497
18,256
1,623
67
1.00
...
1.00
 
Doctor of Osteopathy
65
2,101
285
13
201
9,109
2,402
33
4.39
2.47-7.80
4.08
2.26-7.36
Physician specialty
            
Family (general) medicine
163
7,990
768
51
227
10,248
1,341
37
0.58
0.31-1.07
0.64
0.31-1.32
Internal medicine
42
3,611
560
23
80
7162§
2,603
26
0.97
0.48-1.95
0.98
0.40-2.39
Neurology
36
287
63
2
129
1,283
262
5
1.41
0.67-2.94
0.91
0.34-2.45
Orthopedics
44
1,064
166
7
81
2,279
407
8
0.89
0.48-1.65
1.17
0.50-2.73
All other specialties
79
2,804
372
18
181
6,394
1,096
23
1.00
...
1.00
...
Shared physician care
            
No or unknown
283
13,096
1,008
83
448
19,240
2,565
70
1.00
...
1.00
...
Yes
81
2,661
401
17
250
8,125
960
30
2.11
1.30-3.44
2.15
1.18-3.93
Total
364
15,757
1,018
100
698
27,365
2,844
100
 
...
 
...
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IPA, injury, poisoning, or adverse effect of medical treatment; MSA, metropolitan statistical area; NPE, national population estimate for the two-year interval; OR, odds ratio; PCP, primary care physician, SE, standard error of the national population estimate.
*Table entries for NPE and SE are in thousands; percentages are based on NPE.
†Includes only patient visits in which low back pain was the primary reason for seeking medical care (n = 710).
‡Adjusted for all variables shown.
§NPE may be unreliable because n<30 or SE>30% of NPE.

The medical management of primary low back pain during ambulatory medical care visits

Overall, a majority of primary LBP patient visits included diagnostic tests (89%), patient counseling (53%), and orders for drugs (72%) (Figures 2, 3, 4, respectively). Compared with patient visits in which LBP was absent, primary LBP patient visits were more likely to involve patient counseling (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.17–2.04) and physiotherapy (OR, 7.89; 95% CI, 6.01–10.35); however, they were less likely to involve surgical procedures (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38–0.83). There were no significant differences in the frequency of diagnostic tests performed or drugs ordered. The most common elements of LBP medical management included radiographs (13%), exercise counseling (20%), NSAIDs (34%), narcotic analgesics (25%), and physiotherapy (20%). There were 14.2 million (SE, 1.2 million) and 10.5 million (SE, 1.1 million) orders, respectively, for NSAIDs and narcotic analgesics during these primary LBP patient visits (Table 4). Except for the variables "exercise counseling," "any patient counseling," "narcotic analgesics," "NSAIDs," and "any drug ordered," the elements of primary LBP medical management were not reported in sufficiently high numbers of patient visits to provide statistically valid and reliable comparisons of initial visits for acute LBP and follow-up visits for chronic LBP. Drugs generally (P = .002), and NSAIDs specifically (P < .001), were ordered less often during follow-up visits for chronic LBP than during initial visits for acute LBP. Similarly, diagnostic tests were generally performed less often during follow-up visits for chronic LBP than during initial visits for acute LBP (P = .003). However, surgical procedures were ordered more often during follow-up visits for chronic LBP than during initial visits for acute LBP (P < .001).
Table 4
Medical Management during Patient Visits in which Low Back Pain was the Primary Reason for Seeking Care, 2003–2004 (n = 1,042)*
     
Chronicity
  
 
LBP Visits
Acute Problem
(Initial Visit)
Chronic Problem
(Follow-Up Visit)
Chronic Problem Visits
Medical Management
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
n
NPE
SE
%
OR
95% CI
Diagnostic tests
              
   Complete blood count
52
2,663
416
6
12
525
197
5
19
1,165
265
6
1.32
0.52-3.37
   Urinalysis
69
3,243
456
8
39
1,754
359
16
10
613
161
3
0.18
0.09-0.37
   Radiograph
142
5,602
634
13
57
2,385
406
21
24
830
195
4
0.17
0.09-0.32
   Other imaging test†
83
2,434
345
6
24
632
146
6
29
904
191
5
0.83
0.44-1.58
   Any diagnostic test
926
37,683
2,608
89
244
10,807
809
97
396
15,734
1,419
83
0.14
0.04-0.49
Patient counseling
              
