The Spanish version of the "STarT Back Screening Tool" (SBST) in different subgroups

Influence and Relationship of Pain on Lumbar Biomechanics in a Young Adult Population with Non-Specific Low Back Pain

The therapeutic actions indicated for low back pain, in addition to physiotherapy, include mobilization of the affected segment, as it is assumed that a loss of mobility may contribute to a patient's pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of back pain on the degrees of spinal mobility in young adults. Eighty-six volunteers participated in the study. Fingertip-to-floor distance, Schöber's test, the fingertip-to-floor lateral flexion test, GHQ-12, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and the STarT Back Screening Tool were used. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups (pain and no pain) in degrees of spinal flexion (Schöber's test and side flexion) showing greater mobility in the group with pain. However, the group with low back pain showed less rotational mobility. The presence or absence of back pain had an impact on the individual's sporting practice and perception of pain, and they were able to carry out their sporting activities normally. Young adults with idiopathic low back pain showed some statistically significant differences in relation to the mobility of the spine in the different planes of movement (flexion and side flexion), conditioning their quality of life and sports practice.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity, and psychometric evaluation of the Tamil version STarT back screening tool among low back pain subjects

BACKGROUND

The STarT back screening tool helps primary care workers make the initial clinical decision and classify low back pain subjects into subgroups. Currently, the tool is required for stratification/triaging of low back pain and is commonly used in clinical practice, and requires linguistic validation in Tamil. The study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Tamil version of the STarT back screening tool.

METHODS

The baseline measurements include the Tamil version of the STarT back screening tool-, pain severity using the Numeric pain rating Scale (NPRS), disability status using the Tamil version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and fear avoidance beliefs using the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) - Tamil were obtained. After five days, the retest measures are done to investigate the test-retest reliability.

RESULTS

The current study showed excellent test-retest reliability of total score (ICC - 0.80) and psychosocial subscore (ICC-0.82) with excellent internal consistency and moderate to high validity with clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that the Tamil version of the STarT Back Screening Questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool that reported good understanding and easy completion by the subject.

Unraveling the Left-Right Judgment Task in Chronic Low Back Pain: Insights Through Behavioral, Electrophysiological, Motor Imagery, and Bodily Disruption Perspectives

Bodily disruptions have been consistently demonstrated in individuals with chronic low back pain. The performance on the left-right judgment task has been purposed as an indirect measure of the cortical proprioceptive representation of the body. It has been suggested to be dependent on implicit motor imagery, although the available evidence is conflicting. Hence, the aim of this case-control observational study was to examine the performance (accuracy and reaction times) and event-related potentials while performing the left-right judgment task for back and hand images in individuals with chronic low back pain versus healthy controls, along with its relationship with self-reported measurements and quantitative sensory testing. While self-reported data suggested bodily disruptions in the chronic low back pain sample, this was not supported by quantitative sensory testing. Although both groups displayed the same performance, our results suggested an increased attentional load on participants with chronic low back pain to achieve equal performance, measured by a higher N1 peak amplitude in occipital electrodes, especially when the effect of contextual images arises. The absence of differences in the reaction times for the left-right judgment task between both groups, along with inconsistencies in self-reported and quantitative sensory testing data, could question the involvement of implicit motor imagery in solving the task. In conclusion, our results suggest disrupted attentional processing in participants with chronic low back pain to solve the left-right judgment task. PERSPECTIVE: Although there are no differences in the performance of the left-right judgment task (hits, reaction times) between chronic low back pain patients and controls, the analysis of event-related potentials revealed that patients require a higher cognitive load, measured by N1 peak amplitude.

Mézières Method as a practice of embodiment in patients with low back pain: a mixed study

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of the Mézières Method (MM) on pain and disability related to low back pain (LBP), compared to a program of heat, massage and exercise, and to understand the meaning of the bodily experience with the MM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Mixed methods convergent parallel design, combining an equivalent randomized clinical trial with a qualitative phenomenological approach. Sixty-one participants aged 18-65 years with chronic non-specific LBP lasting more than 3 months. Patients were randomized into two groups: the MM group (n = 29) and the comparison group (CG) who received heat, massage plus flexibility and strengthening exercises (n = 31). MM and CG participants underwent 10 one-hour physical therapy sessions over a 5-week period and were evaluated three times: pre-intervention, post-intervention and follow-up at 6 weeks after the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Both groups reported positive effects on LBP . MM group showed superior effects in pain relief in the short term (Cohen's D 0.80; p = 0.004). Participants interpreted the interaction with the MM as a teaching-learning process that allowed body awareness.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment were similarly beneficial but MM had superior effects on pain in the short term. MM is perceived by the participants as a teaching-learning process focused on body awareness that facilitate effective management of LBP.

The cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Spanish version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Introduction

In chronic low back pain (CLBP), disturbed body image has been highlighted as a contributor to the condition and a potential target for treatment. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) allows its assessment. Following international guidelines for the cross-cultural translation of questionnaires, we aimed to translate the FreBAQ into Spanish (FreBAQ-S) and validate the new questionnaire in a sample of Spanish-speaking people with CLBP.

Methods

Two hundred and sixty-four adults with CLBP (91 males) and 128 healthy controls (34 males) completed an online form including the FreBAQ-S and questionnaires related to the pain experience. All participants were Spanish and no gender identities differing from biological sex were reported. A week later, 113 CLBP participants and 45 healthy controls (41 and 13 males, respectively), re-answered the FreBAQ-S to evaluate test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor and multigroup analysis assessed the scale consistency on the patient sample. Discriminant and convergent validity were explored by between-group differences and the relationship with clinical characteristics. Reliability relied on Cronbach's alpha estimates and test-retest (intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change).

Results and discussion

Confirmatory factor analysis showed a one-factor structure of the questionnaire, without supporting evidence for item deletion (CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.07; SRMRu = 0.064). Multigroup analyses do not support mean invariance between groups regarding health condition or sex. The FreBAQ-S demonstrated good discriminant and convergent validity, internal consistency (α = 0.82), and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78; SE = 3.41; MDC = 5.12). The FreBAQ-S is a valid and reliable tool to assess back awareness in clinical and non-clinical samples.

Effects and experience with the Mézières method in people with low back pain: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for visiting the doctor. The Mézières method (MM) emphasises body awareness and uses a global postural rehabilitation approach. It is used in the management of LBP, but its effectiveness has received limited formal evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of MM on quality of life, pain and functional disability in people with LBP and understand the patient's bodily experience during the MM intervention.

METHODS

This protocol study of single-blind randomised controlled trial with a mixed methods design will include 54 people with LBP aged 18 to 65 years. Participants will be randomised into two groups, one will receive MM and the other will receive a control intervention, administered through 10 treatment sessions. Participants will also construct a narrative to provide an understanding of their bodily experience.

RESULTS

The assessed outcomes will include pain, back pain-related disability assessed using the Roland Morris Questionnaire, and quality of life related to health assessed using the SF12. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, after the intervention and at a 6 weeks follow-up.

Consistencia interna, validez convergente, discriminante y de criterio del Start Back Screening Tool en una muestra colombiana

Introducción. El dolor lumbar (DL) es una causa frecuente de consulta y una de las principales causas de incapacidad laboral permanente. La estratificación del riesgo de discapacidad por DL permite desarrollar intervenciones terapéuticas específicas; sin embargo, dicha estratificación requiere instrumentos válidos y confiables. Objetivo. Determinar la consistencia interna y la validez convergente, discriminante y de criterio del cuestionario Start Back Screening Tool (SBST) en una muestra colombiana. Materiales y métodos. Estudio cuantitativo de validación de pruebas realizado en 68 pacientes adultos con DL que recibieron una intervención fisioterapéutica (10 sesiones) entre 2019 y 2020 en una clínica de Chía, Colombia. Los participantes diligenciaron el SBST, la escala numérica de clasificación del dolor (ENCD) y el cuestionario Roland Morris Disability (RMD) en tres momentos: pre-, post-intervención y luego de 6 semanas de seguimiento (sin tratamiento). La consistencia interna del SBST se determinó mediante los coeficientes Alfa de Cronbach, Omega, λ6 y Greatest lower bound (GLB). En cuanto a la validez de criterio y de constructo, se evaluaron las correlaciones entre el instrumento y la ENCD y el RMD mediante el coeficiente de correlación de Pearson. Finalmente, se realizó un ANOVA de medidas repetidas entre las medias de puntaje del SBST obtenidas en los tres momentos para estimar su validez discriminante. Resultados. La consistencia interna del instrumento, según los diferentes coeficientes, varió entre aceptable y alta (Alfa= 0.634; Omega=0.648; λ6=0.664; GLB = 0.780). Se observaron correlaciones positivas entre el puntaje promedio en el SBST y los puntajes promedio en la ENCD (r=0.257; p=0.035) y la RMD (r=0.475; p<0.0010), así como diferencias significativas entre los puntajes promedio del SBST pre, post-intervención y seguimiento (ANOVA: F=33.722; p <0.001). Conclusión. El SBST es un instrumento válido y confiable para el clasificar el nivel de riesgo de mal pronóstico en pacientes colombianos con DL.

