Stratified care to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: The TARGET trial. A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized trial

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.

Treatment Effect Modifiers for Return-to-Work in Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders

Investigating how individual characteristics modify treatment effects can improve understanding, interpretation, and translation of trial findings. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify treatment effect modifiers of the MI-NAV trial, a 3 arm, parallel randomized controlled trial which compared motivational interviewing and stratified vocational advice intervention in addition to usual case management (UC), to UC alone. This study included (n = 514) participants with musculoskeletal disorders on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for at least 7 consecutive weeks with the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Sickness absence days was the primary outcome, measured from baseline assessment date until the 6-month follow-up. Potential treatment effect modifiers, identified a priori and informed by expert consultation and literature, were evaluated using linear regression models and statistical interaction tests. For motivational interviewing versus UC, age (mean difference [MD] -.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5 to .2; P = .13) and self-perceived health status (MD -.3, 95% CI -.7 to .1; P = .19) were identified as potential effect modifiers (P ≤ .2). For stratified vocational advice intervention versus UC, analgesic medication use (MD -26.2, 95% CI -45.7 to -6.7; P = .009) was identified as a treatment effect modifier (P ≤ .05). These findings may assist in more targeted treatment adaptation and translation as well as the planning of future clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: This secondary analysis of the MI-NAV trial found that analgesic medication use, age, and self-perceived health may modify the effect of 2 vocational interventions on reducing sickness absence in people with musculoskeletal disorders.

The Association of Physiotherapy and Opioid Use With Duration of Compensated Time Loss for Workers With Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine patterns of physiotherapy and opioid use among compensated workers with low back pain (LBP), factors associated with these, and their association with time loss.

METHODS

Accepted Victorian and South Australian workers' compensation claims, services, and medicines data for LBP claims lodged June 30, 2010-July 1, 2015. Descriptive statistics, multinomial logistic, and Cox regression were used to determine usage groups, their predictors, and effect of these on time loss.

RESULTS

Of 15,728 claims, 24.4% received no services, 3.6% received opioids only, 43.3% received physiotherapy only, and 28.8% received both opioids and physiotherapy. Sex, age, occupation, remoteness, jurisdiction, and socioeconomic status were significantly associated with usage groups. Using opioids and physiotherapy had the longest time loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Any services/medicine usage was associated with increased time loss and was longest for combined physiotherapy and opioids.

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.

General and Pain-Associated Psychological Distress Phenotypes Among Patients With Low Back Pain in the Military Health System

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to describe rates of general and pain-related psychological distress for individuals with low back pain (LBP) in the Military Health System (MHS). We identified common phenotypes defined by rates of general and pain-related psychological distress and compared phenotypes on their level of pain interference, physical function, anxiety, and depression.

METHODS

We created a cohort from two completed trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment for LBP in the MHS (n = 510 total). The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag assessment tool identified the presence of 11 different yellow flags. Latent class analysis (LCA) used yellow flag indicators to identify common psychological phenotypes. We then compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems measures of pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety across phenotypes.

RESULTS

LCA identified five phenotypes (percentage of the sample): low distress (32%), high distress (27%), poor pain coping and low self-efficacy (18%), low self-efficacy and acceptance (14%), and poor pain coping (10%). Highly distressed phenotypes reported higher levels of pain interference, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety than those with other phenotypes, whereas the low distress phenotype had significantly lower pain interference and higher physical function scores than those characterized by all other phenotypes.

CONCLUSION

These phenotypes provide opportunities for clinicians and researchers to develop novel LBP treatment pathways tailored to patients with different profiles of psychological distress. Future work is needed to validate their predictive capabilities for clinical outcomes.

Validation of the Keele STarT MSK Tool for Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain in United States-based Outpatient Physical Therapy Settings

