Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The problem of imaging patients with low back pain (LBP) when it is not indicated is well recognized. The converse is also possible, although rarely considered. The extent of these two problems is presently unclear.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to estimate how commonly overuse, and also underuse, of imaging occurs in the management of LBP, and how appropriate use of imaging is assessed.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample comprised patients with LBP presenting to primary care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of inappropriate referral, and inappropriate non-referral, for diagnostic imaging for LBP were the outcome measures.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from January 1, 1995 to December 17, 2017. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate, and strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. In patients referred for lumbar imaging, 34.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.1, 43.3) were judged inappropriate by the absence of red flags for serious pathology and 31.6% (95% CI: 28.3, 35.1) were judged inappropriate by the criteria of no clinical suspicion of pathology. In patients presenting for care, imaging was inappropriately performed in 27.7% of cases (95% CI: 21.3, 35.1) when judged by duration of episode, 9.0% of cases (95% CI: 7.4, 11.0) when judged by absence of red flags, and 7.0% (95% CI: 1.8, 23.3) when judged by no clinical suspicion of pathology. In patients presenting for care, imaging was not performed where appropriately indicated in 65.6% (95% CI: 51.8, 77.2) of patients who presented with red flags, and 60.8% (95% CI: 42.0, 76.8) with clinical suspicion of serious pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate imaging is common in LBP management, including both overuse in those where imaging is not indicated and underuse of imaging when it is indicated. Appreciating that both underuse and overuse can occur is fundamental to efforts to improve imaging practice to align with current guidelines and best evidence.

Effect of two behavioural ‘nudging’ interventions on management decisions for low back pain: a randomised vignette-based study in general practitioners

Objective

‘Nudges’ are subtle cognitive cues thought to influence behaviour. We investigated whether embedding nudges in a general practitioner (GP) clinical decision support display can reduce low-value management decisions .

Methods

Australian GPs completed four clinical vignettes of patients with low back pain. Participants chose from three guideline-concordant and three guideline-discordant (low-value) management options for each vignette, on a computer screen. A 2×2 factorial design randomised participants to two possible nudge interventions: ‘partition display’ nudge (low-value options presented horizontally, high-value options listed vertically) or ‘default option’ nudge (high-value options presented as the default, low-value options presented only after clicking for more). The primary outcome was the proportion of scenarios where practitioners chose at least one of the low-value care options.

Results

120 GPs (72% male, 28% female) completed the trial (n=480 vignettes). Participants using a conventional menu display without nudges chose at least one low-value care option in 42% of scenarios. Participants exposed to the default option nudge were 44% less likely to choose at least one low-value care option (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.85; p=0.006) compared with those not exposed. The partition display nudge had no effect on choice of low-value care (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.72 to 1.64; p=0.7). There was no interaction between the nudges (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; p=0.89).

Interpretation

A default option nudge reduced the odds of choosing low-value options for low back pain in clinical vignettes. Embedding high value options as defaults in clinical decision support tools could improve quality of care. More research is needed into how nudges impact clinical decision-making in different contexts.

Staff and patients have mostly positive perceptions of physiotherapists working in emergency departments: a systematic review

QUESTION

What are staff and patients' perceptions of physiotherapists working in the emergency department (ED)?

DESIGN

Systematic review of qualitative studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Staff working in EDs and patients presenting to the ED and managed by ED physiotherapists.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Perceptions of ED staff and patients were synthesised using a three-stage thematic analysis consisting of extraction, grouping (codes), and abstraction of findings.

RESULTS

Eight studies, which had sought the perceptions of 138 patients and 122 ED staff members, were included. Three main themes emerged: role of physiotherapists in the ED, positive perceptions of ED physiotherapists, and concerns about physiotherapists in the ED. Patients and ED staff both considered physiotherapists to be experts in musculoskeletal care. The role of ED physiotherapists was seen as providing thorough patient education, non-pharmacological pain management and activity resumption, especially through exercise therapy. Having broad knowledge to assess and treat different health conditions was seen as facilitating the work of physiotherapists in the ED. Patients and ED staff felt that ED physiotherapists had good interpersonal communication skills. ED staff expressed concerns regarding the additional time that physiotherapists spent with patients. Some patients felt that performing exercises in the ED was inappropriate and painful.

CONCLUSIONS

ED physiotherapists were mostly well accepted by patients and ED staff, and their work was perceived to improve the ED. Concerns included restricted availability, lack of awareness of the role undertaken by physiotherapists in the ED, and increased treatment time in some settings. [Ferreira GE, Traeger AC, O'Keeffe M, Maher CG (2018) Staff and patients have mostly positive perceptions of physiotherapists working in emergency departments: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 229-236].

Using behaviour change theory and preliminary testing to develop an implementation intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Imaging is overused in the management of low back pain (LBP). Interventions designed to decrease non-indicated imaging have predominantly targeted practitioner education alone; however, these are typically ineffective. Barriers to reducing imaging have been identified for both patients and practitioners. Interventions aimed at addressing barriers in both these groups concurrently may be more effective. The Behaviour Change Wheel provides a structured framework for developing implementation interventions to facilitate behavioural change. The aim of this study was to develop an implementation intervention aiming to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP, by targeting both general medical practitioner (GP) and patient barriers concurrently.

METHODS

The Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify the behaviours requiring change, and guide initial development of an implementation intervention. Preliminary testing of the intervention was performed with: 1) content review by experts in the field; and 2) qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and 10 healthcare consumers, to determine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of the intervention in clinical practice. Results informed further development of the implementation intervention.

RESULTS

Patient pressure on the GP to order imaging, and the inability of the GP to manage a clinical consult for LBP without imaging, were determined to be the primary behaviours leading to referral for non-indicated imaging. The developed implementation intervention consisted of a purpose-developed clinical resource for GPs to use with patients during a LBP consult, and a GP training session. The implementation intervention was designed to provide GP and patient education, remind GPs of preferred behaviour, provide clinical decision support, and facilitate GP-patient communication. Preliminary testing found experts, GPs, and healthcare consumers were supportive of most aspects of the developed resource, and thought use would likely decrease non-indicated imaging for LBP. Suggestions for improvement of the implementation intervention were incorporated into a final version.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed implementation intervention, aiming to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP, was informed by behaviour change theory and preliminary testing. Further testing is required to assess feasibility of use in clinical practice, and the effectiveness of the implementation intervention in reducing imaging for LBP, before large-scale implementation can be considered.

Predicting pain recovery in patients with acute low back pain: Updating and validation of a clinical prediction model

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of acute low back pain (LBP) is typically good; however, there is substantial variation in individual patient's outcomes. We recently developed a prediction model that was able to predict the likelihood of pain recovery in patients with acute LBP who continue to have pain approximately 1 week after initially seeking care. The aims of the current study were to (a) re-categorize the variables in the developmental dataset to be able to validate the model in the validation dataset; (b) refit the existing model in the developmental dataset; and (c) validate the model in the validation dataset.

METHODS

The validation study sample comprised 737 patients with acute LBP, with a pain score of ≥2/10, 1 week after initially seeking care and with duration of current episode of ≤4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was days to pain recovery. Some of the variables from the development dataset were re-categorized prior to refitting the existing model in the developmental dataset using Cox regression. The performance (calibration and discrimination) of the prediction model was then tested in the validation dataset.

RESULTS

Three variables of the development dataset were re-categorized. The performance of the prediction model with re-categorized variables in the development dataset was good (C-statistic = 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.82). The discrimination of the model using the validation dataset resulted in a C-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.63-0.78). The calibration for the validation sample was acceptable at 1 month. However, at 1 week the predicted proportions within quintiles tended to overestimate the observed recovery proportions, and at 3 months, the predicted proportions tended to underestimate the observed recovery proportions.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated prediction model demonstrated reasonably good external validity and may be useful in practice, but further validation and impact studies in relevant populations should be conducted.

SIGNIFICANCE

A clinical prediction model based on five easily collected variables demonstrated reasonable external validity. The prediction model has the potential to inform patients and clinicians of the likely prognosis of individuals with acute LBP but requires impact studies to assess its clinical usefulness.

Physical activity and disability measures in chronic non-specific low back pain: a study of responsiveness

Objectives:

To compare the responsiveness of disability measures with physical activity measures in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) undergoing a course of physical therapy treatment.

Design:

This is a prospective cohort study with two-month follow-up.

Subjects:

A total of 106 patients presenting with non-specific CLBP of more than three months duration were recruited.

Main measures:

Disability measures investigated were Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Physical activity measures analyzed include the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire and objective measures derived from an accelerometer (i.e. total time spent in moderate-to-vigorous and light physical activity, number of steps and counts per minute). Disability and physical activity measures were collected at the baseline and after eight weeks of treatment. For the responsiveness analyses, effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) were calculated. Correlations between the change in disability and physical activity measures were calculated.

Results:

Responsiveness for disability measures was considered to be large with ESs ranging from −1.03 to −1.45 and SRMs ranging from −0.99 to −1.34, whereas all physical activity measures showed values lower than 0.20. Changes in disability measures did not correlate with changes in physical activity measures (correlation coefficients ranged from −0.10 to 0.09).

Conclusion:

Disability measures were responsive after a course of physical therapy treatment in patients with CLBP. The lack of responsiveness in the physical activity measures might be due to the inability of these measures to detect change over time or the use of an intervention not designed to increase physical activity levels.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010.

METHOD

The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Exercise programs may be effective in preventing a new episode of neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

QUESTION

What is the effectiveness of interventions that aim to prevent a new episode of neck pain?

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials.

PARTICIPANTS

People without neck pain at study entry.

INTERVENTION

Any intervention aiming to prevent a future episode of neck pain.

OUTCOME MEASURES

New episode of neck pain.

RESULTS

Five trials including a total of 3852 individuals met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results from two randomised, controlled trials (500 participants) found moderate-quality evidence that exercise reduces the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.86). One of the meta-analysed trials included some co-interventions with the exercise. There was low-quality evidence from three randomised, controlled trials (3352 participants) that ergonomic programs do not reduce the risk of a new neck pain episode (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.35).

CONCLUSION

This review found moderate-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of an exercise program for reducing the risk of a new episode of neck pain. There is a need for high-quality randomised, controlled trials evaluating interventions to prevent new episodes of neck pain.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017055174. [de Campos TF, Maher CG, Steffens D, Fuller JT, Hancock MJ (2018) Exercise programs may be effective in preventing a new episode of neck pain: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 159-165].

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Discontinuation of the PACE Plus trial: problems in patient recruitment in general practice

BACKGROUND

The PACE Plus trial was a multi-center, double-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in patients from Dutch general practice to investigate the efficacy of paracetamol and NSAIDs in acute non-specific low back pain (LBP). Because insufficient numbers of patients could be recruited (only four out of the required 800 patients could be recruited over a period of 6 months), the trial was prematurely terminated in February 2017, 6 months after the start of recruitment. This article aims to transparently communicate the discontinuation of PACE Plus and to make recommendations for future studies.

METHODS

General Practitioners (GPs) from 36 participating practices received a one-question survey in which they were asked to give the three most important factors that in their opinion contributed to failure of patient recruitment.

RESULTS

GPs of 33 out of 36 (92%) participating practices sent a response. A total of 81 factors were reported. These have been categorized into patient factors (26 out of 81 comments, 32%), GP factors (39 out of 81 comments, 48%) and research factors (16 out of 81 comments, 20%).

DISCUSSION

Patient recruitment in the PACE Plus trial may have failed due to inefficient medication distribution, recruitment of incident rather than prevalent cases, a design that was too complicated, adequate self-management of LBP, patient expectations different from the trial's scope and lack of time of participating GPs. Substantial differences in design may explain why the preceding PACE trial did manage to successfully complete patient recruitment.

CONCLUSION

Although the PACE Plus trial was terminated as a result of insufficient patient inclusion, the research questions addressed in this trial remain relevant but unanswered. We hope that lessons learned from the discontinuation of PACE Plus and corresponding recommendations may be helpful in the design of upcoming research projects in LBP in general practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089, registered September 14th 2016.

Do schoolbags cause back pain in children and adolescents? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether characteristics of schoolbag use are risk factors for back pain in children and adolescents.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases up to April 2016.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional and randomised controlled trials conducted with children or adolescents. The primary outcome was an episode of back pain and the secondary outcomes were an episode of care seeking and school absence due to back pain. We weighted evidence from longitudinal studies above that from cross-sectional. The risk of bias of the longitudinal studies was assessed by a modified version of the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool.

RESULTS

We included 69 studies (n=72 627), of which five were prospective longitudinal and 64 cross-sectional or retrospective. We found evidence from five prospective studies that schoolbag characteristics such as weight, design and carriage method do not increase the risk of developing back pain in children and adolescents. The included studies were at moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence from cross-sectional studies aligned with that from longitudinal studies (ie, there was no consistent pattern of association between schoolbag use or type and back pain). We were unable to pool results due to different variables and inconsistent results.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

There is no convincing evidence that aspects of schoolbag use increase the risk of back pain in children and adolescents.

Implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in emergency departments: protocol for the Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with low back pain often seek care in emergency departments, but the problem is that many patients receive unnecessary or ineffective interventions and at the same time miss out on the basics of care, such as advice on self-management. This pattern of care has important consequences for the healthcare system (expensive and inefficient) and for patients (poor health outcomes). We hypothesised that the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain will improve emergency care by reducing inappropriate overuse of tests and treatments and improving patient outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to implement and evaluate the use of the Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI) model of care for acute low back pain at four emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. Clinician participants will be emergency physicians, nurses and physiotherapists. Codes from the Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms-Australian version will be used to identify low back pain presentations. The intervention, targeting emergency clinicians, will comprise educational materials and seminars and an audit and feedback approach. Health service delivery outcomes are routinely collected measures of imaging (primary outcome), opioid use and inpatient admission. A random subsample of 200 patient participants from each trial period will be included to measure patient outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life and experience with emergency service). The effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed by comparing the postintervention period with the retrospective baseline control period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received ethical approval from the Sydney Local Health District (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital zone) Ethics Committee (X17-0043). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12617001160325.

Acute Low Back Pain? Do Not Blame the Weather-A Case-Crossover Study

Objective

To investigate the influence of various weather parameters on the risk of developing a low back pain (LBP) episode.

Design

Case-crossover study.

Setting

Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia.

Subjects

981 participants with a new episode of acute LBP.

Methods

Weather parameters were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were derived comparing two exposure variables in the case window-(1) the average of the weather variable for the day prior to pain onset and (2) the change in the weather variable from 2 days prior to 1 day prior to pain onset-with exposures in two control windows (1 week and 1 month before the case window).

Results

The weather parameters of precipitation, humidity, wind speed, wind gust, wind direction, and air pressure were not associated with the onset of acute LBP. For one of the four analyses, higher temperature slightly increased the odds of pain onset.

Conclusions

Common weather parameters that had been previously linked to musculoskeletal pain, such as precipitation, humidity, wind speed, wind gust, wind direction, and air pressure, do not increase the risk of onset for LBP.

Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain

To standardize outcome reporting in clinical trials of patients with nonspecific low back pain, an international multidisciplinary panel recommended physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as core outcome domains. Given the lack of a consensus on measurement instruments for these 3 domains in patients with low back pain, this study aimed to generate such consensus. The measurement properties of 17 patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning, 3 for pain intensity, and 5 for HRQoL were appraised in 3 systematic reviews following the COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 207) were invited in a 2-round Delphi survey to generate consensus (≥67% agreement among participants) on which instruments to endorse. Response rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. In round 1, consensus was achieved on the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a for physical functioning (78% agreement) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (75% agreement). No consensus was achieved on any HRQoL instrument, although the Short Form 12 (SF12) approached the consensus threshold (64% agreement). In round 2, a consensus was reached on an NRS version with a 1-week recall period (96% agreement). Various participants requested 1 free-to-use instrument per domain. Considering all issues together, recommendations on core instruments were formulated: Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a or 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, and SF12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health form for HRQoL. Further studies need to fill the evidence gaps on the measurement properties of these and other instruments.

Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076047.

A physiotherapist-led exercise and education program for preventing recurrence of low back pain: a randomised controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Before beginning a large and complex trial it is considered good practice to run a pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability so that quality is maintained and resources are not wasted.

OBJECTIVE

To assesses the feasibility and acceptability of procedures for TOPS: Trial Of Prevention Strategies for low back pain.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled pilot trial.

METHODS

This is a trial of an 8 week, physiotherapist-led group exercise and education program for preventing recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in those recently recovered from LBP. We assessed the feasibility of recruitment and data-collection procedures, acceptability of the trial interventions and loss-to-follow up.

RESULTS

The feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of the intervention and feasibility of physical activity data-collection procedures were all below anticipated levels. We enrolled 12 participants over 44 weeks, the adherence rate for the intervention group was 63% and valid physical activity data were obtained for 67% of the measurements. Follow-up methods for collection of LBP recurrence were successful with this information able to be collected for 100% of participants.

CONCLUSION

In response to the pilot, modifications were made to the main trial protocol. We will increase recruitment by relaxing inclusion criteria and expanding recruitment sites to include workplaces, community centres and via social media. We will facilitate compliance by expanding treatment sites to provide more options for participants to access the program and we will limit missing data by checking the validity of baseline physical activity measures prior to enrolment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ref: ACTRN12614000706673).

The efficacy of a multimodal physical activity intervention with supervised exercises, health coaching and an activity monitor on physical activity levels of patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain (Physical Activity for Back Pain (PAyBACK) trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Physical activity plays an important role in the management of chronic low back pain (LBP). Engaging in an active lifestyle is associated with a better prognosis. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that patients with chronic LBP are less likely to meet recommended physical activity levels. Furthermore, while exercise therapy has been endorsed by recent clinical practice guidelines, evidence from systematic reviews suggests that its effect on pain and disability are at best moderate and not sustained over time. A limitation of current exercises programmes for chronic LBP is that these programmes are not designed to change patients’ behaviour toward an active lifestyle. Therefore, we will investigate the short- and long-term efficacy of a multimodal intervention, consisting of supervised exercises, health coaching and use of an activity monitor (i.e. Fitbit Flex) compared to supervised exercises plus sham coaching and a sham activity monitor on physical activity levels, pain intensity and disability, in patients with chronic, nonspecific LBP.

Methods

This study will be a two-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. One hundred and sixty adults with chronic, nonspecific LBP will be recruited. Participants allocated to both groups will receive a group exercise programme. In addition, the intervention group will receive health coaching sessions (i.e. assisting the participants to achieve their physical activity goals) and an activity monitor (i.e. Fitbit Flex). The participants allocated to the control group will receive sham health coaching (i.e. encouraged to talk about their LBP or other problems, but without any therapeutic advice from the physiotherapist) and a sham activity monitor. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcomes will be physical activity, measured objectively with an accelerometer, as well as pain intensity and disability at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be physical activity, pain intensity and disability at 6 and 12 months post randomisation as well as other self-report measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour, depression, quality of life, pain self-efficacy and weight-related outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months post randomisation.

Discussion

This study is significant as it will be the first study to investigate whether a multimodal intervention designed to increase physical activity levels reduces pain and disability, and increases physical activity levels compared to a control intervention in patients with chronic LBP.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03200509. Registered on 28 June 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article 10.1186/s13063-017-2436-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.