Cross-cultural validation of the start back screening tool in a Greek low back pain sample

BACKGROUND

Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a popular 9-item prognostic recovery questionnaire for low back pain (LBP) with validation studies in several cultural settings, but not Greek.

OBJECTIVES

The cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the SBST into Greek among LBP and LBP-associated leg pain patients.

METHODS

A five-stage forward-backward translation procedure developed the Greek SBST. LBP and sciatica patients completed SBST, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Short-form Health Survey (SF-12), Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and body chart pain location sites. Measurement properties (internal consistency, content, construct and discriminatory validity) were explored. Test-retest reliability was explored by re-administering SBST after 7-10 days across patients whose symptoms remained unchanged.

RESULTS

124 LBP patients (75 females, 49.1 ± 14.2 years-old) 43.5% of whom had sciatica completed Greek SBST. No floor/ceiling effects were detected. Mean score distributions were statistically different across SBST groups. Moderate to strong correlations were found for SBST (total and psychosocial scores) with RMDQ, SBI, HADS and SF-12 (Spearman's ρ = 0.42-0.60). Most associations between individual SBST items and reference standards were moderately correlated (ρ = 0.32-0.49). Greek SBST yielded acceptable discriminant validity with RMDQ (AUC of 0.80). Items 1, 3, 4, and 9 yielded acceptable discrimination against reference standards. Test-retest reliability was satisfactory for total score (ICC_2,2 = 0.93) and individual items (kappa = 0.59-0.88). Cronbach's α was 0.70 (total score) and 0.76 (psychosocial subscale).

CONCLUSIONS

The Greek SBST was comprehensible, valid and reliable and may thus, be used across Greek cross-cultural rehabilitation research and practice.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the STarT back screening tool in isiZulu

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is one of the most prevalent conditions in the world. Identifying patients at risk for developing chronic NSLBP is key to effective treatment. The STarT back screening tool is a validated, prognostic screening tool identifying subgroups of NSLBP patients, and the risk factors associated with each subgroup, guiding treatment in the primary care of NSLBP.

OBJECTIVES

To translate the English version of the STarT back screening tool into isiZulu and determine the content validity and reliability of the translated tool.

METHOD

Translation was completed in four phases - forward translation and synthesis, backward translation and expert review. Validation included expert review for content validity and testing of the translated tool on 30 patients, determining test-retest reliability, internal consistency and usability.

RESULTS

Minor linguistic differences were addressed during the translation phase. Item content validity was excellent for relevance (1.00), satisfactory (0.94) for clarity, simplicity and ambiguity, with scale-content validity acceptable (0.955). Spearman's correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was acceptable (0.73). Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency for the total score for test 1 and test 2 was 0.68 and 0.77, and for the psychosocial scale 0.62 and 0.77 respectively. Overall, 33% found the tool very easy to understand and 40% found it very easy to complete.

CONCLUSION

The isiZulu STarT back screening tool showed excellent content validity, acceptable reliability and acceptable internal consistency.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Use of the isiZulu tool in local clinics and private practices can improve clinical decision-making and treatment outcomes for isiZulu-speaking patients with NSLBP.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the STarT Back Tool for Arabic speaking adults with low back pain in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

The STarT Back Tool (Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment; SBT) was developed and validated in the United Kingdom for adults with non-specific low back pain (LBP) to provide risk stratification groups. An Arabic version has not yet been developed. Consequently, our objectives were: First, to cross-culturally adapt the SBT for use in Arabic speaking adults (SBT-Ar) with LBP. Second, to assess the face, content and construct validity of SBT-Ar against relevant reference standards.