The STarT MSK tool was developed to enable risk stratification of patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain conditions and help identify individuals who may require more targeted interventions or closer monitoring in primary care settings, however, its validity in U.S.-based outpatient physical therapy settings has not been investigated. The 10-item Keele STarT MSK risk stratification tool was tested for construct (convergent and discriminant) and predictive validity using a multicenter, prospective cohort study design. Participants (n = 141) receiving physical therapy for MSK pain of the back, neck, shoulder, hip, knee, or multisite regions completed intake questionnaires including the Keele STarT MSK tool, Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI), Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review-of-Systems and Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag tools. Pain intensity, pain interference, and health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 8-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-8) physical [PCS] and mental [MCS] component summary scores) were measured at 2- and 6-month follow-up. Participants were classified as STarT MSK tool low (44%), medium (39%), and high (17%) risk. Follow-up rates were 70.2% (2 months) and 49.6% (6 months). For convergent validity, fair relationships were observed between the STarT MSK tool and FCI and SF-8 MCS (r = .35-.37) while moderate-to-good relationships (r = .51-.72) were observed for 7 other clinical measures. For discriminant validity, STarT MSK tool risk-dependent relationships were observed for Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review-of-Systems, Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag, pain interference, and SF-8 PCS (low < medium < high; P < .01) and FCI, pain intensity, and SF-8 MCS (low < medium-or-high; P < .01). For predictive validity, intake STarT MSK tool scores explained additional variability in pain intensity (11.2%, 20.0%), pain interference (7.5%, 14.1%), and SF-8 PCS (8.2%, 12.8%) scores at 2 and 6 months, respectively. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing additional evidence of STarT MSK tool cross-sectional construct validity and longitudinal predictive validity. PERSPECTIVE: This study presents STarT MSK risk stratification tool validity findings from a U.S. outpatient physical therapy sample. The STarT MSK tool has the potential to help physical therapists identify individuals presenting with the most common MSK pain conditions who may require more targeted interventions or closer monitoring.

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.

Efficacy of a Psychologically-Informed Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain at High Risk of Poor Prognosis: A Pilot and Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

To determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PIPT), which includes usual physiotherapy (UP) interventions, compared with UP, and to explore the preliminary effectiveness of the interventions.

Method

People with chronic low back pain at high risk of poor prognosis (using the STarT Back screening tool) were recruited and allocated to PIPT or UP. Effectiveness of recruitment strategies, adherence to intervention, risk of contamination, and specific challenges were assessed. Functional capacity, pain, quality of life, kinesiophobia, catastrophization, central sensitization, and self-efficacy were measured at baseline, 6-, 12- and 24-week follow-ups.

Results

Forty participants were recruited mainly by diffusing through Laval University's email list, and 10 physiotherapists treated the participants recruited. The retention rate of participants at 24 weeks was 72.5%. Adherence to treatment by participants and physiotherapists was very good. The risk of contamination was low, and the specific challenges identified were modifiable. Significant improvement over time in all clinical variables of interest, except self-efficacy, was observed with no difference between groups.

Conclusions

As most success criteria were met, conducting an RCT evaluating PIPT and PU is feasible with modifications. PIPT and UP appear to be similarly effective.

If You Build It, Will They Come? Patient and Provider Use of a Novel Hybrid Telehealth Care Pathway for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the referrals and use of a hybrid care model for low back pain that includes on-site care by physical therapists, physical activity training, and psychologically informed practice (PiP) delivered by telehealth in the Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Low Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial.

METHODS

Data were collected from November 2020 through February 2023 from 5 Veteran Health Administration clinics participating in AIM-Back, a multisite, cluster-randomized embedded pragmatic trial. The authors extracted data from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse to describe referral and enrollment metrics, telehealth use (eg, distribution of physical activity and PiP calls), and treatments used by physical therapists and telehealth providers.

RESULTS

Seven hundred one veterans were referred to the AIM-Back trial with 422 enrolling in the program (consult-to-enrollment rate = 60.2%). After travel restrictions were lifted, site visits resulted in a significant increase in referrals and a number of new referring providers. At initial evaluation by on-site physical therapists, 92.2% of veterans received pain modulation (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, manual therapy). Over 81% of enrollees completed at least 1 telehealth physical activity call, with a mean of 2.8 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of the 167 veterans who screened as medium to high risk of persistent disability, 74.9% completed at least 1 PiP call, with a mean of 2.5 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of those who completed at least 1 PiP call (n = 125), 100% received communication strategies, 97.6% received pain coping skills training, 89.6% received activity-based treatments, and 99.2% received education in a home program.

CONCLUSION

In implementing a hybrid care pathway for low back pain, the authors observed consistency in the delivery of core components (ie, pain modulation, use of physical activity training, and risk stratification to PiP), notable variability in telehealth calls, high use of PiP components, and increased referrals with tailored provider engagement.

IMPACT

These findings describe variability occurring within a hybrid care pathway and can inform future implementation efforts.

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS.

METHODS

Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

The "future" pain clinician: Competencies needed to provide psychologically informed care

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

Psychologically informed care has been proposed to improve treatment outcomes for chronic pain and aligns with a person-centered approach. Yet implementation lags behind, and studies suggest that a lack of competency leads to poor results. It is unclear what training clinicians require to deliver this care. We examine how we might improve psychologically informed care guided by the needs of the patient and in congruence with the scientific literature with a particular focus on how competencies might be upgraded and implementation enhanced.

METHODS

We selectively review the literature for psychologically informed care for pain. The patient's view on what is needed is contrasted with the competencies necessary to meet these needs and how treatment should be evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient needs and corresponding competencies are delineated. A number of multi-professional skills and competencies are required to provide psychologically informed care. Single-subject methodologies can determine whether the care has the desired effect for the individual patient and facilitate effectiveness. We argue that becoming a competent "pain clinician" requires a new approach to education that transcends current professional boundaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing person-centered care guided by the needs of the patient and in line with the scientific literature shows great potential but requires multiple competencies. We propose that training the pain clinician of the future should focus on psychologically informed care and the competencies required to meet the individual's needs. Single-subject methodology allows for continual evaluation of this care.

Partnering with social service staff to implement pragmatic clinical trials: an interim analysis of implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

With recent growth in the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, the reliance on frontline staff to contribute to trial-related activities has grown as well. Active partnerships with staff members are often critical to pragmatic trial implementation, but rarely do research teams track and evaluate the specific "implementation strategies" used to support staff's involvement in trial procedures (e.g., participant recruitment). Accordingly, we adapted implementation science methodologies and conducted an interim analysis of the strategies deployed with social service staff involved in one multi-site pragmatic clinical trial.

METHODS

We used a naturalistic, observational study design to characterize strategies our research team deployed with staff during monthly, virtual meetings. Data were drawn from meeting notes and recordings from the trial's 4-month Preparation phase and 8-month Implementation phase. Strategies were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and categorized into nine implementation clusters. Survey data were also collected from staff to identify the most useful strategies the research team should deploy when onboarding new staff members in the trial's second year.

RESULTS

A total of 287 strategies were deployed. Strategies in the develop stakeholder interrelationships cluster predominated in both the Preparation (35%) and Implementation (31%) phases, followed by strategies in the use iterative and evaluative approaches cluster, though these were more prevalent during trial Preparation (24%) as compared to trial Implementation (18%). When surveyed on strategy usefulness, strategies in the provide interactive assistance, use financial approaches, and support staff clusters were most useful, per staff responses.

CONCLUSIONS

While strategies to develop stakeholder interrelationships were used most frequently during trial Preparation and Implementation, program staff perceived strategies that provided technical assistance, supported clinicians, and used financial approaches to be most useful and should be deployed when onboarding new staff members. Research teams are encouraged to adapt and apply implementation strategy tracking methods when partnering with social service staff and deploy practical strategies that support pragmatic trial success given staff needs and preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05357261. May 2, 2022.

Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Preventing Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and trial registries from inception to December 2, 2022. Forward and backward citation searches. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults without neck pain at baseline and compared exercise interventions to no intervention, placebo/sham, attention control, or minimal intervention. Military populations and astronauts were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 4703 records screened, 5 trials (1722 participants at baseline) were included and eligible for meta-analysis. Most (80%) participants were office workers. Risk of bias was rated as some concerns for 2 trials and high for 3 trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise interventions probably reduce the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.76) compared to no or minimal intervention in the short-term (≤12 months). The results were not robust to sensitivity analyses for missing outcome data. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence supporting exercise interventions for reducing the risk for an episode of neck pain in the next 12 months. The clinical significance of the effect is unclear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12063.

Implementation of a risk-stratified, guideline-based clinical pathway of care to improve health outcomes following whiplash injury (Whiplash ImPaCT): a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Current pathways of care for whiplash follow a "stepped care model," result in modest treatment outcomes and fail to offer efficient management solutions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a risk-stratified clinical pathway of care (CPC) compared with usual care (UC) in people with acute whiplash. We conducted a multicentre, 2-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled trial in primary care in Australia. Participants with acute whiplash (n = 216) were stratified for risk of a poor outcome (low vs medium/high risk) and randomised using concealed allocation to either the CPC or UC. In the CPC group, low-risk participants received guideline-based advice and exercise supported by an online resource, and medium-risk/high-risk participants were referred to a whiplash specialist who assessed modifiable risk factors and then determined further care. The UC group received care from their primary healthcare provider who had no knowledge of risk status. Primary outcomes were neck disability index (NDI) and Global Rating of Change (GRC) at 3 months. Analysis blinded to group used intention-to-treat and linear mixed models. There was no difference between the groups for the NDI (mean difference [MD] [95% confidence interval (CI)] -2.34 [-7.44 to 2.76]) or GRC (MD 95% CI 0.08 [-0.55 to 0.70]) at 3 months. Baseline risk category did not modify the effect of treatment. No adverse events were reported. Risk-stratified care for acute whiplash did not improve patient outcomes, and implementation of this CPC in its current form is not recommended.

