Literature Collection

PURPOSE: AIM-Back is an embedded pragmatic clinical trial (ePCT) with cluster randomization designed to increase access and compare the effectiveness of two different non-pharmacological care pathways for low back pain (LBP) delivered within the Veteran Administration Health Care System (VAHCS). This manuscript describes baseline characteristics of AIM-Back participants as well as the representativeness of those referred to the AIM-Back program by sex, age, race, and ethnicity, relative to Veterans with low back pain at participating clinics. PARTICIPANTS: To be eligible for AIM-Back, Veterans were referred to the randomized pathway at their clinic by trained primary care providers (Referral cohort). Veterans from the Referral cohort that participated in the study included: 1) an Electronic Health Record (EHR) sample of Veterans enrolled in the program (i.e., attended initial AIM-Back visit with no consent required) and a Survey sample of Veterans that were consented for further study. Descriptive statistics for age, race, ethnicity, sex, high-impact chronic pain (HICP), a comorbidity measure, post-traumatic stress diagnosis (PTSD) and opioid exposure were reported for the Referral cohort and by sample; mean baseline PROMIS pain interference, physical function and sleep disturbance scores were reported by sample. Additional measures of pain, mental health and social risk were reported on the Survey sample. Participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for sex, age, race, and ethnicity by clinic to describe representativeness of the Referral cohort. FINDINGS TO DATE: Across 17 randomized primary care clinics, the Referral cohort included 2767 unique Veterans with n=1817 in the EHR sample, n=996 in the Survey sample and n=799 of the EHR sample (44%) were also in the Survey sample. High rates of HICP were observed in the EHR and Survey samples (>59%). Mean scores (SD) based on self-reported PROMIS Pain Interference (63.2 (6.8), 63.1 (6.6)) and PROMIS Physical Function (37.1 (5.3), 38.1 (5.8)) indicated moderate impairment in the EHR sample and Survey sample respectively. Approximately 10% of the EHR sample had documented opioid use in the year leading up to the AIM-Back referral. At most clinics, older Veterans (>=65 years) were underrepresented in the Referral cohort compared to those with LBP visits at clinics (PPRs < 0.8). FUTURE PLANS: The AIM-Back trial will conduct analysis to examine the comparative effectiveness of the two care pathways and identify individual characteristics that may improve responses to each pathway. The trial is expected to complete 12-month follow-up data collection by December 2024, with subsequent analyses and publications providing insights into optimizing non-pharmacological care for Veterans with LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04411420 (clinicaltrials.gov).

OBJECTIVES: Collaborative and integrated (C + I) working between general practice and community pharmacies has the potential to increase accessibility to services, improve service efficiency and quality of care, and reduce health care expenditures. Many existing studies report challenges and complexities inherent in establishing effective C + I ways of working. The aim of our review is to understand how, when and why working arrangements between General Practitioners (GP) and Community Pharmacists (CP) can provide the conditions necessary for effective communication, decision-making, and C + I working. METHODS: We conducted a realist review to explore the key contextual factors and mechanisms through which GP-CP C + I working may be achieved. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, IBSS, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Sociology Database and the King's Fund Library Database were searched for articles and grey literature published between January 2000 and April 2022. RESULTS: A total of 136 documents were included in the final synthesis. Our findings highlight the importance of mutually beneficial remuneration models to support effective integration of services; supportive organisational cultures and values; flexible and agile IT systems/technologies; adequate physical infrastructure and space design to support multidisciplinary teamworking; the importance of establishing patient's trust in collaborative processes between GP-CP; and the need to acknowledge, support and utilise effective triadic relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our research generates new insights regarding how, why and in which contexts C + I working can be achieved between GPs and CPs. The findings of our review can be used to inform future policy, research and clinical practice guidelines for designing and delivering C + I care.