BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2007) 80, 866-871
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/11719131

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, P
Right arrow Articles by Carr, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, P
Right arrow Articles by Carr, E

Full paper

Content analysis of general practitioner-requested lumbar spine X-ray reports

P Thompson, MD, FRCP1 and E Carr, RGN, MSC, PhD2

1 Studland Centre, Poole Hospital NHS Trust, Poole, Dorset BH15 2JB, 2 Institute of Health and Community Studies, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, Dorset BH1 3LT, UK

Correspondence: Paul Thompson, Consultant Rheumatologist, Poole Hospital NHS Trust, Dorset BH15 2JB. UK. E-mail: paul.thompson{at}poole.nhs.uk

X-rays of patients with lower back pain rarely show serious pathology but frequently reveal incidental age-related changes and always expose people to radiation. Patients who have X-rays are more satisfied but report worse pain and disability. Psychological factors such as illness beliefs, catastrophizing and fear avoidance have been shown to be predictors of chronicity/disability. Authorities suggest that the way X-ray information is transmitted and interpreted by patients may influence outcome; therefore, this study was designed to determine the words used by radiologists to describe lumbar spine X-rays. 120 consecutive X-ray reports for patients referred by primary care physicians were anonymized, and a formal summative content analysis undertaken. The coded words were grouped into categories according to their perceived meaning, and the process was refined until there were only three mutually exclusive categories. Half of the sample was aged 60 years or less. Three categories were identified: anatomical, pathological and descriptive. In the pathological category, 33% of words described normal appearances, 47% described age-related changes and 20% described other features. In only 2% of cases were pathological words used to describe conditions as being "normal for age". Overall, 89 (74%) of the 120 reports contained at least one phrase containing words indicating the presence of degenerative changes.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.