Telephone-Based Intervention to Improve Rehabilitation Engagement After Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Prospective Lagged Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery outcomes are variable. Patients who participate in and take responsibility for their recovery have improved health outcomes. Interventions to increase patient involvement in their care may improve health outcomes after a surgical procedure. We conducted a prospective interventional trial to compare the effectiveness of health behavior change counseling with usual care to improve health outcomes after lumbar spine surgical procedures. METHODS: In this study, 122 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing a decompression surgical procedure from December 2009 through August 2012 were enrolled. Participants were assigned, according to enrollment date, to health behavior change counseling or usual care. Health behavior change counseling is a brief, telephone-based intervention intended to increase rehabilitation engagement through motivational interviewing strategies that elicit and strengthen motivation for change. Health behavior change counseling was designed to identify patients with low patient activation, to maximize postoperative rehabilitation engagement, to decrease pain and disability, and to improve functional recovery. Participants were assessed before the surgical procedure and for 3 years after the surgical procedure for pain intensity (Brief Pain Inventory), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and physical health (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2). Differences in changes in health outcomes after the surgical procedure were compared between the health behavior change counseling group and the usual care group. RESULTS: By 12 months, health behavior change counseling participants reported significantly greater reductions in pain intensity (p = 0.008) and disability (p = 0.028) and significantly greater improvement in physical health compared with usual care participants (p = 0.025). These differences were attenuated by 24 and 36 months after the surgical procedure. Early improvements in health outcomes were mediated by improvements in physical therapist-rated engagement and self-reported attendance at physical therapy sessions in the health behavior change counseling group. CONCLUSIONS: Health behavior change counseling improved health outcomes during the first 12 months after the surgical procedure through changes in rehabilitation engagement. Wider use of health behavior change counseling may lead to improved outcomes not only after lumbar spine surgery but also in other conditions for which rehabilitation is key to recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Health behavior change counseling in surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: improvement in rehabilitation engagement and functional outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a brief motivational interviewing [MI]-based health behavior change counseling (HBCC) intervention increased patient participation in physical therapy and/or home exercise programs (HEPs), reduced disability, and improved health status after surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: From December 2009 through August 2012, consecutive patients (N=122) underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and, based on enrollment date, were prospectively assigned to a control (n=59) or HBCC intervention (n=63) group in a prospective, lagged-control clinical trial. INTERVENTIONS: Brief MI-based HBCC versus attention control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rehabilitation participation (primary); disability and health status (secondary). Therapists assessed engagement in, and patients reported attendance at, postoperative rehabilitation (physical therapy and/or HEP). At 3 and 6 months, disability and health status were assessed (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2 [SF-12v2]) (significance, P<.05). RESULTS: Compared with controls, HBCC patients had significantly higher rehabilitation engagement (21.20±4.56 vs 23.57±2.71, respectively; P<.001), higher physical therapy (.67±.21 vs .82±.16, respectively; P<.001) and HEP (.65±.23 vs .75±.22, respectively; P=.019) attendance, and better functional outcomes at 3 months (difference: ODI, -10.7±4.4, P=.015; SF-12v2, 6.2±2.2, P=.004) and 6 months (difference: ODI, -12.7±4.8, P=.008; SF-12v2, 8.9±2.4, P<.001). The proportion of the HBCC intervention impact on functional recovery mediated by rehabilitation participation was approximately half at 3 months and one-third at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: HBCC can improve outcomes after spine surgery through improved rehabilitation participation.

Health behavior change counseling in surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: patient activation mediates the effects of health behavior change counseling on rehabilitation engagement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of health behavior change counseling (HBCC) on patient activation and the influence of patient activation on rehabilitation engagement, and to identify common barriers to engagement among individuals undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive lumbar spine surgery patients (N=122) defined in our companion article (Part I) were assigned to a control group (did not receive HBCC, n=59) or HBCC group (received HBCC, n=63). INTERVENTION: Brief motivational interviewing-based HBCC versus control (significance, P<.05). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed patient activation before and after intervention. Rehabilitation engagement was assessed using the physical therapist-reported Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale and by a ratio of self-reported physical therapy and home exercise completion. Common barriers to rehabilitation engagement were identified through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patient activation predicted engagement (standardized regression weight, .682; P<.001). Postintervention patient activation was predicted by baseline patient activation (standardized regression weight, .808; P<.001) and receipt of HBCC (standardized regression weight, .444; P<.001). The effect of HBCC on rehabilitation engagement was mediated by patient activation (standardized regression weight, .079; P=.395). One-third of the HBCC group did not show improvement compared with the control group. Thematic analysis identified 3 common barriers to engagement: (1) low self-efficacy because of lack of knowledge and support (62%); (2) anxiety related to fear of movement (57%); and (3) concern about pain management (48%). CONCLUSIONS: The influence of HBCC on rehabilitation engagement was mediated by patient activation. Despite improvements in patient activation, one-third of patients reported low rehabilitation engagement. Addressing these barriers should lead to greater improvements in rehabilitation engagement.

The impact of reduction of pain after lumbar spine surgery: the relationship between changes in pain and physical function and disability.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between improvement in pain intensity and subsequent improvement in physical function and disability during the first 12 months after lumbar spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about how reduction of pain intensity after surgery may predict improvements in physical function and disability. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 260 individuals undergoing elective surgery for degenerative lumbar spine conditions from August 2005 through August 2011. Preoperative and postoperative (3, 6, and 12 mo) assessment tools were numeric pain rating scale, Short Form 12 version 2 physical component score (physical function), and Oswestry Disability Index (disability). Changes were defined using minimum clinically important differences. The association between improvement in pain intensity and subsequent improvement in physical function and disability during the first 12 postoperative months was assessed using standard regression methods. Significance was set at a P value less than 0.05. RESULTS: Preoperatively, mean pain intensity was 5.2 (standard deviation, 2.4), physical function was 27.9 (standard deviation, 9.2), and disability was 40.1% (standard deviation, 16.8%). Pain intensity had improved in 164 (63.1%) patients by 3 and 6 months and in 184 (70.8%) by 12 months. Patients with improvement in pain postoperatively were more likely to have subsequent improvement in physical function (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.16) during the course of 12 postoperative months. The association between postoperative pain reduction and reduced disability was similar (odds ratio, 1.61; confidence interval, 1.12-2.33). CONCLUSION: Most patients experienced clinically important postsurgical reductions in pain intensity by 3 months after surgery. Those patients were more likely to have clinically important improvement in physical function and reduction in disability during the first postoperative year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Functional recovery in lumbar spine surgery: a controlled trial of health behavior change counseling to improve outcomes.

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine issued a challenge to the American health care system to improve the quality of care by focusing on six major areas: safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. The patient-centered model of care directly addresses important limits of surgical care of the lumbar spine, i.e., the lack of effective methods for increasing patient participation and engagement in post-operative follow-up. Recent evidence indicates that post-surgical outcomes are better among those with higher patient activation. We therefore developed an intervention based on the principles of motivational interviewing to increase patient activation: the Functional Recovery in Lumbar Spine Surgery Health Behavior Change Counseling (HBCC) intervention. The HBCC was designed to maximize post-operative engagement and participation in physical therapy and home exercise, to improve functional recovery, and to decrease pain in individuals undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery. From December 2009 through October 2012, 120 participants were recruited and divided into two groups: those receiving (intervention group, 60) and not receiving (control group, 60) the HBCC intervention. The current manuscript provides a detailed description of the theoretical framework and study design of the HBCC and describes the implementation of this health behavior intervention in a university-based spine service. The HBCC provides a model for conducting health behavioral research in a real-world setting.

United States hospital admissions for lumbar spinal stenosis: racial and ethnic differences, 2000 through 2009.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Nationwide Inpatient Sample and US Census data. OBJECTIVE: To (1) document national trends in surgical hospitalizations with the primary diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis from 2000 through 2009; and (2) evaluate how those trends relate to race and ethnicity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In the United States, the rate of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery is increasing, and understanding how changing demographic trends impact hospitalization rates for this surgery is important. METHODS: Multivariable regression models were used to determine associations between race and ethnicity and the rates of surgical hospitalization for lumbar spinal stenosis. All models were adjusted for age, sex, insurance, income status, geographical location, and comorbidities. RESULTS: From 2000 through 2009, the overall surgical hospitalization rate increased by 30%. Surgical hospitalization rates for lumbar spinal stenosis in the United States varied substantially across racial and ethnic groups. In 2009, white, non-Hispanics had the highest rate (1.074 per 1000) compared with black, non-Hispanics (0.558 per 1000; P< 0.001), and Hispanics (0.339 per 1000; P< 0.001). The relative differences persisted across time. CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in rates of surgical hospitalization among individuals of different racial and ethnic groups. Possible causes were (1) differences in clinical decision making among spine care providers with regard to offering surgical care to minority populations; (2) differences in access to care because of financial, educational, or geographical barriers; and (3) differences in attitudes toward surgical care among those of different racial and ethnic groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The relationship between pain and depressive symptoms after lumbar spine surgery.

Although depressive symptoms are common among those living with back pain, there is limited information on the relationship between postsurgical pain reduction and changes in depressive symptoms. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to examine the change in pain and depressive symptoms and to characterize the relationship between pain and depressive symptoms after lumbar spine surgery. We assessed 260 individuals undergoing lumbar spine surgery preoperatively and postoperatively (3 and 6 months) using a pain intensity numeric rating scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale. The relationship between change in pain (a 2-point decrease or 30% reduction from the preoperative level) and depressive symptoms was examined using standard regression methods. Preoperatively, the mean pain intensity was 5.2 (SD 2.4) points, and the mean depressive symptom score was 5.03 (SD 2.44) points. At 3 months, individuals who experienced a reduction in pain (63%) were no more likely to experience a reduction in depressive symptoms (odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] .58 to 1.98) than individuals who experienced no change from preoperative pain (34%). However, at 6 months, individuals who experienced a reduction in pain (63%) were nearly twice as likely to experience a reduction in depressive symptoms (odds ratio 1.93, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.25) as those who experienced no change or an increase in pain (31%). We found that most individuals experienced clinically important reductions in pain after surgery. We concluded that those whose pain level was reduced at 6 months were more likely to experience a reduction in depressive symptoms.

Minimum clinically important differences in the Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire: results from a national multicenter study of patients treated with anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference is a clinically relevant threshold of improvement. A substantial clinical benefit is a threshold of change that correlates with clinically important improvement. The Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire is a disease-specific, patient-reported outcomes instrument that was developed to be sensitive to changes associated with surgical treatment for degenerative cervical disc disease. To determine thresholds for change in these domain scores that are important from the patient's perspective, we estimated the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit values for this questionnaire's domain scores. METHODS: We evaluated 252 patients from the Cervical Spine Research Society Outcomes Study at their six-month follow-up visits after anterior cervical spine decompression and arthrodesis. Using a receiver operating characteristics curve, with the health transition item of the Short Form-36 as an anchor, we determined that the minimum clinically important difference (the value that maximized sensitivity and specificity to differentiate the "somewhat better" and "much better" responses from others) and the substantial clinical benefit (the value that maximized sensitivity and specificity to differentiate the "much better" response from others) for our questionnaire's domain scores. Responses were scaled between 0 and 1 point; higher scores denoted more severe impairment. Patient and clinical characteristics were tested to determine their influence on score changes. RESULTS: The minimum clinically important difference ranged from 0.13 point (for functional disability) to 0.24 point (for arm/shoulder pain). The substantial clinical benefit score ranged from 0.20 point (for functional disability or physical symptoms other than pain) to 0.30 point (for neck or arm/shoulder pain). Age, sex, and duration of current symptoms were not associated with change in our questionnaire's domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: A 0.13-point change in the functional disability domain score indicated a clinically important difference in a self-reported outcome after anterior cervical spine surgery. A 0.30-point change in neck pain after surgery indicated a clinically important clinical benefit. This information, coupled with previous reports of the psychometric stability of the Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire, should increase the clinical utility of this patient-reported outcomes instrument.

Agreement between surgeons and an independent panel with respect to surgical site fusion after single-level anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective, multicenter study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the: (1) agreement between surgeon and independent review of fusion after single-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion, and (2) influence of surgeon impression of patient status on agreement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Failure to achieve fusion can lead to poor functional outcome. Visual inspection of plain radiographs is used to assess fusion, but this assessment's reliability is not well understood. METHODS: Of 668 participants in the Cervical Spine Research Society Outcomes Study, 181 underwent single-level procedures. Three independent reviewers and each surgeon assessed fusion (i.e., radiographic trabecular bridging of the graft-vertebral body gap and absence of spinous process motion) on plain radiographs at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Agreement was evaluated with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The influence of surgeon impression of patient status on agreement was assessed with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Agreement was high among reviewers (ICC 0.822 to 0.892) but poor between reviewers and surgeons (ICC 0.308 to 0.484); disagreement was higher when the surgeon reported medical (odds ratio [OR] = 0.19, 95%; confidence interval [CI] 0.12, 0.30; P < 0.001), neurologic (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.21, P < 0.001), or functional (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.29, P < 0.001) improvement than when the surgeon did not report this improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that surgeons and independent reviewers disagreed on fusion assessment highlights the need for objective and reproducible measures of fusion.