Cohort Profile: Baseline Characteristics of Veterans from Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) – an Embedded Pragmatic, Cluster Randomized Trial in the United States ============================================================================================================================================================================================================ * Steven Z. George * Courtni France * Cynthia J. Coffman * Kelli D. Allen * Trevor A. Lentz * Rebecca North * Ashley Choate * Adam P. Goode * Corey B. Simon * Janet M. Grubber * Heather King * Chad E. Cook * Francis J. Keefe * Lindsay A. Ballengee * Jennifer Naylor * Joseph Leo Brothers * Catherine Stanwyck * Travis Linton * Christa Tumminello * S. Nicole Hastings ## Abstract **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](http://clinicaltrials.gov)) **Strengths** * Embedded features (e.g., EHR documentation and clinical staff serving as interventionist) of the AIM-Back trial have potential to facilitate implementation of these care pathways more broadly in Veteran’s Health Administration clinics and in health systems outside the Veteran’s Health Administration * Participating clinics were in 10 states providing regional geographic representation across the study. * Trial was delivered within an integrated health system optimal for consistent documentation templates and data extraction across the trial sites. **Limitations** * Due to clinical personnel’s role in participant recruitment, sample biases may exist in those referred to the program and/or those who agreed to participate in additional surveys * These findings may not be generalizable to older aged Veterans due to our lower enrollment of those 65+. ## Introduction Non-pharmacological treatments have been endorsed as effective, low risk (i.e., compared to pharmacological or interventional) approaches for treating low back pain (LBP) by multiple entities inside and outside the U.S., including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention [1], National Academy of Medicine [2], American College of Physicians [3], and World Health Organization.[4] Furthermore, there is evidence from observational studies indicating that non-pharmacological treatments for LBP reduce risk of future opioid use.[5–7] Consensus recommendations in practice guidelines, and encouraging findings from the previously cited observational studies, provide foundational support for non-pharmacological care of LBP, but there is still an urgent need for research designs that address their effectiveness. Pressing research questions about the structuring of non-pharmacologic care pathways to optimize clinical outcomes such as pain interference and physical function persist.[8] Many of these research questions can only be addressed through pragmatic trials designed to assess the impact of non-pharmacological care delivered in real-world settings.[9,10] Accordingly, we conducted the Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial.[11] AIM-Back was designed as an embedded pragmatic clinical trial (ePCT) with cluster randomization and is part of the National Institutes of Health-Department of Defense-Veteran Affairs Pain Management Collaboratory. This Collaboratory focuses on active military and Veterans for clinical trials because of the higher severity from LBP or joint pain reported in these populations.[12] Specific to the purposes of AIM-Back, the widespread prevalence of LBP and the disproportionate impact it has on Veterans’ quality of life [13] indicated a need to develop and test the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological care pathways in the Veteran Health Administration. The AIM-Back trial: 1) developed and implemented two different LBP care pathways designed to improve access to non-pharmacological treatments; 2) is investigating the comparative effectiveness of these care pathways for reducing pain interference and improving physical function; and 3) plans to identify individual level characteristics that improve outcome response to a care pathway (i.e. heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses). The purpose of this Cohort Profile is to provide an overview of trial enrollment and a description of Veteran characteristics of the AIM-Back trial at baseline. Specifically, this manuscript includes a description of: a) baseline characteristics including rates of HICP and opioid use (which are planned subgroups for future analyses), b) baseline measures of pain and function, and c) the representativeness of those referred to AIM-Back by sex, age, race, and ethnicity, relative to the clinical LBP population at randomized clinics, to provide an indication of how generalizable findings from this trial will be. Veterans that participated in the study include: 1) an Electronic Health Record (EHR) sample that enrolled in a clinical program (no consent required) and 2) a Survey sample that agreed to be contacted and consented for further study. There are Veterans that are in both the EHR and Survey Samples as they were subsets of Veterans referred by primary care providers to AIM-Back. Collectively, the information presented in this paper will provide an in-depth summary of the cohort’s individual level characteristics and serve as important source material for interpretation of the AIM-Back trial’s primary and secondary findings. ## Cohort Description ### Study Design AIM-Back (registered at clinicaltrials.gov: [NCT04411420](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04411420&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom)) is a multisite, ePCT that compares the effectiveness of two clinical care pathways for Veterans with LBP within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Health Care System. The AIM-Back trial has been described previously in our protocol paper, including a description of its pragmatic components.