   Diet or nutrition
75
3,335
602
8
15
734
196
7
40
1,688
488
9
1.38
0.58-3.32
   Weight reduction
49
2,232
529
5
10
504
183
5
25
1,143
384
6
1.35
0.52-3.49
   Exercise
204
8,320
1,070
20
49
2,196
391
20
95
3,979
771
21
1.08
0.63-1.85
   Mental health counseling‡
45
1,859
639
4
5
240
124
2
31
1,176
525
6
3.00
0.94-9.61
   Any patient counseling
513
22,397
2,510
53
119
5,408
563
49
224
10,138
1,956
54
1.21
0.70-2.11
Drugs
              
   Non-narcotic analgesics
58
2,492
431
6
13
669
201
6
29
1,351
301
7
1.20
0.51-2.82
   Narcotic analgesics
261
10,503
1,128
25
56
2,385
444
21
141
5,355
758
28
1.44
0.76-2.72
   NSAIDs (including antiarthritics)
333
14,237
1,180
34
113
5,497
596
49
128
5,288
667
28
0.40
0.25-0.64
   Any drug
729
30,523
2,012
72
204
9,746
798
88
316
12,703
1,233
67
0.29
0.13-0.62
Physiotherapy§
179
8,596
2,135
20
32
1,408
325
13
88
4,866
1,887
26
2.38
0.93-6.07
Surgical procedure
59
1,932
407
5
2
51
35
0
27
1,042
304
6
12.62
3.18-50.07
Total
1,042
42,427
3,108
100
253
11,111
798
100
457
18,948
2,154
100
 
...
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LBP, low back pain; NPE, national population estimate for the two-year interval; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error of the national population estimate.
*Table entries for NPE and SE are in thousands; percentages are based on NPE. NPEs may not be reliable for variables other than any diagnostic test, any patient counseling, any drug, exercise counseling, NSAIDs, and narcotic analgesics because n<30 and/or SE>30% of NPE.
†Excluding mammograms.
‡Including mental health counseling, stress management, or psychotherapy.
§Including spinal manipulation.
Several other factors emerged in association with the common elements of primary LBP medical management after controlling for potential confounders (Table 5). Patient counseling was less often provided for non-Whites (P = .04) and in geographic regions outside the Northeast (P = .01), although it was provided more often when injuries were reported (P < .001). Specifically, with regard to exercise counseling, there remained a geographic variation (P = .003) and propensity for use following injury (P < .001). However, exercise counseling was less often provided in non-MSAs (P = .04) and by various physician specialties (P < .001), including family (general) medicine physicians and internal medicine physicians.
Table 5
Factors Associated with Medical Management during Patient Visits in which Low Back Pain was the Primary Reason for Seeking Care, 2003–2004 (n = 710)*
 
Medical Management
 
Exercise Counseling
Any Patient Counseling
Narcotic Analgesic
NSAID
Any Drug
Characteristic
OR†
95% CI
OR†
95% CI
OR†
95% CI
OR†
95% CI
OR†
95% CI
Patient age, y
          
<25
0.53
0.15 – 1.90
0.64
0.27 – 1.53
0.35
0.11 – 1.11
0.93
0.44·1.94
0.19
0.08 – 0.50
25–44
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
45–64
1.20
0.66 – 2.19
1.08
0.66 – 1.75
0.80
0.47 – 1.36
0.64
0.39·1.06
0.63
0.36 – 1.09
≥65
0.93
0.47 – 1.83
0.67
0.38 – 1.19
0.42
0.21 – 0.84
0.73
0.44·1.20
0.77
0.38 – 1.56
Patient sex
          
Female
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Male
0.85
0.52 – 1.38
0.91
0.62 – 1.36
0.90
0.59 – 1.39
0.99
0.68·1.45
0.76
0.50 – 1.14
Patient race
          
White
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Non-White
0.66
0.23 – 1.89
0.49
0.25 – 0.96
0.91
0.42 – 2.01
1.30
0.60·2.84
3.54
1.40 – 8.97
Patient ethnicity
          
Non-Hispanic
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Hispanic
1.45
0.77 – 2.77
1.45
0.77 – 2.77
0.30
0.11 – 0.76
1.12
0.53·2.36
1.78
0.73 – 4.36
Geographic region
          