Effectiveness of Pilates exercise on low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Low back pain is the most frequently reported musculoskeletal disorder and represents one of the highest patient burdens in healthcare. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Pilates exercise on pain intensity and functional disability caused by low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Data sources: MEDLINE-NLM and MEDLINE-EBSCO. We also searched on Scopus Elsevier, Cochrane, DOAJ, SciELO, PEDro, and PLOS ONE databases. Eligibility criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating LBP in which the primary treatment was based on Pilates exercise compared with no exercise, or non-specific exercise.

RESULTS

The search returned 1566 records of which 36 articles were included in the systematic review and 19 in the meta-analysis. Twenty-two studies compared the effects of Pilates exercise vs no exercise and 13 studies examined the effects of Pilates exercise vs non-specific exercise. Analysis showed that Pilates had a positive effect on the perception of LBP vs no exercise. A similar trend occurred with non-specific exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

Pilates exercise can decrease LBP compared to no exercise and non-specific exercise. General practitioners should consider Pilates exercise as an effective strategy to manage LBP and counteract the growing health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022308387.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPilates is a good strategy for improving low back pain and is more effective than other exercise programs or no exercise.Pilates is a safe tool to apply to most of the population with low back pain.Pilates is a non-pharmacological strategy useful for counteracting low back pain.

Effect of Risk-Stratified Care on Disability Among Adults With Low Back Pain Treated in the Military Health System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Tailored treatments for low back pain (LBP) based on stratifying risk for poor prognosis have emerged as a promising approach to improve quality of care, but they have not been validated in trials at the level of individual randomization in US health systems.

Objective

To assess the clinical effectiveness of risk-stratified vs usual care on disability at 1 year among patients with LBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel-group randomized clinical trial enrolled adults (ages 18-50 years) seeking care for LBP with any duration in primary care clinics within the Military Health System from April 2017 to February 2020. Data analysis was conducted from January to December 2022.

Interventions

Risk-stratified care, in which participants received physiotherapy treatment tailored for their risk category (low, medium, or high), or usual care, in which care was determined by participants' general practitioners and may have included a referral to physiotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 1 year, with planned secondary outcomes of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) and Physical Function (PF) scores. Raw downstream health care utilization was also reported within each group.

Results

Analysis included 270 participants (99 [34.1%] female participants; mean [SD] age, 34.1 [8.5] years). Only 21 patients (7.2%) were classified as high risk. Neither group was superior on the RMDQ (least squares [LS] mean ratio of risk-stratified vs usual care: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26), the PROMIS PI (LS mean difference, -0.75 points; 95% CI -2.61 to 1.11 points), or the PROMIS PF (LS mean difference, 0.05 points; 95% CI, -1.66 to 1.76 points).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, using risk stratification to categorize and provide tailored treatment for patients with LBP did not result in better outcomes at 1 year compared with usual care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03127826.

The Psychologically Informed Practice Consultation Roadmap: A Clinical Implementation Strategy

Psychologically informed practice (PiP) includes a special focus on psychosocial obstacles to recovery, but research trials have revealed significant difficulties in implementing PiP outside of research environments. Qualitative studies have identified problems of both competence and confidence in tackling the psychosocial aspects of care, with a tendency to prefer dealing with the more mechanical aspects of care. In PiP, the distinction between assessment and management is not clear-cut. Analysis of the problem is part of the intervention, and guided self-management begins with the initial detective work by the patient, who is encouraged to develop successful and relevant behavior change. This requires a different style and focus of communication that some clinicians find difficult to enact. In this Perspective, the PiP Consultation Roadmap is offered as a guide for clinical implementation to establish a therapeutic relationship, develop patient-centered communication, and guide effective pain self-management. These strategies are illustrated through the metaphor of the patient learning to drive, with the therapist as a driving instructor and the patient as a student driver. For convenience, the Roadmap is depicted in 7 stages. Each stage represents aspects of the clinical consultation in a recommended order, although the Roadmap should be viewed as a general guide with a degree of flexibility to accommodate individual differences and optimize PiP interventions. It is anticipated that the experienced PiP clinician will find it progressively easier to implement the Roadmap as the building blocks and style of consultation become more familiar.