[11] Both pathways were initiated by a referral from a trained primary care provider and are briefly summarized below. The Sequenced Care Pathway (SCP) started with an evaluation and treatment by a local VA physical therapist. Veterans were then offered six sessions of weekly telehealth physical activity calls through a remote centralized care provider. Veterans then returned for a follow-up assessment with their local physical therapist, which included risk screening for persistent disability using the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST).[14] Those identified as medium or high risk on the SBST received an additional six weeks of remote care focused on pain coping skills training delivered by physical therapists trained in psychologically informed care. Additional details for the SCP and metrics for its usage have been previously described.[15] The Pain Navigator Pathway (PNP) involved referral of the Veteran to a Pain Navigator, i.e., a local VA provider that worked with Veterans primarily via telehealth to identify appropriate non-pharmacologic treatment options, decide on the preferred option(s), and coordinate access to selected service(s). Veterans in the PNP had follow-up appointments with their Pain Navigator at 6 and 12 weeks post-initial encounter. Additional details for the PNP and metrics for its usage have been previously described. [16] The 4-item short form PROMIS® Physical Function and Pain Interference were the primary outcome measures for the AIM-Back study. A selected set of additional outcomes were collected to further inform the effectiveness of the program.[11] ### Patient and Public Involvement The SCP and PNP were reviewed and modified in the planning stages of this trial based on input from our Veteran Research Engagement Panel (VetREP) as well as other partners including administrators, and clinical providers. Details on this process have been described in a prior publication.[17] ### Participating Clinics Eligibility, Recruitment, and Randomization Veterans Affairs clinics were recruited to participate in AIM-Back in two waves from February 2020-September 2020 and from March 2021-December 2021. Primary Care clinics were eligible to participate in AIM-Back if they could provide clinical personnel to deliver either of the treatment interventions and had seen between 800 and 5000 unique patients diagnosed with LBP in the previous year, with two exceptions decided by study team as allowable during the site recruitment phase. The first exception was for a rural serving clinic with LBP visits slightly below 800 (n=733) to help diversify the location of our participating sites. The other exception was made for a clinic that had >5000 visits because we identified specific patient aligned care teams (PACT) within their primary care clinic to participate and maintain an appropriate eligible participant volume. The number of primary care personnel trained to refer to AIM-Back during the trial ranged from 4-69 per enrolled clinic. The AIM-Back trial received site participation agreements from and randomized 19 VA Primary Care clinics to one of the two pathways. Two clinics withdrew in the early stages of rolling out the AIM-Back program and data from these clinics are excluded from all analyses. The 17 clinics resided in ten different states: West Virginia, South Carolina, Nevada, Missouri, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kansas, Ohio, and Kentucky. Participating clinics were randomized into two blocks using a blocked covariate constrained randomization [11] and, after randomization, each clinic underwent training on how to implement their assigned pathway. Block 1 consisted of ten clinics (five in each pathway) that were randomized in September 2020, with the first clinic actively referring Veterans in February 2021. Block 2 randomization was completed in December 2021 and included five PNP clinics and four SCP clinics, with the first clinic referring Veterans in March 2022. The 2 clinics that withdrew (described above), one from each pathway, were both from Block 2. ### Cohort and Sample Definition To be eligible for AIM-Back, Veterans were referred to the randomized pathway at their clinic by trained primary care providers across 17 clinics (9 PNP; 8 SCP) between February 1, 2021 and January 31, 2024 (Referral Cohort). Veterans from the Referral cohort (n=2767; 1481 PNP; 1286 SCP) that participated in the study included: 1) an Electronic Health Record (EHR) sample of Veterans (n=1817; 1006 PNP, 811 SCP) enrolled in the program (i.e., attended initial AIM-Back visit with no consent required), approximately 66% of the Referral cohort, and 2) a Survey sample of Veterans (n=996; 480 PNP; 516 SCP) that agreed at the AIM-Back referral to be contacted about the research survey study were consented and completed baseline surveys (see Figure 1). Approximately 80% of the Referral cohort agreed to be contacted for the survey study (n=2183), 45.6% of whom were included in the survey sample There were n=799 Veterans in the EHR sample (44%) that were also in the Survey sample (see Figure 1); we planned for approximately 50% of the EHR sample to be in the Survey sample in the design of the study. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/F1) Figure 1. AIM-Back Baseline CONSORT Each clinic had a targeted enrollment of 105 Veterans for the EHR sample with a minimum enrollment target of 65 and a maximum of 130 Veterans to minimize cluster imbalance; for the Survey sample the target enrollment was n=54 per clinic.