Northeast
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Midwest
0.33
0.14 – 0.78
0.29
0.14 – 0.60
1.18
0.43 – 3.24
2.05
0.93 – 4.49
2.00
0.67 – 5.97
South
0.27
0.13 – 0.56
0.36
0.17 – 0.74
1.16
0.50 – 2.72
1.81
0.84 – 3.90
2.23
0.98 – 5.08
West
0.59
0.26 – 1.34
0.45
0.22 – 0.93
1.56
0.63 – 3.84
1.45
0.67 – 3.14
1.85
0.75 – 4.56
MSA status
          
MSA
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Non-MSA
0.45
0.21 – 0.96
0.77
0.38 – 1.53
1.96
1.06 – 3.63
0.90
0.40 – 2.07
2.90
0.64 – 13.08
Chronicity
          
Acute (initial visit)
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Chronic (follow-up visit)
0.87
0.48 – 1.59
1.16
0.72 – 1.87
1.54
0.87 – 2.75
0.56
0.37 – 0.86
0.35
0.19 – 0.64
IPA etiology
          
No
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Yes
2.34
1.49 – 3.68
2.38
1.50 – 3.77
0.74
0.44 – 1.27
1.19
0.83 – 1.73
0.62
0.36 – 1.08
PCP status
          
Non-PCP or unknown
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
PCP
1.59
0.67 – 3.76
1.10
0.56 – 2.17
1.38
0.72 – 2.67
1.62
1.05 – 2.49
1.98
1.19 – 3.28
Type of physician
          
Doctor of Medicine
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Doctor of Osteopathy
1.53
0.80 – 2.92
1.02
0.46 – 2.26
0.70
0.31 – 1.58
0.43
0.24 – 0.76
0.44
0.18 – 1.11
Physician specialty
          
Family (general) medicine
0.30
0.12 – 0.74
0.71
0.32 – 1.59
0.99
0.46 – 2.12
1.52
0.79 – 2.92
2.38
1.06 – 5.35
Internal medicine
0.15
0.05 – 0.40
0.42
0.13 – 1.32
0.63
0.25 – 1.62
0.68
0.28 – 1.69
0.73
0.28 – 1.87
Neurology
0.24
0.06 – 0.94
0.50
0.18 – 1.39
0.88
0.38 – 2.05
0.94
0.43 – 2.04
0.86
0.38 – 1.98
Orthopedics
1.55
0.59 – 4.05
1.01
0.40 – 2.55
0.81
0.33 – 2.00
0.97
0.39 – 2.40
0.45
0.16 – 1.31
All other specialties
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Shared physician care
          
No or unknown
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
1.00
...
Yes
1.13
0.62 – 2.08
1.08
0.62 – 1.87
1.61
0.95 – 2.76
1.28
0.70 – 2.36
1.02
0.60 – 1.75
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IPA, injury, poisoning, or adverse effect of medical treatment; MSA, metropolitan statistical area; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; OR, odds ratio; PCP, primary care physician.
*Only initial visits for acute problems or follow-up visits for chronic problems were included.
†Adjusted for all variables shown.
There was an association between age and drugs ordered (P = .01) during primary LBP patient visits (Table 5). Drugs were ordered less often in the young (<25 years) than in the referent age category (25–44 years). Drugs were ordered more often among non-Whites (P = .01) and by primary care physicians (P = .01), particularly family (general) medicine physicians. Similarly, primary care physicians were more likely to order NSAIDs (P = .03), although osteopathic physicians were less likely to order NSAIDs than allopathic physicians (P = .004). There was an association between age and narcotic analgesic use (P = .05), with less use in older patients (>65 years) compared with the referent age category (25–44 years). Narcotic analgesics were prescribed less often in Hispanics (P = .01) and more often in non-MSAs (P = .03).

Conclusion

This study helps shed more light on LBP that motivates patients to seek medical care. More than 40% of LBP patient visits were provided by family (general) medicine physicians, comprising one of every 17 patient visits for this specialty. However, orthopedic surgeons provided a slightly greater percentage of LBP visits as part of their specialty case mix (1 of every 16 patient visits). Further, a substantial percentage of LBP patient visits (45%) were provided by non-primary care physicians. During 2003–2004 there were more than twice as many patient visits annually for LBP than reported in the 1990 NAMCS; however, the percentage of patient visits attributed to LBP (3%) and the percentage of LBP patient visits provided by primary care physicians (55%) remained remarkably similar to what was reported in the 1980s and early 1990s [20]. Non-primary care services generally are considered inappropriate for patients with non-specific LBP [10]. Thus, this study suggests that the recommended shift to primary care physicians for medical management of non-specific LBP has not occurred over the past two decades.
Injuries were the strongest risk factor associated with LBP patient visits (OR, 3.38; 95%, 2.75–4.14). There were also characteristic patterns of LBP patient visits according to age and geographic region. Patients other than those 25–44 years of age were less likely to seek medical care for LBP. Unavailable, and therefore uncontrolled, variables that could potentially explain the observed age distribution of LBP patient visits include occupational risk factors such as manual handling of materials, bending and twisting, whole-body vibration, and lifting for more than three-fourths of the work day [21]. Patient visits for LBP were less likely to occur in the Midwest and South than in the Northeast (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40–0.77 for each contrast). It is unclear if these geographic findings reflect the epidemiology of LBP in the United States or if they are confounded by other uncontrolled variables. While relatively little is known about risk factors in the transition from acute to chronic LBP, this study suggests that injuries are not associated with progression of LBP.
Osteopathic physicians were more likely than allopathic physicians to provide medical care during LBP patient visits (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.75–3.92). The physician specialties most likely to provide LBP patient visits were family (general) medicine, internal medicine, neurology, and orthopedic surgery. These findings are consistent with previous studies [10, 22]. There was an even stronger association between osteopathic physicians and chronic LBP patient visits (OR, 4.39; 95% CI, 2.47–7.80). However, physician specialists in family (general) medicine, internal medicine, and neurology were not more likely than other physician specialists to provide chronic LBP patient visits. These findings, coupled with the greater use of shared physician care in chronic LBP (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30–3.44), suggest that osteopathic physicians are often used to complement the conventional medical management of chronic LBP by providing spinal manipulation.
At least eleven national clinical guidelines for LBP medical management in the primary care setting were published between 1994 and 2000 [23]. An updated review of national clinical guidelines summarized recommendations according to LBP chronicity [24]. For acute LBP, radiographs were not considered useful for diagnosis of non-specific LBP. Recommended treatments included advising patients to remain active (although back-specific exercises were not considered effective), and ordering paracetamol or NSAIDs (muscle relaxants or narcotic analgesics may be considered as well). In contrast to acute LBP, few guidelines existed for the medical management of chronic LBP. Recently, however, European guidelines have been established for the management of chronic non-specific LBP [25]. These guidelines do not recommend radiographs or other diagnostic imaging tests unless a specific cause is strongly suspected. They recommend brief educational interventions (specifically including supervised exercise therapy), cognitive behavioral therapy, and short-term use of NSAIDs or weak narcotic analgesics for pain relief. They generally do not recommend physical therapies (although spinal manipulation may be considered) or surgery (unless all other recommended conservative treatments have been tried and failed over a period of at least two years).
This study suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy (as proxied by mental health counseling) may be under-utilized in the medical management of chronic LBP (6% of patient visits), which is often characterized by depression and somatization [26]. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the most commonly used drugs for acute LBP (49% of patient visits); however, they were less likely to be used for chronic LBP (28% of patient visits). Non-narcotic analgesics were infrequently used for either acute or chronic LBP (6% of patient visits overall). The reported percentage of chronic back patients prescribed narcotic analgesics varies widely, from 3% to 66%, based on the treatment setting [27]. The present study found the relevant percentage to be 28%. Almost two million surgical procedures (about one million annually) were ordered, scheduled, or performed during primary LBP patient visits. Not surprisingly, surgical procedures were more frequently associated with chronic LBP patient visits compared with acute LBP patient visits (OR, 12.62; 95% CI, 3.18–50.07). Together, the findings of this study reinforce the caricature of LBP medical care in the United States as being overspecialized, overinvasive, and overexpensive [10].
The medical management of LBP varies substantially between practitioners and countries [24, 28]. Differences were observed in this study with regard to type of physician provider, physician specialty, and geographic region. Osteopathic physicians were less likely than allopathic physicians to order NSAIDs for LBP (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.76). This is consistent with the theory that osteopathic physicians are less likely to prescribe drugs for LBP because they may use spinal manipulation as an alternative to drugs [29]. Previous studies including an analysis of older NAMCS data [20] and a randomized controlled trial [30] have provided evidence to help support this theory. Family (general) medicine physicians were less likely to provide exercise counseling, but were more likely to order drugs for LBP. Time constraints during patient visits, particularly in a managed care environment, represent a possible explanation for the latter findings [31]. Patient counseling was less often provided outside the Northeast in this study. A strong predictor of patient counseling, including exercise counseling, was having had an injury as the reason for seeking medical care for LBP (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.50–3.77).
Although this study involved a large, nationally representative sample of patient visits for ambulatory medical care in the United States, there are several limitations of this study that should be noted. The study involved the epidemiology and medical management of LBP that was of a magnitude sufficient to prompt patients to visit physician offices for ambulatory medical care. Further, the study was limited by the NAMCS patient record form to patient visits in which LBP was among the three most important reasons for seeking medical care. Thus, this may more properly be considered a study of the epidemiology and medical management of clinically significant LBP in the ambulatory medical care environment. Although the measurement of incidence or prevalence rates was not an objective of the study, all patient visits in which LBP was recorded as a reason for seeking medical care were included in the epidemiological analyses to capture the maximal number of incident or prevalent LBP cases and thereby to provide more precise statistical estimates. Nevertheless, similar results were observed in the epidemiological analyses when only primary LBP patient visits were included (Table 1). The medical management analyses, however, were limited to only primary LBP patient visits to avoid potential confounding by other more important reasons for seeking medical care.
Simplifying assumptions were made in certain analyses because of limitations inherent in the NAMCS patient record form. Patient visits attributed to back (RFV code 1905) and low back (RFV code 1910) symptoms were combined because there were no substantive differences in the characteristics associated with these reported reasons for seeking medical care (Table 1). All patient visits attributed to back symptoms were assumed to involve back pain, although 4% of such visits involved unspecified back symptoms and another 2% involved such other back symptoms as cramps, contractures, spasms, limitation of movement or stiffness, or weakness. Similarly, with regard to etiology, all of the 19.7 million patient visits in which an IPA was reported (using a dichotomous patient record form item) were assumed to involve an injury, although in the subset of 8.4 million patient visits in which the specific IPA was described, up to 11% may have involved iatrogenic, environmental, or other etiologies. The elements of LBP medical management were assessed with survey items that asked whether the relevant element was "ordered, scheduled, or performed." However, it was impossible to confirm whether the reported elements actually occurred within the relevant patient visit or were eventually performed by the reporting physician.
Several analyses yielded imprecise results because they were based on less than 30 NAMCS patient visits or because the SE was greater than 30% of the NPE. Most often this occurred with less common characteristics (internal medicine physicians) or elements of LBP medical management (weight reduction and mental health counseling, physiotherapy, and surgical procedures), or in stratified (subgroup) analyses. Thus, racial minority groups were combined in a "non-White" group to partially overcome this limitation. Hospital admission could not be studied as an element of LBP medical management because of the limited number of observations.
In conclusion, this study found that the percentage of LBP visits provided by primary care physicians in the United States remains suboptimal. Medical management of LBP, particularly chronic LBP, appears to over-utilize surgery relative to more conservative measures such as patient counseling, non-narcotic analgesics, and other drug therapies. Osteopathic physicians are more likely to provide LBP care, and less likely to use NSAIDs during such visits, than their allopathic counterparts. In general, LBP medical management does not appear to be in accord with evidence-based guidelines.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health – National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (grant number K24AT002422) and the Osteopathic Heritage Foundation. Neither the National Institutes of Health nor the Osteopathic Heritage Foundation participated in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the participation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The author reports no financial conflicts of interest.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Competing interests

