Background
National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP, and the demographic, health-related, and care-seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the past 14 years.
Methods
A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina (NC) households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. 4,437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5,357 households were contacted in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized, adults 21 years and older with chronic, impairing (pain>3 months that limits daily activities). These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and care-seeking.
Results
The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14 year interval, from 3.9% (95% CI:3.4–4.4) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI:9.3–11.0) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in males and females, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI:65.2–79.8) to 84.0% (95% CI:80.8–86.8), while mean number of visits to all providers were similar (19.5 vs 19.4).
Conclusions
The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in NC, with continuing high levels of disability and care utilization. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past two decades may be related to this rising prevalence..
SREs have important and significant effects on measures of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Treatments that prevent SREs may not demonstrate corresponding effects on outcomes if the effects of SREs occur between scheduled outcome assessments. Implications for trial design are discussed.
Purpose
To develop a social health measurement framework, to test items in diverse populations and to develop item response theory (IRT) item banks.
Methods
A literature review guided framework development of Social Function and Social Relationships sub-domains. Items were revised based on patient feedback, and Social Function items were field-tested. Analyses included exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), two-parameter IRT modeling and evaluation of differential item functioning (DIF).
Results
The analytic sample included 956 general population respondents who answered 56 Ability to Participate and 56 Satisfaction with Participation items. EFA and CFA identified three Ability to Participate sub-domains. However, because of positive and negative wording, and content redundancy, many items did not fit the IRT model, so item banks do not yet exist. EFA, CFA and IRT identified two preliminary Satisfaction item banks. One item exhibited trivial age DIF.
Conclusion
After extensive item preparation and review, EFA-, CFA- and IRT-guided item banks help provide increased measurement precision and flexibility. Two Satisfaction short forms are available for use in research and clinical practice. This initial validation study resulted in revised item pools that are currently undergoing testing in new clinical samples and populations.
Cancer patients offered phase I trial participation have expectations for treatment benefit that exceed those of their physicians. The discordant perceptions of patients and physicians may possibly be explained by patient optimism and confidence; however, the discrepancies in reports of consultation content, particularly given patients' stated values regarding quality of life, raise the possibility that communication in this context is suboptimal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.