• M E McKinnon, M R Vickers, V M Ruddock, J Townsend, and T W Meade.
• Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom.
• Spine. 1997 Sep 15;22(18):2161-6.

Study DesignRetrospective study using primary care physician case notes and a self-report questionnaire on the same randomly selected population sample.ObjectivesTo assess the prevalence, management, and outcomes of low back pain in the community, comparing, in the same random sample of registered patients, self-report questionnaire data and primary care physicians' records.Summary Of Background DataThe financial and resource implications of low back pain are extensive. Data on consultations, investigations, and the management of low back pain are fragmentary and there are no comparisons estimating prevalence from case notes and self-report.MethodsA retrospective study of prevalence, management, referral, and outcome covering the previous 12 months was carried out in three general practices using case notes and a self-report postal questionnaire on a sample of 900 patients over 18 years.ResultsLifetime prevalence of low back pain was 62%. Annual prevalence was 48%, with 16% reporting low back pain at the time of report. Twenty-four percent consulted their primary care physician for low back pain, of whom 17% were referred to a hospital specialist. The annual consultation rate of patients with low back pain was similar to the rate for patients with chronic conditions. The activities of daily living were restricted in less than half, with few taking sick leave. The general health status of those reporting recent low back pain was significantly lower than those not reporting low back pain. Most felt that low back pain was self-limiting and would not consult health professionals for future episodes. There were substantial discrepancies between case notes recorded at consultation with the primary care physician and self-report regarding consultation and investigations.ConclusionsPrevalence rates were comparable with those reported in other studies. The significant discrepancies between data sources suggest patient recall bias or underrecording in case notes. The low consultation rate, time off, and day-to-day disability indicate that most episodes are self-limiting.

19 keywords...

hide…