JCL is Editor-in-Chief of Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care. He was not involved in the review of the manuscript or in the editorial decision with regard to its suitability for publication.
Anhänge

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanchak NA, Murray JF, Hirsch A, McDermott PD, Schlackman N: USQA health profile database as a tool for health plan quality improvement. Manag Care Q. 1996, 4: 58-69.PubMed Hanchak NA, Murray JF, Hirsch A, McDermott PD, Schlackman N: USQA health profile database as a tool for health plan quality improvement. Manag Care Q. 1996, 4: 58-69.PubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Fautrel B, Guillemin F: Cost of illness studies in rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002, 14: 121-126. 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00008.CrossRefPubMed Fautrel B, Guillemin F: Cost of illness studies in rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002, 14: 121-126. 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00008.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosomoff HL, Rosomoff RS: Low back pain: evaluation and management in the primary care setting. Med Clin North Am. 1999, 83: 643-662. 10.1016/S0025-7125(05)70128-0.CrossRefPubMed Rosomoff HL, Rosomoff RS: Low back pain: evaluation and management in the primary care setting. Med Clin North Am. 1999, 83: 643-662. 10.1016/S0025-7125(05)70128-0.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, G Braen GR, Brown K, Deyo R, Haldeman S, Hart JL, Johnson EW, Keller R, Kido D, Liang MH, Nelson RM, Nordin M, Owen BD, Pope MH, Schwartz RK, Stewart DH, Susman J, Triano JJ, Tripp LC, Turk DC, Watts C, Weinstein JN: Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 14. 1994, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, G Braen GR, Brown K, Deyo R, Haldeman S, Hart JL, Johnson EW, Keller R, Kido D, Liang MH, Nelson RM, Nordin M, Owen BD, Pope MH, Schwartz RK, Stewart DH, Susman J, Triano JJ, Tripp LC, Turk DC, Watts C, Weinstein JN: Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 14. 1994, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Krismer M, van Tulder M: Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007, 21: 77-91. 10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.004.CrossRefPubMed Krismer M, van Tulder M: Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007, 21: 77-91. 10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.004.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat van Tulder M, Koes B, Bombardier C: Low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002, 16: 761-775. 10.1053/berh.2002.0267.CrossRefPubMed van Tulder M, Koes B, Bombardier C: Low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002, 16: 761-775. 10.1053/berh.2002.0267.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Deyo RA, Phillips WR: Low back pain: a primary care challenge. Spine. 1996, 21: 2826-2832. 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00003.CrossRefPubMed Deyo RA, Phillips WR: Low back pain: a primary care challenge. Spine. 1996, 21: 2826-2832. 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00003.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Cypress BK: Characteristics of physician visits for back symptoms: a national perspective. Am J Public Health. 1983, 73: 389-395. 10.2105/AJPH.73.4.389.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Cypress BK: Characteristics of physician visits for back symptoms: a national perspective. Am J Public Health. 1983, 73: 389-395. 10.2105/AJPH.73.4.389.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Waddell G: Low back pain: a twentieth century health care enigma. Spine. 1996, 21: 2820-2825. 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00002.CrossRefPubMed Waddell G: Low back pain: a twentieth century health care enigma. Spine. 1996, 21: 2820-2825. 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00002.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Bogduk N: Management of chronic low back pain. Med J Aust. 2004, 180: 79-83.PubMed Bogduk N: Management of chronic low back pain. Med J Aust. 2004, 180: 79-83.PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Tenney JB, White KL, Williamson JW: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: Background and Methodology. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, No. 61. 1974, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics Tenney JB, White KL, Williamson JW: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: Background and Methodology. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, No. 61. 1974, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Massey JT, Moore TF, Parsons VL, Tadros W: Design and estimation for the National Health Interview Survey, 1985–94. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, No. 110. 1989, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics Massey JT, Moore TF, Parsons VL, Tadros W: Design and estimation for the National Health Interview Survey, 1985–94. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, No. 110. 1989, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bureau of the Census: Induction Interview Form. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. OMB No. 0920, -0234 Bureau of the Census: Induction Interview Form. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. OMB No. 0920, -0234
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Food and Drug Administration: National Drug Code Directory, 1995 Edition. 1995, Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration: National Drug Code Directory, 1995 Edition. 1995, Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Siller AB, Tompkins L: The big four: analyzing complex sample survey data using SAS®, SPSS®, STATA®, and SUDAAN® (Paper 172-31). Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual SAS® Users Group International Conference: 2006; Cary, NC. 2006, SAS Institute Inc Siller AB, Tompkins L: The big four: analyzing complex sample survey data using SAS®, SPSS®, STATA®, and SUDAAN® (Paper 172-31). Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual SAS® Users Group International Conference: 2006; Cary, NC. 2006, SAS Institute Inc