METHODS

This was a prospective, cross-sectional study carried out in the outpatient department in a tertiary care hospital. A total of 59 participants (aged 18-60) with LBP able to read Arabic completed the questionnaire. SBT cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to published guidelines. Face and content validity were explored by individual interviews. Construct validity was assessed using pre-hypothesized correlations with relevant reference standards.

RESULTS

Following 48 individual interviews the SBT final version was reached and demonstrated face and content validity. The SBT-Ar total score and psychosocial sub-scale had acceptable internal consistency and no redundancy (Cronbach α = 0.7). Moderate Spearman's correlations were found between the SBT-Ar total score and reference standards (Arabic Pain Numeric Rating Scale NRS-Ar r = 0.50 and Arabic Oswestry Disability Index ODI-ar r = 0.51). As expected the SBT-Ar psychosocial subscale had medium to high correlations with the psychosocial reference measures (Arabic Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire Physical Activity FABQPA-Ar r = 0.41, Arabic Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety HADSA-Ar r = 0.58, Arabic Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression HADSD-Ar r = 0.45 and Arabic Pain Catastrophizing Scale PCSAr r = 0.69).The SBT-Ar showed no significant floor or ceiling effects.

CONCLUSION

This study culturally adapted and preliminary validated SBT into Arabic.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, Cross-sectional.

Health economic evidence gaps and methodological constraints in low back pain and neck pain: Results of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation (RAHEE) project

Despite the increased interest in economic evaluations, there are difficulties in applying the results of such studies in practice. Therefore, the "Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation" (RAHEE) project was initiated, which aimed to improve the use of health economic evidence in practice for the 10 highest burden conditions in the European Union (including low back pain [LBP] and neck pain [NP]). This was done by undertaking literature mapping and convening an Expert Panel meeting, during which the literature mapping results were discussed and evidence gaps and methodological constraints were identified. The current paper is a part of the RAHEE project and aimed to identify economic evidence gaps and methodological constraints in the LBP and NP literature, in particular. The literature mapping revealed that economic evidence was unavailable for various commonly used LBP and NP treatments (e.g., injections, traction, and discography). Even if economic evidence was available, many treatments were only evaluated in a single study or studies for the same intervention were highly heterogeneous in terms of their patient population, control condition, follow-up duration, setting, and/or economic perspective. Up until now, this has prevented economic evaluation results from being statistically pooled in the LBP and NP literature, and strong conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of LBP and NP treatments can therefore not be made. The Expert Panel identified the need for further high-quality economic evaluations, especially on surgery versus conservative care and competing treatment options for chronic LBP. Handling of uncertainty and reporting quality were considered the most important methodological challenges.

Can Primary Care for Back and/or Neck Pain in the Netherlands Benefit From Stratification for Risk Groups According to the STarT Back Tool Classification?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of patients' risk profile and clinicians' applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patients with NP received the low-risk treatment approach. The medium-risk treatment approach was offered the most (90.8%), and the high-risk approach was applied in only 3.1% of the patients. The specific agreement between the risk profile and received treatment for patients with NP was poor for low-risk and medium-risk patients (6.3% and 48.0%, respectively); agreement for high-risk patients could not be calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Dutch primary care for patients with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both does not correspond to the recommended stratified-care approach based on the SBT, as most patients receive medium-risk treatment. Most low-risk patients are overtreated, and most high-risk patients are undertreated. Although the stratified-care approach has not yet been validated in Dutch primary care, these results indicate there may be substantial room for improvement.

