Watchful waiting as a strategy to reduce low-value spinal imaging: study protocol for a randomized trial

Joshua J Fenton, Anthony Jerant, Peter Franks, Melissa Gosdin, Ilona Fridman, Camille Cipri, Gary Weinberg, Andrew Hudnut, Daniel J Tancredi, Joshua J Fenton, Anthony Jerant, Peter Franks, Melissa Gosdin, Ilona Fridman, Camille Cipri, Gary Weinberg, Andrew Hudnut, Daniel J Tancredi

Abstract

Background: Patients with acute low back pain frequently request diagnostic imaging, and clinicians feel pressure to acquiesce to such requests to sustain patient trust and satisfaction. Spinal imaging in patients with acute low back pain poses risks from diagnostic evaluation of false-positive findings, patient labeling and anxiety, and unnecessary treatment (including spinal surgery). Watchful waiting advice has been an effective strategy to reduce some low-value treatments, and some evidence suggests a watchful waiting approach would be acceptable to many patients requesting diagnostic tests.

Methods: We will use key informant interviews of clinicians and focus groups with primary care patients to refine a theory-informed standardized patient-based intervention designed to teach clinicians how to advise watchful waiting when patients request low-value spinal imaging for low back pain. We will test the effectiveness of the intervention in a randomized clinical trial. We will recruit 8-10 primary care and urgent care clinics (~ 55 clinicians) in Sacramento, CA; clinicians will be randomized 1:1 to intervention and control groups. Over a 3- to 6-month period, clinicians in the intervention group will receive 3 visits with standardized patient instructors (SPIs) portraying patients with acute back pain; SPIs will instruct clinicians in a three-step model emphasizing establishing trust, empathic communication, and negotiation of a watchful waiting approach. Control physicians will receive no intervention. The primary outcome is the post-intervention rate of spinal imaging among actual patients with acute back pain seen by the clinicians adjusted for rate of imaging during a baseline period. Secondary outcomes are use of targeted communication techniques during a follow-up visit with an SP, clinician self-reported use of watchful waiting with actual low back pain patients, post-intervention rates of diagnostic imaging for other musculoskeletal pain syndromes (to test for generalization of intervention effects beyond back pain), and patient trust and satisfaction with physicians.

Discussion: This trial will determine whether standardized patient instructors can help clinicians develop skill in negotiating a watchful waiting approach with patients with acute low back pain, thereby reducing rates of low-value spinal imaging. The trial will also examine the possibility that intervention effects generalize to other diagnostic tests.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255199 . Registered on January 20, 2020.

Keywords: Back pain; Computed tomography; Diagnostic testing; Magnetic resonance imaging; Overuse; Patient-doctor communication; Primary care; Randomized controlled trial; X-rays/roentgenography.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of trial enrolment, interventions, and assessments. Abbreviations: SP standardized patient; SPI standardized patient instructor

References

    1. Lipitz-Snyderman A, Korenstein D. Reducing overuse-is patient safety the answer? Jama. 2017;317:810–811. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0896.
    1. Morgan DJ, Dhruva SS, Wright SM, et al. 2016 update on medical overuse: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1687–1692. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5381.
    1. Korenstein D, Chimonas S, Barrow B, et al. Development of a conceptual map of negative consequences for patients of overuse of medical tests and treatments. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1401–1407. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3573.
    1. Zapata JA, Lai AR, Moriates C. Is excessive resource utilization an adverse event? JAMA. 2017;317:849–850. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0698.
    1. Little P, Dorward M, Warner G, et al. Importance of patient pressure and perceived pressure and perceived medical need for investigations, referral, and prescribing in primary care: nested observational study. Bmj. 2004;328:444. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38013.644086.7C.
    1. Ash LM, Modic MT, Obuchowski NA, et al. Effects of diagnostic information, per se, on patient outcomes in acute radiculopathy and low back pain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1098–1103. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A0999.
    1. Flynn TW, Smith B, Chou R. Appropriate use of diagnostic imaging in low back pain: a reminder that unnecessary imaging may do as much harm as good. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41:838–846. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3618.
    1. National Committee on Quality Assurance. Use of imaging studies for low back pain: National Committee on Quality Assurance; 2021. . Accessed 1 Feb 2021
    1. Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the choosing wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1913–1920. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
    1. van Bokhoven MA, Koch H, van der Weijden T, et al. Influence of watchful waiting on satisfaction and anxiety among patients seeking care for unexplained complaints. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:112–120. doi: 10.1370/afm.958.
    1. May L, Franks P, Jerant A, et al. Watchful waiting strategy may reduce low-value diagnostic testing. J Am Board Family Med. 2016;29:710–717. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.06.160056.
    1. Fridman I, Scherr KA, Glare PA, et al. Using a non-fit message helps to de-intensify negative reactions to tough advice. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016;42:1025–1044. doi: 10.1177/0146167216649931.
    1. Fridman I, Glare PA, Stabler SM, et al. Information framing reduces initial negative attitudes in cancer patients’ decisions about hospice care. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2018;55:1540–1545. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.02.010.
    1. UC Davis Clinical Studies | StudyPages, 2020. . Accessed 21 Sept 2020.
    1. Hirsh JB, Kang SK, Bodenhausen GV. Personalized persuasion: tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psychol Sci. 2012;23:578–581. doi: 10.1177/0956797611436349.
    1. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:673–693. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673.
    1. Ludolph R, Schulz PJ. Does regulatory fit lead to more effective health communication? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2015;31:142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.021.
    1. Zulman DM, Haverfield MC, Shaw JG, et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323:70–81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.19003.
    1. Epstein RM, Duberstein PR, Fenton JJ, et al. Effect of a patient-centered communication intervention on oncologist-patient communication, quality of life, and health care utilization in advanced cancer: the VOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:92–100.
    1. Bays AM, Engelberg RA, Back AL, et al. Interprofessional communication skills training for serious illness: evaluation of a small-group, simulated patient intervention. J Palliat Med. 2014;17:159–166. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2013.0318.
    1. Fenton JJ, Kravitz RL, Jerant A, et al. Promoting patient-centered counseling to reduce use of low-value diagnostic tests: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:191–197. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6840.
    1. Deyo RA, Diehl AK, Rosenthal M. Reducing roentgenography use. Can patient expectations be altered? Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:141–145. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1987.00370010139029.
    1. Whedon JM, Mackenzie TA, Phillips RB, et al. Risk of traumatic injury associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation in Medicare Part B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years. Spine. 2015;40:264–270. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000725.
    1. Cassidy JD, Boyle E, Côté P, et al. Risk of carotid stroke after chiropractic care: a population-based case-crossover study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;26:842–850. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.10.031.
    1. CAPHS: Surveys and Tools to Advance Patient Care. Agency for healthcare quality and research. 2016. . Accessed 30 June 2020.
    1. Jerant A, Kravitz RL, Tancredi D, et al. Training primary care physicians to employ self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques: randomized controlled trial of a standardized patient intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:716–722. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3644-z.
    1. Frison L, Pocock SJ. Repeated measures in clinical trials: analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Stat Med. 1992;11:1685–1704. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780111304.
    1. McCullagh P, Nelder J. Generalized linear models. 2. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1989.
    1. Kenward MG, Carpenter J. Multiple imputation: current perspectives. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16:199–218. doi: 10.1177/0962280206075304.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren