↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patterns of health care utilization for low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Patterns of health care utilization for low back pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s83599
Pubmed ID
Authors

Walter F Stewart, Xiaowei Yan, Joseph A Boscarino, Daniel D Maeng, Jack Mardekian, Robert J Sanchez, Michael R Von Korff

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if primary care patients with low back pain (LBP) cluster into definable care utilization subgroups that can be explained by patient and provider characteristics. Adult primary care patients with an incident LBP encounter were identified from Geisinger Clinic electronic health records over 5 years. Two-thirds of the cohort had only one to two encounters. Principal component analysis was applied to the data from the remaining one-third on use of ambulatory, inpatient, emergency department, and surgery care and use of magnetic resonance imaging, injections, and opioids in 12 months following the incident encounter. Groups were compared on demographics, health behaviors, chronic and symptomatic disease burden, and a measure of physician efficiency. Six factors with eigenvalues >1.5 explained 71% of the utilization variance. Patient subgroups were defined as: 1-2 LBP encounters; 2+ surgeries; one surgery; specialty care without primary care; 3+ opioid prescriptions; laboratory dominant care; and others. The surgery and 3+ opioid subgroups, while accounting for only 10.4% of the cohort, had used disproportionately more magnetic resonance imaging, emergency department, inpatient, and injectable resources. The specialty care subgroup was characterized by heavy use of inpatient care and the lowest use of injectables. Anxiety disorder and depression were not more prevalent among the surgery patients than in the others. Surgery patients had features in common with specialty care patients, but were older, had higher prevalence of Fibromyalgia, and were associated primary care physicians with worse efficiency scores. LBP care utilization is highly variable and concentrated in small subgroups using disproportionate amounts of potentially avoidable care that reflect both patient and provider characteristics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,816,184
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,589
of 1,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,753
of 276,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#25
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.