Longitudinal Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain During Physical Therapy Treatment Using the STarT Back Screening Tool

Study Design Preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Background The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) was developed to screen and to classify patients with low back pain into subgroups for the risk of having a poor prognosis. However, this classification at baseline does not take into account variables that can influence the prognosis during treatment or over time. Objectives (1) To investigate the changes in risk subgroup measured by the SBST over a period of 6 months, and (2) to assess the long-term predictive ability of the SBST when administered at different time points. Methods Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (n = 148) receiving physical therapy care as part of a randomized trial were analyzed. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were collected at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Changes in SBST risk classification were calculated. Hierarchical linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders were built to analyze the predictive capabilities of the SBST when administered at different time points. Results A large proportion of patients (60.8%) changed their risk subgroup after receiving physical therapy care. The SBST improved the prediction for all 6-month outcomes when using the 5-week risk subgroup and the difference between baseline and 5-week subgroup, after controlling for potential confounders. The SBST at baseline did not improve the predictive ability of the models after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion This study shows that many patients change SBST risk subgroup after receiving physical therapy care, and that the predictive ability of the SBST in patients with chronic low back pain increases when administered at different time points. Level of Evidence Prognosis, 2b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5):314-323. Epub 29 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7199.

Clinical Decision Support Tools for Selecting Interventions for Patients with Disabling Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Scoping Review

Purpose We aimed to identify and inventory clinical decision support (CDS) tools for helping front-line staff select interventions for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Methods We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework which progresses through five stages: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies for analysis; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. We considered computer-based, and other available tools, such as algorithms, care pathways, rules and models. Since this research crosses multiple disciplines, we searched health care, computing science and business databases. Results Our search resulted in 4605 manuscripts. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. The reliability of the screening process was high with an average percentage of agreement of 92.3 %. Of the located articles, 123 were considered relevant. Within this literature, there were 43 CDS tools located. These were classified into 3 main areas: computer-based tools/questionnaires (n = 8, 19 %), treatment algorithms/models (n = 14, 33 %), and clinical prediction rules/classification systems (n = 21, 49 %). Each of these areas and the associated evidence are described. The state of evidentiary support for CDS tools is still preliminary and lacks external validation, head-to-head comparisons, or evidence of generalizability across different populations and settings. Conclusions CDS tools, especially those employing rapidly advancing computer technologies, are under development and of potential interest to health care providers, case management organizations and funders of care. Based on the results of this scoping review, we conclude that these tools, models and systems should be subjected to further validation before they can be recommended for large-scale implementation for managing patients with MSK disorders.

State of the art in biobehavioral approaches to the management of chronic pain in childhood

Chronic pain in childhood is prevalent, persistent and significantly impactful on most domains of life. The chronic pain experience occurs within a complex biopsychosocial framework, with particular emphasis on the social context. Currently, psychological treatments involve a cognitive-behavioral therapy treatment plan, providing some combination of psychoeducation, self-regulation training, maladaptive cognition identification, behavioral exposure and parent involvement. New treatment areas are emerging, such as group- and internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, comorbid obesity intervention and intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Preliminary studies of emerging treatments demonstrate encouraging results; however, treatment effectiveness hinges on accurate matching of patient to treatment modality. Overall, the current direction of the field promises many innovative breakthroughs to ameliorate suffering in youth with chronic pain.

Validation of the German version of the STarT-Back Tool (STarT-G): a cohort study with patients from primary care practices

Background

Current research emphasizes the high prevalence and costs of low back pain (LBP). The STarT Back Tool was designed to support primary care decision making for treatment by helping to determine the treatment prognosis of patients with non-specific low back pain. The German version is the STarT-G. The cross-cultural translation of the tool followed a structured and widely accepted process but to date it was only partially validated with a small sample.

The aim of the study was to test the psychometric properties construct validity, discriminative ability, internal consistency and test-retest-reliability of the STarT-G and to compare them with values given for the original English version.

Methods

A consecutive cohort study with a two-week retest was conducted among patients with non-specific LBP, aged 18 to 60 years, from primary care practices. Questionnaires were collected before the first consultation, and two weeks later by post, using the following reference standards: the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychometric properties examined included the tool’s discriminative abilities, whether the psychosocial subscale was one factor, internal consistency, item redundancy, test-retest reliability and floor and ceiling effects.

Results

There were 228 patients recruited with a mean age of 42.2 (SD 11.0) years, and 53 % were female. The areas under the curve (AUC) for discriminative ability ranged from 0.70 (STarT-G Subscale - Pain Catastrophizing Scale; CI95 0.63, 0.78) to 0.77 (STarT-G Total - Composite reference standard, CI95 0.60, 0.94). Factor loadings ranged from 0.49 to 0.74. Cronbach’s alpha testing the internal consistency and redundancy for the total/subscale scores were α = 0.52/0.55 respectively. The STarT-G test-retest reliability Kappa values for the total/subscale scores were 0.67/0.68 respectively. No floor or ceiling effects were present.

Conclusions

The STarT-G shows acceptable psychometric properties although not in exact agreement with the original English version. The items previously regarded as a psychosocial subscale may be better seen as an index of different individual psychosocial constructs. The relevance of using the tool at the point of consultation should be further examined.

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Pediatric Pain Screening Tool: rapid identification of risk in youth with pain complaints

Moderate to severe chronic pain is a problem for 1.7 million children, costing $19.5 billion dollars annually in the United States alone. Risk-stratified care is known to improve outcomes in adults with chronic pain. However, no tool exists to stratify youth who present with pain complaints to appropriate interventions. The Pediatric Pain Screening Tool (PPST) presented here assesses prognostic factors associated with adverse outcomes among youth and defines risk groups to inform efficient treatment decision making. Youth (n = 321, ages 8-18, 90.0% Caucasian, 74.8% female) presenting for multidisciplinary pain clinic evaluation at a tertiary care center participated. Of these, 195 (61.1%) participated at 4-month follow-up. Participants completed the 9-item PPST in addition to measures of functional disability, pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Sensitivity and specificity for the PPST ranged from adequate to excellent, with regard to significant disability (78%, 68%) and high emotional distress (81%, 63%). Participants were classified into low- (11%), medium- (32%), and high- (57%) risk groups. Risk groups did not significantly differ by pain diagnosis, location, or duration. Only 2% to 7% of patients who met reference standard case status for disability and emotional distress at 4-month follow-up were classified as low risk at baseline, whereas 71% to 79% of patients who met reference standard case status at follow-up were classified as high risk at baseline. A 9-item screening tool identifying factors associated with adverse outcomes among youth who present with pain complaints seems valid and provides risk stratification that can potentially guide effective pain treatment recommendations in the clinic setting.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus.

DESIGN

Expert panel and preliminary evaluation of key recommendations.

METHODS

The NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting.

RESULTS

The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals.

CONCLUSION

The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool was affected by episode duration

PURPOSE

The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) reportedly varies, but the factors affecting this are unclear. This study investigated the influences of care setting (chiropractic, GP, physiotherapy, spine centre), episode duration (0-2, 3-4, 4-12, >12 weeks), and outcome time period (3, 6, 12 months) on SBT prognostic ability.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from three primary care cohorts [chiropractic (n = 416), GP (n = 265), and physiotherapy (n = 200) practices] and one cohort from a secondary care outpatient spine centre (n = 974) in Denmark. Care pathways were not systematically affected by SBT risk subgroup (non-stratified care). Using generalised estimating equations, we investigated statistical interactions between SBT risk subgroups and potentially influential factors on the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups, when Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores were the outcome.

RESULTS

SBT risk subgroup, age, care setting, and episode duration were all independent prognostic factors. The only investigated factor that modified the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups was episode duration.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the prognostic ability of the SBT in these non-stratified care settings was unaffected by care setting on its own. However, the prognosis of patients is affected by diverse clinical characteristics that differ between patient populations, many of which are not assessed by the SBT. When controlling for some of those factors and testing potential interactions, the results showed that only episode duration affected the SBT prognostic ability and, specifically, that the SBT was less predictive in very acute patients (<2 weeks duration).

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Focus article: report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the National Institutes of Health task force on research standards for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The purpose of this article is to disseminate the report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) task force on research standards for cLBP.

METHODS

The NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting.

RESULTS

The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved these recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals.

CONCLUSIONS

The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Chinese version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Translation and psychometric testing.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT) in Chinese-speaking patients with low back pain (LBP) after translation and cultural adaptation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

To date, no previous studies exist on the translation process and validation of the Chinese version of the STarT.

METHODS

The procedure of translation, which included 6 stages, was performed according to the current recommended guidelines. Psychometric testing included face validity, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity. A total of 307 patients completed a questionnaire booklet containing the Chinese version of the STarT, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-17, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Seventy-four randomly selected patients were asked to finish the STarT a second time within 24 to 48 hours. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of psychometric testing were compared with the original English cohort.

RESULTS

No items of the final version had reported ambiguity after the face validation and no floor or ceiling effects were noted. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.933 (95% confidence interval, 0.896-0.957), demonstrating very good reliability. Discriminant validity was established, with area under curve results in the range from 0.751 to 0.893 (95% confidence interval, 0.697-0.930) in the Chinese cohort compared with 0.840 to 0.925 (95% confidence interval, 0.772-0.948) in the original English cohort.

CONCLUSION

The results confirm the successful translation and adaptation of the STarT into Chinese, with appropriate reliability and validity. Therefore, this version can be recommended for clinical and research use for Chinese patients with LBP.

Report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The research task force believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurological, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. We expect that the research task force recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for cLBP. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum data set, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

A validation study of the Iranian version of STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) in lumbar central canal stenosis patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to translate and validate the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) in Iran.

METHODS

This was a prospective clinical validation study. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original questionnaire was performed, and a total of 269 patients with lumbar central canal stenosis were asked to respond to the questionnaire at their first visits. Patients also were asked to complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Reliability was assessed by internal consistency using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Validity was evaluated by performing convergent validity and responsiveness to change.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 58.6 [standard deviation (SD) = 10.9] years; 56.5 % were women. According to patients' imaging, they were diagnosed as grade 1 (n = 86), grade 2 (n = 107), and grade 3 (n = 76). In general, the SBST showed good psychometric properties. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for overall scale (Q1-Q9) and psychosocial subscale (Q5-Q9) was 0.82 and 0.79, respectively. The ODI correlated strongly with overall SBST scores, lending support to its good convergent validity (r = 0.81; P < 0.001). Responsiveness to change also indicated desirable results.

CONCLUSION

In general, the Iranian version of the SBST performed well, and findings suggest that it is a reliable and valid measure for screening low back pain in patients with lumbar central canal stenosis in primary care settings.

Validity and reliability of the French version of the STarT Back screening tool for patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Observational prospective study.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess the reliability and validity of the French version of the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The SBST is a recently validated tool developed to identify subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) to guide early secondary prevention in primary care.

METHODS

Outpatients 18 years or older with LBP, attending a rehabilitation center, a back school, a private physiotherapy unit, or a fitness center were included. Patients were assessed through the SBST, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 questionnaire, and a pain visual analogue scale. Test-retest reliability was assessed with Kappa score or the intraclass correlation coefficient, internal consistency of the Psychological subscale with the Cronbach α coefficient, construct validity with the Spearman correlation coefficient, and floor and ceiling effects by percentage frequency of lowest or highest possible score achieved by respondents.

RESULTS

One hundred eight patients with LBP were included. The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.90 (0.81-0.95). The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.73 showing a good internal consistency for the Psychological subscale. High Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.74 between SBST and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 0.74 between the SBST and Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire were observed. As expected, low-to-moderate correlations were observed between the SBST total score and some dissimilar measures of the Short-Form 36. The lowest possible SBST score was observed for 8 patients (7.4%), whereas only 3 patients (2.8%) had the highest possible SBST score.

CONCLUSION

The French version of the SBST is a reliable and valid questionnaire consistent with the original English version. Therefore, this new version may help French-speaking clinicians and scientists to stratify patients with LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Neck and back pain specific outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Accurate measurement of functional improvement in clinical practice is becoming increasingly recognized as essential in demonstrating whether patients are deriving meaningful benefit from care. Several simple questionnaires have been developed for this purpose. The majority of these have been developed in English. In North America, there is a growing need for clinical tools, including outcome assessment tools that are available in the Spanish language.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding spine-specific outcome assessment questionnaires that are available in Spanish and to examine the evidence on their clinical utility.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

The Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and MANTIS databases were searched for any studies on the topic of outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language. Relevant articles were reviewed, and the data on reliability, validity, time to completion, and any other properties of the questionnaire was extracted.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 287 articles, of which 10 were deemed relevant. With regard to neck pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Core Outcome Measure for neck pain. With regard to low back pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), and the North American Spine Society-American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Several reliable and valid outcome assessment questionnaires are available in the Spanish language. All were originally developed in English. It appears from the data reviewed that the most useful instruments are the NDI for neck pain patients and the ODI and RMQ for low back pain patients. The current trend is for the development of culturally adapted versions of these questionnaires that are specific to a particular country or region.

