Dataset Information

Factors associated with physician-reported treatment status of patients with osteoarthritis pain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is typically associated with pain, but many patients are not treated.

Methods

This point in time study explored factors associated with treatment status, using logistic regression of data from the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme conducted in the United States. Patients' treatment status was based on physician-reported, current: 1) prescription medication for OA vs. none; and 2) physician treatment (prescription medication and/or recommendation for specified nonpharmacologic treatment for OA [physical or occupational therapy, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, or cognitive behavior therapy/psychotherapy]) vs. self-management (no prescription medication or specified nonpharmacologic treatment).

Results

The 841 patients (including 57.0% knee OA, 31.9% hip OA) reported mild (45.4%) or moderate or severe (54.6%) average pain intensity over the last week. The majority were prescribed medication and/or recommended specified nonpharmacologic treatment; 218 were not prescription-medicated and 122 were self-managed. Bivariate analyses showed less severe patient-reported pain intensity and physician-rated OA severity, fewer joints affected by OA, lower proportion of joints affected by knee OA, better health status, lower body mass index, and lower ratings for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks, for those not prescribed medication (vs. prescription-medicated). Multivariate analyses confirmed factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with prescription medication included (odds ratio): physician-rated current moderate OA severity (vs. mild, 2.03), patient-reported moderate OA severity 6 months ago (vs. mild, 1.71), knee OA (vs. not, 1.81), physician-recommended (0.28) and patient-reported (0.43) over-the-counter medication use (vs. not), prior surgery for OA (vs. not, 0.37); uncertain income was also significant. Factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with physician treatment included (odds ratio): physician-recommended nonpharmacologic therapy requiring no/minimal medical supervision (vs. not, 2.21), physician-rated current moderate OA severity (vs. mild, 2.04), patient-reported over-the-counter medication use (vs. not, 0.26); uncertain time since diagnosis was also significant. Patient-reported pain intensity and most demographic factors were not significant in either model.

Conclusions

Approximately 1 in 4 patients were not prescribed medication and 1 in 7 were self-managed, although many were using over-the-counter medications or nonpharmacologic therapies requiring no/minimal medical supervision. Multiple factors were significantly associated with treatment status, including OA severity and over-the-counter medication, but not pain intensity or most demographics.

SUBMITTER: Schnitzer TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9134575 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors associated with physician-reported treatment status of patients with osteoarthritis pain.

Schnitzer Thomas J TJ Robinson Rebecca L RL Tive Leslie L Cappelleri Joseph C JC Bushmakin Andrew G AG Jackson James J Berry Mia M Barlow Sophie S Walker Chloe C Viktrup Lars L

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20220526 1

<h4>Background</h4>Osteoarthritis (OA) is typically associated with pain, but many patients are not treated.<h4>Methods</h4>This point in time study explored factors associated with treatment status, using logistic regression of data from the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme conducted in the United States. Patients' treatment status was based on physician-reported, current: 1) prescription medication for OA vs. none; and 2) physician treatment (prescription medication and/or recommendation ...[more]

PMID: 35619074

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: Numerous recently published clinical care guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) Guideline for Low Back Pain (LBP), call for nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. However, little data exist regarding the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted by patients and medical doctors. The study objective was to determine patient-reported treatment recommendations by medical doctors for LBP and patient compliance with those recommendations. Design: This study used a cross-sectional web and mail survey. Settings/Location: The study was conducted among Gallup Panel members across the United States. Subjects: Survey participants included 5377 U.S. adults randomly selected among Gallup Panel members. Of those, 545 reported a visit to a medical doctor within the past year for low back pain and were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding treatment recommendations. Interventions: Participants were asked about medical doctor recommendations for both drug (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, and cortisone injections) and nondrug (self-care treatments, massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and physical therapy) treatments. Outcome Measures: Participants were asked to indicate if their medical doctor recommended each drug and nondrug therapy for their LBP and if they had followed each of those treatment recommendations. Results: Ninety-six percent of patients who visited a medical doctor for LBP received a recommendation for one or more pain treatments, with 81% reporting that their medical doctor recommended both drug and nondrug therapies. Seventy-six percent of respondents were recommended acetaminophen or NSAIDs, 79% were recommended self-care treatments, 37% were recommended massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation, and 60% were recommended physical therapy. Nearly two-thirds of our sample reported that their doctor had recommended prescription medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, or cortisone injections. Reported adherence to treatment recommendations ranged from 68% for acupuncture to 94% for NSAIDs. Conclusions: One year after publication of the ACP's Guideline on LBP, patients report that medical doctors recommended both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment approaches to patients with LBP. In the majority of cases, a combination of prescription medications and self-care were recommended, illustrating the need for additional research on the effectiveness of multi-modal treatment strategies. Patients reported that they were largely compliant with medical doctor recommendations, underscoring the influence that medical doctors have in directing patient care for LBP. These findings indicate that further work is also needed to explore the impact of personal experience, training, clinical evidence, sociocultural factors, and health plans on medical doctors therapeutic recommendations in the context of back pain.

Project description:ImportanceA primary objective in managing atrial fibrillation (AF) is to optimize patients' health status, which can be done only if physicians accurately quantify the outcomes associated with AF in patients' lives.ObjectiveTo explore physicians' estimation of the health status of patients with AF and its association with subsequent care and outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted in 2 outpatient practices in Tokyo, Japan. Participants included patients with newly diagnosed AF or those referred for initial treatment of AF at outpatient practices and treating physicians from November 8, 2018, to April 1, 2020. Data analysis was performed from December 22, 2022, to July 7, 2023.ExposuresParticipating patients completed the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire, a 20-item tool covering 4 domains with a 7-point Likert scale; 3 domains (symptoms, daily activities, and treatment concerns) were used in this study. Blinded to patients' responses, treating physicians answered a 3-item questionnaire quantifying each patient's AFEQT domain with a single item. Patients' mean Likert scale responses within each AFEQT domain were subtracted from the physicians' assessments so that higher scores (≥0.5 points) indicate physician underestimation, while lower scores (≤0.5 points) indicate physician overestimation of the health status of patients with AF.Main outcomes and measuresThe independent association of physician-patient concordance with treatment escalation (alteration or initiation of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or catheter ablation) and 1-year adjusted changes in AFEQT scores.ResultsAmong 330 patients (238 [72.1%] men; mean [SD] age, 67.9 [11.9] years; 163 [49.4%] with paroxysmal AF), physicians correctly estimated health status in 112 patients (33.9%), underestimated it in 42 patients (12.7%), and overestimated it in 176 patients (53.3%). Treatment escalation occurred in 63.6% of patients whose health status was correctly estimated, 47.6% of those whose health status was underestimated, and 66.3% of patients whose health status was overestimated. After multivariable adjustment, underestimation of health status was independently associated with less treatment escalation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90) and less frequent AFEQT overall summary score improvement at 1 year (underestimated, 2.5 [95% CI, -1.6 to 6.7] vs correctly and overestimated health status, 8.4 [95% CI, 7.0-9.9] points; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, physician underestimation of the health status of patients with AF was common and associated with less aggressive treatment and less health status improvement at 1 year.

Dataset Information

Factors associated with physician-reported treatment status of patients with osteoarthritis pain.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Factors associated with physician-reported treatment status of patients with osteoarthritis pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets