Search

Background: Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic trauma. However, recent evidence suggests that aspirin is similar in efficacy and safety. To understand patients' experiences with these medications, we compared patients' satisfaction and out-of-pocket costs after thromboprophylaxis with aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of the PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT) trial, conducted at 21 trauma centers in the U.S. and Canada. We included adult patients with an operatively treated extremity fracture or a pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) twice daily or 81 mg of aspirin twice daily for thromboprophylaxis. The duration of the thromboprophylaxis, including post-discharge prescription, was based on hospital protocols. The study outcomes included patient satisfaction with and out-of-pocket costs for their thromboprophylactic medication measured on ordinal scales. Results: The trial enrolled 12,211 patients (mean age and standard deviation [SD], 45 ± 18 years; 62% male), 9725 of whom completed the question regarding their satisfaction with the medication and 6723 of whom reported their out-of-pocket costs. The odds of greater satisfaction were 2.6 times higher for patients assigned to aspirin than those assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.39 to 2.80; p < 0.001). Overall, the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs for thromboprophylaxis medication were 51% higher for patients assigned to aspirin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.66; p < 0.001). However, patients assigned to aspirin had substantially lower odds of out-of-pocket costs of at least $25 (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.18; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Use of aspirin substantially improved patients' satisfaction with their medication after orthopaedic trauma. While aspirin use increased the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs, it protected against costs of ≥$25, potentially improving health equity for thromboprophylaxis. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little evidence is available to guide physical therapy (PT) following lower extremity fracture repair distal to the hip. As such, variability has been reported in the way PT is utilized post-operatively. Examination of current practice by orthopedic surgeons (OS) and physical therapists is needed to inform clinical practice guidelines in this area. To describe current PT referral practices among OS, identify patient and clinical factors that affect PT referral, and examine differences between OS and physical therapists with regard to visit frequency, duration, and use of specific PT interventions. Provider surveys. Surveys were completed by 100 OS and 347 physical therapists. Over half (54%) of OS reported referring "most patients" to PT and identified joint stiffness and strength limitations as top reasons for PT referral. Over 80% of OS and physical therapists indicated that joint stiffness, strength limitations, and patients' functional goals affected their recommendations for PT visit frequency. More physical therapists than OS reported that pain severity (55% vs 25%, p <.001), maladaptive pain behaviors (64% vs. 33%, p <.001), and patient self-efficacy (70% vs. 49%, p =.003) affected their visit frequency recommendations. While OS recommended more frequent PT for patients with peri-articular fractures, fracture type had minimal impact on the visit frequencies recommended by physical therapists. OS and physical therapists consider similar physical impairments when determining the need for PT and visit frequencies, however, physical therapists consider pain and psychosocial factors more often, with OS focusing more on injury type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP). Methods In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP. Results We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P  < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P  < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83–1.90, respectively). Conclusions We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02647658. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could disproportionately affect the health of vulnerable populations, including patients experiencing persistent health conditions (i.e. chronic pain), along with populations living within deprived, lower socioeconomic areas. The current cross-sectional study characterized relationships between neighborhood deprivation and perceived changes in pain-related experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (early-September to mid-October 2020) for adult patients (N = 97) with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Methods We collected self-report perceived experiences from participants enrolled in an ongoing pragmatic randomized trial across medical centers within the Salt Lake City, Utah and Baltimore, Maryland metropolitans. The Area Deprivation Index (composite of 17 US Census deprivation metrics) reflected neighborhood deprivation based on participants' zip codes. Results Although those living in the neighborhoods with greater deprivation endorsed significantly poorer physical (pain severity, pain interference, physical functioning), mental (depression, anxiety), and social health during the pandemic, there were no significant differences for perceived changes in pain-related experiences (pain severity, pain interference, sleep quality) between levels of neighborhood deprivation since the onset of the pandemic. However, those in neighborhoods with greater deprivation endorsed disproportionately worse perceived changes in pain coping, social support, and mood since the pandemic. Conclusions The current findings offer evidence that changes in pain coping during the pandemic may be disproportionately worse for those living in deprived areas. Considering poorer pain coping may contribute to long-term consequences, the current findings suggest the need for further attention and intervention to reduce the negative effect of the pandemic for such vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose/Objective: Lack of patient participation and engagement remains a barrier to implementing effective online self-management and behavioral health interventions. Identifying patient characteristics associated with engagement rates may lead to interventions that improve engagement in traditional and online self-management programs. In this study, two online self-management and recovery programs were evaluated to identify factors that predict patient engagement. Research Method/Design: Predictors were collected in a questionnaire at baseline before 435 participants started either of the two interventions. One or two online lessons were completed per week with seven or eight total lessons to complete in each program, and each lesson took about 20–30 min to finish. Full patient engagement was defined as completing all lessons and assessments in the program and partial engagement as attempting at least one lesson or assessment. Results: Predictors of full patient engagement were self-rated confidence in completing the program or being over 60 years of age. Predictors of at least partial patient engagement were experienced ordering online or being over 50 years of age. Conclusions/Implications: Identifying profiles of individuals who predict poor engagement may improve implementation and the health outcomes of intervention programs. Impact and Implications: Online delivery of self-management and cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions is being implemented to improve access to care. Utilization of the programs is variable and identifying factors that predict engagement is needed. Older age and greater confidence in completing the program independently predicted a greater likelihood of patients fully engaging in two online self-management and recovery programs. Older age and having experience purchasing items online independently predicted a greater likelihood of patients at least partially engaging in two online self-management and recovery programs. Future research should focus on individual attributes that predict patient engagement and on developing interventions to promote engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Orthopedic surgeons are sometimes hesitant to assess and address psychosocial factors. Surgeon-specific modifiable factors may contribute to surgeon attitudes and beliefs regarding the mental and social aspects of illness. A better understanding of these factors could help inform interventions to support surgeons and improve patient outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether orthopedic surgeons' self-reported compassion, perceived stress, and experiential avoidance are independently associated with various surgeon attitudes and beliefs regarding psychosocial aspects of health., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of 165 members of the Science of Variation Group (SOVG). Surgeons completed measures of compassion, stress, experiential avoidance, and demographics. They answered questions addressing attitudes and beliefs regarding psychosocial aspects of care, which were condensed to the following 6 dimensions through factor analysis: (1) confidence, (2) perceived resource availability, (3) blame towards patients, (4) fear of offending patients, (5) professional role resistance, and (6) fear of negative patient reactions. We performed 6 multivariable hierarchical regression analyses to determine whether self-reported compassion, perceived stress, and experiential avoidance were associated with aspects of surgeons' attitudes and beliefs regarding psychosocial care., Results: After accounting for the influence of relevant covariates, experiential avoidance explained 2.9-6.6% of the variance ( P-values .002 to .031) in all aspects of surgeon attitudes and beliefs regarding psychosocial care, except for perceived resource availability. Perceived stress and compassion toward others were not associated with any outcome variable., Conclusion: Targeting orthopedic surgeons' tendency to avoid discomfort (i.e., experiential avoidance) via supportive/educational programs may decrease barriers and increase their abilities to address psychosocial factors, resulting in improved patient outcomes.

Objective: Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could disproportionately affect the health of vulnerable populations, including patients experiencing persistent health conditions (i.e., chronic pain), along with populations living within deprived, lower socioeconomic areas. The current cross-sectional study characterized relationships between neighborhood deprivation and perceived changes in pain-related experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (early-September to mid-October 2020) for adult patients (N = 97) with nonspecific chronic low back pain., Methods: We collected self-report perceived experiences from participants enrolled in an ongoing pragmatic randomized trial across medical centers within the Salt Lake City, Utah and Baltimore, Maryland metropolitans. The Area Deprivation Index (composite of 17 US Census deprivation metrics) reflected neighborhood deprivation based on participants' zip codes., Results: Although those living in the neighborhoods with greater deprivation endorsed significantly poorer physical (pain severity, pain interference, physical functioning), mental (depression, anxiety), and social health during the pandemic, there were no significant differences for perceived changes in pain-related experiences (pain severity, pain interference, sleep quality) between levels of neighborhood deprivation since the onset of the pandemic. However, those in neighborhoods with greater deprivation endorsed disproportionately worse perceived changes in pain coping, social support, and mood since the pandemic., Conclusions: The current findings offer evidence that changes in pain coping during the pandemic may be disproportionately worse for those living in deprived areas. Considering poorer pain coping may contribute to long-term consequences, the current findings suggest the need for further attention and intervention to reduce the negative effect of the pandemic for such vulnerable populations., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)