Skip to main content

Table 2 Clinician demographic information

From: “Gleaning a lot from the history and physical exam,” and “reasonably confident without imaging”: a qualitative study of primary care clinicians' management of patients with low back pain

 

Physicians

(n = 15)

Chiropractors

(n = 18)

Physiotherapists

(n = 14)

ALL

(n = 47)

Age at initial recruitment1 (mean (SD), [min–max])

44.7 (10.0)

[30–65]

46.2 (13.8)

[28–81]

35.2 (7.5)

[27–51]

42.4 (12.0)

[27–81]

Sex

3 M, 12F

11 M, 7F

8 M, 6F

22 M, 25F

Location of entry-to-practice education

14 Canadian

1 Internat'l

13 Canadian

5 Internat'l

8 Canadian

6 Internat'l

35 Canadian

12 Internat'l

Years in practice at initial recruitment1 (mean (SD), [min–max])

12.9 (8.3)

[3–30]

19.2 (14.6)

[1–59]

n = 17

7.3 (5.7)

[1–20]

n = 13

13.7 (11.7)

[1–59]

n = 45

Solo practice or group (≥ 2 providers)

2 solo

12 group

n = 14

2 solo

16 group

1 solo

13 group

5 solo

41 group

n = 46

Uni-profession or at least 2 profession types at the practice

6 uni

8 multi

n = 14

2 uni

16 multi

3 uni

11 multi

11 uni

35 multi

n = 46

Imaging services on-site (number of "yes")

2

3

1

6

Imaging services nearby (number of "yes")

1

0

1

2

Hours per week in practice (median (IQR), [min–max])

30 (31)

[20–75]

30 (11)

[12–50]

38 (5)

[14–43]

35 (15)

[12–75]

Number of patients, any type, per typical week (median (IQR), [min–max])

98 (80)

[30–200]

50 (76)

[20–150]

n = 17

57.5 (30)

[23–100]

67.5 (55)

[20–200]

n = 46

Number of patients per month consulting for low back pain (median (IQR), [min–max])

6 (16)

[1–57]

30 (52)

[2–100]

n = 15

9 (8)

[5–23]

10 (24)

[1–100]

n = 44

Time spent per patient, new visits (median (IQR), [min–max])

30 (15)

[15–40]

53 (30)

[20–60]

60 (15)

[40–60]

45 (30)

[15–60]

Time spent per repeat patient visit (median (IQR), [min–max])

15 (5)

[10–23]

19 (10)

[10–30]

30 (12.5)

[18–45]

20 (10)

[10–45]

Special interest in low back pain or related (number of "yes")

1

10

12

23

Recruitment to the initial phase of the study (number who received a letter by random selection rather than recruited by snowball)

12

14

9

35

Number of patients the clinician recruited to the study with usable data

2.3 (3.0)

[0–9]

10.1 (10.4)

[0–35]

8.1 (5.2)

[0–20]

7.0 (8.0)

[0–35]

Pre-interview questionnaire

 Self-reported familiarity with any of a list of low back pain practice guidelines2 (mean (SD), [min–max])

2.5 (1.5)

[1–5]

2.9 (1.8)

[1–6]

2.5 (1.3)

[1–5]

2.7 (1.6)

[1–6]

 Agreement3 with I am likely to refer low back pain patients for lumbar spine imaging (x-rays, CT or MRI) because patients often expect me to do so (mean (SD), [min–max])

1.8 (1.0)

[1–5]

1.3 (0.5)

[1, 2]

1.3 (0.6)

[1–3]

n = 13

1.5 (0.7)

[1–5]

n = 46

 Agreement3 with There is a role for lumbar spine imaging (x-rays, CT or MRI) when there are neurological signs associated with low back pain (mean (SD), [min–max])

3.9 (1.0)

[1–5]

3.9 (1.0)

[2–5]

3.5 (1.2)

[1–5]

n = 13

3.8 (1.1)

[1–5]

n = 46

 Agreement3 with Lumbar spine imaging (x-rays, CT or MRI) are useful to confirm the diagnosis and to direct appropriate treatment of low back pain, even in the absence of red flags for serious disease (mean (SD), [min–max])

2.0 (0.6)

[1–3]

2.8 (1.0)

[2–5]

2.0 (1.1)

[1–4]

2.3 (1.0)

[1–5]

 Agreement3 with I do not think it is really safe for a person with low back pain to be physically active (mean (SD), [min–max])

1.1 (0.3)

[1, 2]

1.3 (0.6)

[1–3]

1.4 (1.1)

[1–5]

1.3 (0.7)

[1–5]

  1. SD standard deviation, min minimum, max maximum value, IQR interquartile range, CT computerized tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging
  2. Data in all cells are based on sample sizes in the header row unless noted as having data missing (frequency count data) or an n value lower than the value in the header row
  3. 1Initial recruitment to the larger study occurred 1–3 years before the interviews. Thus, age and years of practice would have been higher than shown above at the time of interviews. Also, various descriptors about the clinician's practice may have changed since clinicians had completed the questionnaire
  4. 2Clinicians were asked to rate their familiarity with multiple guidelines and the highest rating was used. Rating scale was: 1 = Never heard of it; 2 = Heard of it, but have not read; 3 = Likely read it at some point but can't recall; 4 = I can recall reading it; 5 = I can recite some of the key points; 6 = I review it regularly
  5. 3Clinicians were asked to rate agreement with statements: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree