Management approach combining prognostic screening and targeted treatment for patients with low back pain compared with standard physiotherapy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

The prognostic reasoning by physiotherapists of musculoskeletal disorders: A phenomenological exploratory study

QUESTION(S)

What are the prognostic reasoning practices of physiotherapists towards musculoskeletal disorders?

DESIGN

Exploratory phenomenological study.

PARTICIPANTS

15 physiotherapists who currently treat musculoskeletal disorders.

DATE ANALYSIS

Semi-structured interviews were implemented to collect data which was analysed using an inductive coding and thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified. First, how physiotherapists considered prognosis within clinical practice. Whilst prognosis is an important consideration, in some circumstances it either may not be considered or is implied. Second, how physiotherapists determine prognosis for musculoskeletal disorders. Several factors shaped the ability of physiotherapists to determine prognosis including how they determine prognosis, and the barriers and facilitators towards determining prognosis. Finally, how physiotherapists discuss prognosis with individuals who have a musculoskeletal disorder. These discussions were shaped by the prognostic information provided, as well as the barriers and facilitators towards discussing prognosis.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic reasoning of physiotherapists appears to be influenced initially by whether they consider it or not. It is then shaped by both barriers and facilitators towards determining and discussing prognosis. Facilitators for this prognostic reasoning process appear to be aligned with the biomedical model of health, whilst barriers more aligned with psychosocial factors. To improve prognostic reasoning, physiotherapists should continue to strive to conceptualize prognosis within a biopsychosocial framework. Doing so will improve the ability of physiotherapists to prognosticate, which will subsequently improve outcomes associated with musculoskeletal disorders.

Stratified health care for low back pain using the STarT Back approach: holy grail or doomed to fail?

ABSTRACT

There have been at least 7 separate randomised controlled trials published between 2011 and 2023 that have examined primary care for nonspecific low back pain informed by the STarT Back approach to stratified care based on risk prediction, compared with care not informed by this approach. The results, across 4 countries, have been contrasting-some demonstrating effectiveness and/or efficiency of this approach, others finding no benefits over comparison interventions. This review considers possible explanations for the differences, particularly whether this is related to poor predictive performance of the STarT Back risk-prediction tool or to variable degrees of success in implementing the whole STarT Back approach (subgrouping and matching treatments to predicted risk of poor outcomes) in different healthcare systems. The review concludes that although there is room for improving and expanding the predictive value of the STarT Back tool, its performance in allocating individuals to their appropriate risk categories cannot alone explain the variation in results of the trials to date. Rather, the learning thus far suggests that challenges in implementing stratified care in clinical practice and in changing professional practice largely explain the contrasting trial results. The review makes recommendations for future research, including greater focus on studying facilitators of implementation of stratified care and developing better treatments for patients with nonspecific low back pain at high risk of poor outcomes.

A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare

BACKGROUND

To address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.

METHODS

MEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

RESULTS

Eleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).

Does risk stratification with a matched treatment pathway improve clinical outcomes for adults with acute back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification is an approach which has been recommended across a number of international guidelines for the management of back pain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the use of risk stratification with a matched treatment pathway improves clinical outcomes, when compared with usual care or other interventions, in adults with acute back pain.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted of the databases Medline, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL and Cochrane Library in November 2022. Studies of adults with back pain of less than 3 months' duration and who had been stratified according to their level of risk of a poor functional outcome and provided with a treatment matched to their level of risk were included. Participants with specific and/or serious spinal pathologies were excluded.

RESULTS

Five trials involving 3519 participants were included. Meta-analysis found very-low certainty evidence that the use of a risk stratification approach with matched treatment may lead to a very small reduction in pain levels at 3-6 months compared with usual care (MD -0.62, 95 % CI -0.88, -0.36). These results did not achieve clinical significance. No difference was found for the use of risk stratification compared to usual care for disability (MD -1.52, 95 % CI -4.15, 1.11).

CONCLUSION

The use of risk stratification with matched treatment may be just as worthwhile as usual care for acute back pain, however the evidence is very uncertain. Further high quality research is required to confirm whether risk stratification is a useful approach for this population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022379987.

Evaluating the STarTBack stratified treatment approach for low back pain: exploring study-level factors potentially explaining differences in results of studies - a literature review

OBJECTIVE

To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results.

DESIGN

A literature review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care

INTRODUCTION

Models of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were conducted.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible records included MoCs implemented for adult LBP patients in primary healthcare settings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.

Effectiveness of a classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - a benchmarking controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of classification-based approach for low back pain care in Finnish primary care.

DESIGN

A benchmarking controlled trial design was used.

SUBJECTS/PATIENTS

Three primary healthcare areas and 654 low back pain patients with or without sciatica.

METHODS

Classification-based care (using the STarT Back Tool) was implemented using organizational-, healthcare professional-, and patient-level interventions. The primary outcome was change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Physical Function (PROMIS PF-20) from baseline to 12 months.

RESULTS

No difference was found between the intervention and control in change in PROMIS PF-20 over the 12-month follow-up (mean difference 0.33 confidence interval -2.27 to 2.9, p = 0.473). Low back pain-related healthcare use, imaging, and sick leave days were significantly lower in the intervention group. Reduction in intensity of low back pain appeared to be already achieved at the 3-month follow-up (mean difference -1.3, confidence interval -2.1 to -0.5) in the intervention group, while in the control group the same level of reduction was observed at 12 months (mean difference 0.7, confidence interval -0.2 to 1.5, treatment*time p = 0.003).  Conclusion: Although classification-based care did not appear to influence physical functioning, more rapid reductions in pain intensity and reductions in healthcare use and sick leave days were observed in the intervention group.

Evaluating User Perceptions of a Vibrotactile Feedback System in Trunk Stabilization Exercises: A Feasibility Study

Low back pain patients often have deficits in trunk stability. For this reason, many patients receive physiotherapy treatment, which represents an enormous socio-economic burden. Training at home could reduce these costs. The problem here is the lack of correction of the exercise execution. Therefore, this feasibility study investigates the applicability of a vibrotactile-controlled feedback system for trunk stabilisation exercises. A sample of 13 healthy adults performed three trunk stabilisation exercises. Exercise performance was corrected by physiotherapists using vibrotactile feedback. The NASA TLX questionnaire was used to assess the practicability of the vibrotactile feedback. The NASA TLX questionnaire shows a very low global workload 40.2 [29.3; 46.5]. The quality of feedback perception was perceived as good by the subjects, varying between 69.2% (anterior hip) and 92.3% (lower back). 80.8% rated the feedback as helpful for their training. On the expert side, the results show a high rating of movement quality. The positive evaluations of the physiotherapists and the participants on using the vibrotactile feedback system indicate that such a system can reduce the trainees fear of independent training and support the users in their training. This could increase training adherence and long-term success.

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Narrative review.

RESULTS

NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

Developing tailored intervention strategies for implementation of stratified care to low back pain with physiotherapists in Nigeria: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Stratified care approach involving use of the STarT-Back tool to optimise care for patients with low back pain is gaining widespread attention in western countries. However, adoption and implementation of this approach in low-and-middle-income countries will be restricted by context-specific factors that need to be addressed. This study aimed to develop with physiotherapists, tailored intervention strategies for the implementation of stratified care for patients with low back pain.

METHODS

A two-round web-based Delphi survey was conducted among purposively sampled physiotherapists with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, with post-graduation certification or specialists. Thirty statements on barriers and enablers for implementation were extracted from the qualitative phase. Statements were rated by a Delphi panel with additional open-ended feedback. After each Delphi round, participants received feedback which informed their subsequent responses. Additional qualitative feedback were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The criteria for consensus and stability were pre-determined using percentage agreement (≥ 75%), median value (≥ 4), Inter-quartile range (≤ 1), and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test respectively.

RESULTS

Participants in the first round were 139 and 125 of them completed the study, yielding a response rate of 90%. Participants were aged 35.2 (SD6.6) years, and 55 (39.6%) were female. Consensus was achieved in 25/30 statements. Wilcoxon's test showed stability in responses after the 5 statements failed to reach consensus: 'translate the STarT-Back Tool to pidgin language' 71% (p = 0.76), 'begin implementation with government hospitals' 63% (p = 0.11), 'share knowledge with traditional bone setters' 35% (p = 0.67), 'get second opinion on clinician's advice' 63% (p = 0.24) and 'carry out online consultations' 65% (p = 0.41). Four statements strengthened by additional qualitative data achieved the highest consensus: 'patient education' (96%), 'quality improvement appraisals' (96%), 'undergraduate training on psychosocial care' (96%) and 'patient-clinician communication' (95%).

CONCLUSION

There was concordance of opinion that patients should be educated to correct misplaced expectations and proper time for communication is vital to implementation. This communication should be learned at undergraduate level, and for already qualified clinicians, quality improvement appraisals are key to sustained and effective care. These recommendations provide a framework for future research on monitored implementation of stratified care in middle-income countries.

The High Burden of Acute and Chronic Pain in General Practice in French-Speaking Belgium

Background

Chronic pain prevalence is very high in the general population, much higher than can be managed by chronic pain centers. Therefore, most pain patients are cared for by first-line professionals. However, general practitioners often feel ill at ease with these patients, and only a few studies assess the burden of chronic pain in general practice. To better estimate the resources needed to support these professionals, a good knowledge of (sub)acute and chronic pain prevalence and prognosis in general practices is needed.

Methods

We report cross-sectional data from a larger longitudinal study performed in French-speaking general practices in Belgium in November 2018. Fifth-year medical students performing a one-month internship collected data for every third patient they saw each day: demographic information, pain characteristics, lifestyle, general health perception and the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in the French language.

Results

3882 patients (participation rate 66%) accepted to take part in the study. 22 and 50% of these suffered from (sub)acute and chronic pain, respectively. Pain was more often the motive of the consultation for (sub)acute than for chronic pain patients. Pain intensity and functional impact were moderate, irrespective of pain duration. 70% of (sub)acute and 31% of chronic pain patients were at low risk of chronicity.

Conclusion

In our sample, chronic pain patients constituted 33-50% of patient contacts in general practice, indicating the high importance of providing adequate support to general practitioners and other first-line professionals, ie, by reinforcing collaboration with chronic pain centers.

Patients' and physiotherapists' perspectives on implementing a tailored stratified treatment approach for low back pain in Nigeria: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Stratified care has the potential to be efficient in addressing the physical and psychosocial components of low back pain (LBP) and optimise treatment outcomes essential in low-income countries. This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of physiotherapists and patients in Nigeria towards stratified care for the treatment of LBP, exploring barriers and enablers to implementation.

METHODS

A qualitative design with semistructured individual telephone interviews for physiotherapists and patients with LBP comprising research evidence and information on stratified care was adopted. Preceding the interviews, patients completed the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment tool. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed following grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

Twelve physiotherapists and 13 patients with LBP participated in the study (11 female, mean age 42.8 (SD 11.47) years). Seven key categories emerged: recognising the need for change, acceptance of innovation, resistance to change, adapting practice, patient's learning journey, trusting the therapist and needing conviction. Physiotherapists perceived stratified care to be a familiar approach based on their background training. The prevalent treatment tradition and the patient expectations were seen as major barriers to implementation of stratified care by the physiotherapists. Patients see themselves as more informed than therapists realise, yet they need conviction through communication and education to cooperate with their therapist using this approach. Viable facilitators were also identified as patients' trust in the physiotherapist and adaptations in terms of training and modification of the approach to enhance its use.

CONCLUSION

Key barriers identified are the patients' treatment expectations and physiotherapists' adherence to the tradition of practice. Physiotherapists might facilitate implementation of the stratified care by communication, hierarchical implementation and utilisation of patients' trust. Possibilities to develop a consensus on key strategies to overcome barriers and on utilisation of facilitators should be tested in future research.

Mastering Prognostic Tools: An Opportunity to Enhance Personalized Care and to Optimize Clinical Outcomes in Physical Therapy

In health care, clinical decision making is typically based on diagnostic findings. Rehabilitation clinicians commonly rely on pathoanatomical diagnoses to guide treatment and define prognosis. Targeting prognostic factors is a promising way for rehabilitation clinicians to enhance treatment decision-making processes, personalize rehabilitation approaches, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. This can be achieved by using prognostic tools that provide accurate estimates of the probability of future outcomes for a patient in clinical practice. Most literature reviews of prognostic tools in rehabilitation have focused on prescriptive clinical prediction rules. These studies highlight notable methodological issues and conclude that these tools are neither valid nor useful for clinical practice. This has raised the need to open the scope of research to understand what makes a quality prognostic tool that can be used in clinical practice. Methodological guidance in prognosis research has emerged in the last decade, encompassing exploratory studies on the development of prognosis and prognostic models. Methodological rigor is essential to develop prognostic tools, because only prognostic models developed and validated through a rigorous methodological process should guide clinical decision making. This Perspective argues that rehabilitation clinicians need to master the identification and use of prognostic tools to enhance their capacity to provide personalized rehabilitation. It is time for prognosis research to look for prognostic models that were developed and validated following a comprehensive process before being simplified into suitable tools for clinical practice. New models, or rigorous validation of current models, are needed. The approach discussed in this Perspective offers a promising way to overcome the limitations of most models and provide clinicians with quality tools for personalized rehabilitation approaches.

IMPACT

Prognostic research can be applied to clinical rehabilitation; this Perspective proposes solutions to develop high-quality prognostic models to optimize patient outcomes.