[18] Trial enrollment concluded in January 2024. Providers at participating clinics were trained to refer Veterans to AIM-Back who had low back pain, received primary care at a randomized clinic, had a valid telephone number, were not receiving or had not been referred to hospice or palliative care, and were informed that AIM-Back was best suited for Veterans for whom conservative care was appropriate. Individual consent was not obtained for Veterans in the EHR sample to participate because each clinic had agreed to deliver the guideline-concordant AIM-Back program as part of their usual clinical care; therefore, the care delivery was not considered research. To be eligible to be contacted about participating in the Survey sample from research staff, Veterans referred to AIM-Back had to agree, at the referral, to be contacted for the research study that collected more granular data in surveys with additional longer follow-up time points. Further eligibility criteria for the survey sample included not being in institutional care (nursing home or hospital), no cognitive impairment, dementia, or lack of decision-making capacity, no serious mental illness (diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychiatric hospitalization) in the previous year or no current high-risk suicide flag in their medical record, and available access to, with ability to communicate on, a telephone. After confirming some of the additional eligibility criteria via an EHR chart review, the study team attempted to call to further screen for any remaining eligibility and, if eligible, obtained consent and administered the baseline survey. Further details on survey enrollment are detailed in the protocol paper.[11] ### Methods of Data Collection The AIM-Back trial had two data sources: 1) data entered through the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), the Veterans Health Administration Health Care System (VHAHCS) EHR, and extracted from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) and 2) data collected via telephone by AIM-Back research staff. Primary care clinicians referred patients to the pathway randomized to their clinic through the EHR. Once an AIM-Back referral was issued, clinics’ usual care protocols were followed to schedule the baseline intervention visit by an AIM-Back trained physical therapist or pain navigator (depending on the pathway to which the clinic was randomized). Demographic information (age, race, ethnicity, and sex), opioid use based on a prescription fill in the year prior to referral, PTSD diagnoses in year prior to referral, and Care Assessment Needs (CAN) scores prior to referral date (closest)[19] were extracted from CDW for the Referral cohort (see list of drugs for opioid use and ICD10 codes for PTSD diagnosis in Supplemental Materials). CAN score is a comorbidity measure and is the estimated risk for hospital admission or death within a year calculated weekly for all eligible Veterans. The score is the risk percentile and ranges from 0 (lowest risk) to 99 (highest risk). During the initial evaluation, the provider used a clinical note template specific to the clinic’s assigned AIM-Back pathway to collect data that included the 2-item CDC high impact pain questionnaire [15], the 2-item NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain [20], the 4-item PROMIS Pain Interference [21], the 4-item PROMIS Physical Function [22], the 4-item PROMIS Sleep Disturbance[23], and other relevant care notes. The data from these EHR templates are stored as structured text fields and uploaded nightly to CDW. For the survey sample, patient demographics (baseline only), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS physical function, PROMIS sleep disturbance, CDC and NIH definitions of HICP, Catastrophizing, PEG pain intensity, Self-efficacy, Depression (PHQ-2, AUDIT-C, Quality of life (EUROQOL), and Nonpharmacological and Self-Care Approaches (NSCAP)[24,25] measures were collected. Data were collected electronically into REDCap [26] at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. In addition, to evaluate representativeness of the Referral Cohort for each clinic, we identified all primary care LBP visits based on ICD-10 codes (see list in Supplemental Materials) during the study active periods at each clinic and extracted demographics (age, race, ethnicity, and sex) for the Veterans with the LBP visits. ## Findings to Date There are no longitudinal findings reported to date from the AIM-Back trial. Prior reports include a summary of our partner engagement process to refine the pathways included in the trial [17] and descriptive analyses of SCP and PNP use.[15,16] Trial enrollment has been completed and reporting of longitudinal findings, including comparative effectiveness of care pathways and treatment heterogeneity analyses, will follow baseline characteristics reporting. Findings from this Cohort Profile paper are meant to provide foundational data to support later analyses from the AIM-Back trial. The descriptive data presented in this paper provide a comprehensive summary of the measures we collected via EHR and survey. Additionally, this Cohort Profile allows us to report in detail on key measures collected via survey that will be used in secondary analyses. Age, sex, ethnicity, and race demographics are presented in Table 1 alongside rates of HICP, PTSD, and opioid use for the Referral cohort, EHR and Survey samples overall, and by pathway. The mean ages for the Referral Cohort, Survey sample and the EHR were similar (51-53 years old). The Referral Cohort was 11.8% female, 28.5% Black/African American, 10.5% had documented opioid use in the year prior, and 23.7% had a documented PTSD ICD-10 code. The EHR sample was 12.1% female, 29.3% Black/African American, 9.9% had documented opioid use in the year prior, and 23.4% had a documented PTSD ICD-10 code. The Survey sample was 10.9% female and 25.0% Black/African American, 9.1% had documented opioid use in the year prior, and 24.7% had a documented PTSD ICD-10 code. In the EHR sample, opioid use was slightly higher among those in the PNP (10.8%) than those in the SCP (8.6%), and there was variability across clinics with a minimum opioid use of 2.4% and a maximum opioid use of 15.3% assessed in the year prior to referral (Coefficient of Variation (CV)=0.40). View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T1) Table 1 Baseline Characteristics in the Referral Cohort and the EHR and Survey Samples *N (%) unless specified otherwise The Survey sample has a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino participants and lower rates of HICP prevalence compared to the Referral Cohort and EHR sample. The Referral cohort had