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC: Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine. 1995, 20: 11-19. 10.1097/00007632-199501000-00003.CrossRefPubMed Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC: Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine. 1995, 20: 11-19. 10.1097/00007632-199501000-00003.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Manek NJ, MacGregor AJ: Epidemiology of back disorders: prevalence, risk factors, and prognosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2005, 17: 134-140.PubMed Manek NJ, MacGregor AJ: Epidemiology of back disorders: prevalence, risk factors, and prognosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2005, 17: 134-140.PubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Shekelle PG, Markovich M, Louie R: Comparing the costs between provider types of episodes of back pain care. Spine. 1995, 20: 221-227.CrossRefPubMed Shekelle PG, Markovich M, Louie R: Comparing the costs between provider types of episodes of back pain care. Spine. 1995, 20: 221-227.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Burton AK, Waddell G: Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine. 2001, 26: 2504-2514. 10.1097/00007632-200111150-00022.CrossRefPubMed Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Burton AK, Waddell G: Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine. 2001, 26: 2504-2514. 10.1097/00007632-200111150-00022.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G, COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Chronic Low Back Pain: Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006, 15 (Suppl 2): S192-300. 10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G, COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Chronic Low Back Pain: Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006, 15 (Suppl 2): S192-300. 10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP: A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine. 2002, 27: E109-120. 10.1097/00007632-200203010-00017.CrossRefPubMed Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP: A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine. 2002, 27: E109-120. 10.1097/00007632-200203010-00017.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Martell BA, O'Connor PG, Kerns RD, Becker WC, Morales KH, Kosten TR, Fiellin DA: Systematic review: opioid treatment for chronic back pain: prevalence, efficacy, and association with addiction. Ann Intern Med. 2007, 146: 116-127.CrossRefPubMed Martell BA, O'Connor PG, Kerns RD, Becker WC, Morales KH, Kosten TR, Fiellin DA: Systematic review: opioid treatment for chronic back pain: prevalence, efficacy, and association with addiction. Ann Intern Med. 2007, 146: 116-127.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Koes BW: Evidence-based management of acute low back pain. Lancet. 2007, 370: 1595-1596. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61670-5.CrossRefPubMed Koes BW: Evidence-based management of acute low back pain. Lancet. 2007, 370: 1595-1596. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61670-5.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Licciardone JC: The unique role of osteopathic physicians in treating patients with low back pain. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2004, 104 (11 Suppl 8): S13-18.PubMed Licciardone JC: The unique role of osteopathic physicians in treating patients with low back pain. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2004, 104 (11 Suppl 8): S13-18.PubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Andersson GB, Lucente T, Davis AM, Kappler RE, Lipton JA, Leurgans S: A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients with low back pain. New Engl J Med. 1999, 341: 1426-1431. 10.1056/NEJM199911043411903.CrossRefPubMed Andersson GB, Lucente T, Davis AM, Kappler RE, Lipton JA, Leurgans S: A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients with low back pain. New Engl J Med. 1999, 341: 1426-1431. 10.1056/NEJM199911043411903.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrella RJ, Wight D: An office-based instrument for exercise counseling and prescription in primary care. The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP). Arch Fam Med. 2000, 9: 339-344. 10.1001/archfami.9.4.339.CrossRefPubMed Petrella RJ, Wight D: An office-based instrument for exercise counseling and prescription in primary care. The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP). Arch Fam Med. 2000, 9: 339-344. 10.1001/archfami.9.4.339.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
The epidemiology and medical management of low back pain during ambulatory medical care visits in the United States
verfasst von
John C Licciardone
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2008
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care / Ausgabe 1/2008
Elektronische ISSN: 1750-4732
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-4732-2-11

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2008

Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 1/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Arthroskopie kann Knieprothese nicht hinauszögern

25.04.2024 Gonarthrose Nachrichten

Ein arthroskopischer Eingriff bei Kniearthrose macht im Hinblick darauf, ob und wann ein Gelenkersatz fällig wird, offenbar keinen Unterschied.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.