The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting

INTRODUCTION

The predictive ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) in secondary care settings has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to determine the SBT's predictive ability in a Danish secondary care setting and compare this to a Danish primary care setting.

METHODS

Poor clinical outcome at 6 months (>30 points on a 0-100 Roland Morris Disability Scale) was calculated in secondary care (n = 960) and primary care (n = 172) cohorts. The cohorts were stratified into SBT subgroups and estimates of additional risk for poor outcome were calculated [relative risk (RR), unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios]. The discriminative ability was determined using the area under the curve statistic.

RESULTS

In secondary care 69.0 % and in primary care 40.2 % had poor outcome on activity limitation. Although significant, the predictive ability of the SBT in secondary care (medium-risk RR 1.5, high-risk RR 1.7) was not as strong as in primary care (medium-risk RR 2.3, high-risk RR 3.5). Adjusting for episode duration and pain intensity only changed the predictive ability marginally in secondary care. The discriminative ability of the SBT was similar in both cohorts despite differences in the predictive ability.

CONCLUSION

The SBT had less predictive ability in a Danish secondary care setting compared to a Danish primary care setting for persistent activity limitation at 6 months follow-up. SBT-targeted treatment implications in secondary care were not investigated in this study.

Translation validation of a new back pain screening questionnaire (the STarT Back Screening Tool) in French

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem and the identification of individuals at risk of persistent LBP poses substantial challenges to clinical management. The STarT Back questionnaire is a validated nine-item patient self-report questionnaire that classifies patients with LBP at low, medium or high-risk of poor prognosis for persistent non-specific LBP. The objective of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of the STarT Back questionnaire into French.

Methods

The translation was performed using best practice translation guidelines. The following phases were performed: contact with the STarT Back questionnaire developers, initial translations (English into French), synthesis, back translations, expert committee review, test of the pre-final version on 44 individuals with LBP, final version.

Results

The linguistic translation required minor semantic alterations. The participants interviewed indicated that all items of the questionnaire were globally clear and comprehensible. However, 6 subjects (14%) wondered if two questions were related to back pain or general health. After discussion within the expert committee and with the developer of the STarT Back tool, it was decided to modify the questionnaire and to add a reference to back pain in these two questions.

Conclusions

The French version of the STarT Back questionnaire has been shown to be comprehensible and adapted to the French speaking general population. Investigations are now required to test the psychometric properties (reliability, internal and external validity, responsiveness) of this translated version of the questionnaire.

Clinical effects of a nine-month web-based intervention in subacute non-specific low back pain patients: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the clinical effect of a web-based lower back pain intervention on quality of life and selected lower back pain outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospective single-blinded randomized intervention.

SETTING

Occupational preventive service.

SUBJECTS

One hundred office workers with non-specific subacute lower back pain.

INTERVENTION

The 50 intervention group subjects were educated daily about sitting correctly and asked to perform exercises shown by video demonstrations on the university website. The exercise routines included strengthening, mobility and stretching exercises focused on the postural stability muscles. The 50 control group subjects only received standard occupational care.

MEASURES

Outcomes were measured by the EuroQol questionnaire five dimensions three levels, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the StarT Back Screening Tool questionnaires. At nine months, the intervention group outcomes were compared to the baseline data and the control group outcomes.

RESULTS

For 97% (n = 45) of the experimental group quality of life (clinical utility) improved significantly; 3.58 times greater than the control group. Oswestry Disability Index showed an odds ratio (OR) of 5.42 with a 37% (n = 17) change for the intervention group with respect to the control group. With regard to the StarT Back Screening Tool, 76% (n = 35) of the intervention group improved their clinical state (odds ratio = 3.04 with respect to the control group improvement). Logistic regression analysis revealed positive changes in EuroQol questionnaire, increasing the likelihood of observing positive changes in StarT Back Screening Tool (OR = 15.5) and Oswestry Disability Index (OR = 4.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention showed clinical improvements in quality of life and selected lower back pain outcomes in the experimental group compared to the control group.