the highest rates of HICP (76.7%) compared to the EHR Sample (65.7%) and the Survey sample (59.4%). There was variation across the 17 clinics in HICP with a Referral cohort range of 49.1-94.6%, an EHR sample range of 56.3-78.5%, and a Survey sample range of 43.8-74.0%. Additional findings related to HICP can be found in Table 1. Table 2 contains the mean and standard deviation for the PROMIS T-scores by sample and pathway. The EHR sample had PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function mean T-scores of 63.2 and 37.1. Similarly, Veterans in the Survey sample had a mean Pain Interference T-score of 63.1 and a mean Physical Function T-score of 38.1. These scores are indicative of a moderate level of impairment for our co-primary outcome measures. Baseline mean PROMIS scores were similar across pathways for both the EHR and Survey sample. View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T2) Table 2 PROMIS Measures and NIH Chronicity Additional characteristics are available in Table 3 for those in the Survey sample to provide additional details about the Veterans participating in AIM-Back. View this table: [Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T3) Table 3 Additional Survey Sample Characteristics Survey Sample View this table: [Table 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T4) Table 4 Participation to Prevalence Ratio To evaluate the representativeness of the Referral cohort, we calculated the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) for age, race, sex, and ethnicity. PPR is a ratio of those within a specific demographic who participated relative to those of that same demographic who were eligible to participate from the local clinical environment.[27] For AIM-Back, the eligible participants were all Veterans with a documented LBP visit at a randomized primary care clinic during the active trial period. A PPR value between 0.8 and 1.2 indicates a likely representative sample, while values below 0.8 suggest potential for underrepresentation and values above 1.2 indicate potential for overrepresentation.[27] As shown in Table 3, Veterans aged 50 or younger were consistently overrepresented in referrals to AIM-Back by providers across the 17 clinics, referrals of female Veterans were often overrepresented, and referrals occasionally overrepresented Black/African American Veterans. Conversely, referrals to AIM-back during the trial consistently underrepresented Veterans aged 65+ across clinics. HICP and opioid usage are reported as factors that will be used for planned subgroup analyses. The elevated presence of HICP provides an initial indication that the AIM-Back samples consist of Veterans with high levels of interference from their LBP, which will serve as a highly relevant characteristic in interpreting findings from the primary analyses. The prevalence of HICP and opioid usage suggests that we will have enough participants to proceed with the planned subgroup analyses. Generalizability is a key issue in interpreting clinical trial results yet is often hard to assess empirically. In this Cohort Profile paper, we used the PPR as an indicator to assess representativeness of those referred to AIM-Back by trained primary care providers to the LBP population at each clinic. Overall, we identified that Veterans referred to the AIM-Back program were representative based on sex and race. However, we also had evidence across multiple enrolling clinics that older Veterans (65+ years) were underrepresented for referral to AIM-Back. This finding was unexpected and could be due to the way we implemented the programs (e.g., without an emphasis on including older Veterans) or the perception of referring providers on the treatment delivered (e.g., the care pathways were not well suited for older Veterans). At this point, the reasons for this finding are speculative but will be important to know for those interested in Veteran populations for whom these trial findings will be most relevant and for any future implementation efforts aligned with these care pathways. ### Strengths and Limitations The findings reported here indicate that the AIM-Back trial has several strengths, including a) having data from the Referral Cohort to understand provider and patient engagement with these pathways; b) the enrollment goal was met, which allows for adequate power of all planned analyses; c) the use of both EHR and survey samples provide for a comprehensive assessment, allowing for future robust evaluation and sensitivity analyses of trial findings; and d) the integration of AIM-Back features within existing clinical settings demonstrates the potential for these care pathways to be implemented more broadly in Veteran Health Administration clinics and in other healthcare environments outside the Veteran Health Administration. Additionally, since cluster randomization can result in imbalances, it is encouraging to see balance in our primary and secondary outcome measures at baseline across care pathways.[18] Some of the limitations of the trial include recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic that affected practice patterns for clinics participating during shutdowns compared to care delivered pre- and post-shutdown. Leveraging the EHR as a data collection tool presented challenges related to consistent documentation which may impact our analysis, such as the PPR, that is reliant on ICD-10 code documentation for LBP visits which is known to be inconsistently used across healthcare systems and personnel. [28] Lack of appropriate diagnostic documentation may miss detection of Veterans eligible to receive AIM-Back. An important consideration for future research and implementation efforts is to further explore participation among older Veterans to overcome the current limitations of the trial’s generalizability due to the lower referral of this subgroup to the AIM-Back program. ### Collaboration Deidentified data will be made available upon request and permission for use granted consistent with VA policy via inquiry to vhaduraimback{at}va.gov. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors, after the primary outcomes are reported in a peer-reviewed manuscript ## Supplemental Materials ### Low Back Pain ICD-10 codes View this table: [Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T5) ### Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ICD-10 codes View this table: [Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T6) ### Prescription drugs used to define Opioid Use View this table: [Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/26/2024.11.23.24317833/T7) ## Acknowledgments This work is supported through cooperative agreement UH3AT009790 from the NIH, National Center for Complimentary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government This manuscript is a product of the Pain Management Collaboratory. For more information about the Collaboratory, visit [https://painmanagementcollaboratory.org/](https://painmanagementcollaboratory.org/).” This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Durham VA Health Care System in Durham North Carolina. ## Footnotes * courtni.france{at}va.gov, cynthia.coffman{at}duke.edu, kdallen{at}email.unc.edu, trevor.lentz{at}duke.edu, Rebecca.north13{at}duke.edu, ashley.choate{at}va.gov, adam.goode{at}duke.edu, corey.simon{at}duke.edu, janet.grubber{at}va.gov, heather.king{at}duke.edu, chad.cook{at}duke.edu, francis.keefe{at}duke.edu, lindsay.ballengee{at}duke.edu, jennifer.naylor{at}duke.edu, joseph.l.brothers{at}duke.edu, catherine.stanwyck{at}va.gov, travis.linton{at}duke.edu, christa.tumminello{at}va.gov, susan.hastings{at}duke.edu * Received November 23, 2024. * Revision received November 23, 2024. * Accepted November 26, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. Gangal A, Stoff B, Blalock T. The 2022 CDC opioid prescription guideline update: Relevant recommendations and future considerations. JAAD Int. 2023;13:48–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2023.07.006 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jdin.2023.07.006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37674776&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Global Health; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Global Forum on Innovation in Health Professional Education; Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders. The Role of Nonpharmacological Approaches to Pain Management: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) 2019. 3. Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Noninvasive Treatments for Low Back Pain. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 2016. 4. Alperovitch-Najenson D, Becker A, Belton J, et al. WHO guideline for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain in adults in primary and community care settings. Published Online First: 7 December 2023. doi: 10.5167/UZH-257188 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5167/UZH-257188&link_type=DOI) 5. Kazis LE, Ameli O, Rothendler J, et al. Observational retrospective study of the association of initial healthcare provider for new-onset low back pain with early and long-term opioid use. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028633. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028633 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS85L2UwMjg2MzMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yNi8yMDI0LjExLjIzLjI0MzE3ODMzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 6. Childs JD, Fritz JM, Wu SS, et al. Implications of early and guideline adherent physical therapy for low back pain on utilization and costs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:150. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0830-3 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-015-0830-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25880898&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 7. Frogner BK, Harwood K, Andrilla CHA, et al. Physical Therapy as the First Point of Care to Treat Low Back Pain: An Instrumental Variables Approach to Estimate Impact on Opioid Prescription, Health Care Utilization, and Costs. Health Services Research. 2018;53:4629–46. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12984 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1475-6773.12984&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29790166&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 8. George SZ, Lentz TA, Goertz CM. Back and neck pain: in support of routine delivery of non-pharmacologic treatments as a way to improve individual and population health. Transl Res. 2021;234:129–40. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.04.006 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.trsl.2021.04.006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33901699&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 9. Keefe FJ, Jensen MP, Williams AC de C, et al. The yin and yang of pragmatic clinical trials of behavioral interventions for chronic pain: balancing design features to maximize impact. Pain. 2022;163:1215–9. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002546 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002546&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35027519&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 10. Hohenschurz-Schmidt DJ, Cherkin D, Rice ASC, et al. Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement. Pain. 2023;164:1457–72. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002888 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002888&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36943273&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 11. George SZ, Coffman CJ, Allen KD, et al. Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Protocol for an Embedded Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial. Pain Medicine. 2020;21:S62–72. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaa348 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/pm/pnaa348&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33313728&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 12. Amtmann D, Kim J, Chung H, et al. Minimally important differences for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference for individuals with back pain. JPR. 2016;251. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S93391 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/JPR.S93391&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27175093&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 13. Nahin RL. Severe Pain in Veterans: The Effect of Age and Sex, and Comparisons With the General Population. The Journal of Pain. 2017;18:247–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.10.021 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpain.2016.10.021&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27884688&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 14. Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, et al. A primary care back pain screening tool: Identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2008;59:632–41. doi: 10.1002/art.23563 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.23563&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18438893&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000255848000005&link_type=ISI) 15. Lentz TA, Coffman CJ, Cope T, et al. If You Build It, Will They Come? Patient and Provider Use of a Novel Hybrid Telehealth Care Pathway for Low Back Pain. Physical Therapy. 2024;104:pzad127. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzad127 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ptj/pzad127&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37756618&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 16. France C, Cook CE, Coffman CJ, et al. “Here Be Dragons”. The Implementation of a Pain Navigator Program in Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Health Care Systems. Pain Medicine. 17. Ballengee LA, King HA, Simon C, et al. Partner engagement for planning and development of non-pharmacological care pathways in the AIM-Back trial. Clinical Trials. 2023;20:463–72. doi: 10.1177/17407745231178789 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/17407745231178789&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37269070&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 18. Coffman CJ, North R, George SZ, et al. Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Updated Statistical Analysis Plan for this Embedded Pragmatic, Cluster Randomized. 2023. 19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Care Assessment needs (CAN) Primer). 2019. 20. Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, et al. Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. Physical Therapy. 2015;95:e1–18. doi: 10.2522/ptj.2015.95.2.e1 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToicHRqb3VybmFsIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6Ijk1LzIvZTEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yNi8yMDI0LjExLjIzLjI0MzE3ODMzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 21. Amtmann D, Cook KF, Jensen MP, et al. Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain. 2010;150:173–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.025 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.025&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20554116&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000278549900026&link_type=ISI) 22. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, et al. The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014;67:516–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24698295&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 23. Yu L, Buysse DJ, Germain A, et al. Development of Short Forms From the PROMISTM Sleep Disturbance and Sleep-Related Impairment Item Banks. Behavioral Sleep Medicine. 2012;10:6–24. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2012.636266 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/15402002.2012.636266&link_type=DOI) 24. Burgess DJ, Evans R, Allen KD, et al. Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP): Design for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Two Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain. Pain Medicine. 2020;21:S29–36. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaa337 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/pm/pnaa337&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33313730&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 25. Seal KH, Becker WC, Murphy JL, et al. Whole Health Options and Pain Education (wHOPE): A Pragmatic Trial Comparing Whole Health Team vs Primary Care Group Education to Promote Nonpharmacological Strategies to Improve Pain, Functioning, and Quality of Life in Veterans-Rationale, Methods, and Implementation. Pain Med. 2020;21:S91–9. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaa366 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/pm/pnaa366&link_type=DOI) 26. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31078660&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 27. Poon R, Khanijow K, Umarjee S, et al. Participation of Women and Sex Analyses in Late-Phase Clinical Trials of New Molecular Entity Drugs and Biologics Approved by the FDA in 2007–2009. Journal of Women’s Health. 2013;22:604–16. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3753 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/jwh.2012.3753&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23768021&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom) 28. Purser L, Warfield K, Richardson C. Making Pain Visible: An Audit and Review of Documentation to Improve the Use of Pain Assessment by Implementing Pain as the Fifth Vital Sign. Pain Management Nursing. 2014;15:137–42. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2012.07.007 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pmn.2012.07.007&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24602432&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F26%2F2024.11.23.24317833.atom)