Psychologically Informed Practice: The Importance of Communication in Clinical Implementation

There has been increasing interest in the secondary prevention of chronic pain and pain-associated disability over the past 3 decades. In 2011, psychologically informed practice (PiP) was suggested as a framework for managing persistent and recurrent pain, and, since then, it has underpinned the development of stratified care linking risk identification (screening). Although PiP research trials have demonstrated clinical and economic advantage over usual care, pragmatic studies have been less successful, and qualitative studies have identified implementation difficulties in both system delivery and individual clinical management. Effort has been put into the development of screening tools, the development of training, and the assessment of outcomes; however, the nature of the consultation has remained relatively unexplored. In this Perspective, a review of the nature of clinical consultations and the clinician-patient relationship is followed by reflections on the nature of communication and the outcome of training courses. Consideration is given to the optimization of communication, including the use of standardized patient-reported measures and the role of the therapist in facilitating adaptive behavior change. Several challenges in implementing a PiP approach in day-to-day practice are then considered. Following brief consideration of the impact of recent developments in health care, the Perspective concludes with a brief introduction to the PiP Consultation Roadmap (the subject of a companion paper), the use of which is suggested as a way of structuring the consultation with the flexibility required for a patient-centered approach to guided self-management of chronic pain conditions.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP).

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP.

RESULTS

We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02647658.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis.

METHODS

We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment.

DISCUSSION

By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Pain phenotyping and investigation of outcomes in physical therapy: An exploratory study in patients with low back pain

Phenotypes have been proposed as a method of characterizing subgroups based on biopsychosocial factors to identify responders to analgesic treatments. This study aimed to, first, confirm phenotypes in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy based on an a priori set of factors used to derive subgroups in other pain populations. Second, an exploratory analysis examined if phenotypes differentiated pain and disability outcomes at four weeks of physical therapy. Fifty-five participants completed psychological questionnaires and pressure pain threshold (PPT). Somatization, anxiety, and depression domains of the Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised, and PPT, were entered into a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis with Ward's method to identify phenotypes. Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed pain ratings and disability by phenotype at four weeks. Three clusters emerged: 1) high emotional distress and pain sensitivity (n = 10), 2) low emotional distress (n = 34), 3) low pain sensitivity (n = 11). As an exploratory study, clusters did not differentiate pain ratings or disability after four weeks of physical therapy (p's>0.05). However, trends were observed as magnitude of change for pain varied by phenotype. This supports the characterization of homogenous subgroups based on a protocol conducted in the clinical setting with varying effect sizes noted by phenotype for short-term changes in pain. As an exploratory study, future studies should aim to repeat this trial in a larger sample of patients.

The Effect of a New Payment System on Physiotherapeutic Management of Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences regarding the number of treatment sessions, costs, and outcomes (including relapses) between a regular payment-per-session system and the recently introduced product payment system.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Dutch physical therapy practices in primary care over a 2-year period.

PARTICIPANTS

16,103 patients with low back pain (LBP).

INTERVENTION

The new product payment system is compared with the regular payment-per-session system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain, disability, recovery, number of physical therapy sessions, therapy duration, costs (per episode), and LBP relapse.

RESULTS

At baseline, we found greater pain and disability scores associated with an increased risk profile in both payment systems. With regard to the payment systems, we found greater costs (€283.8 vs €210.8) and a greater percentage of relapse (4.5% vs 2.8%) for the product payment system compared with the payment-per-session system. Comparing the 2 payment systems within each risk strata, we found no significant differences, except for a decrease in pain in the medium-risk stratum. Concerning the therapy characteristics, we found that in the payment-per-session group, the therapy took 6 days longer for low-risk patients (median 27 vs 21 days) and 7 days shorter for high-risk patients (median 42 vs 49 days) compared with the product payment group. Moreover, the mean number of sessions in the payment-per-session group was greater for low-risk patients (5.4 vs 4.8 sessions) and lower for high-risk patients (7.7 vs 8.1 sessions) compared with the payment-per-session group. Finally, the costs were significantly greater in all strata of the product payment group compared with the payment-per-session group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 payment systems are largely comparable regarding patient outcomes, therapy duration, and treatment sessions. Both the average cost per patient per LBP episode and the number of relapses in the product payment system are statistically significantly greater than in the payment-per-session system.

No evidence for stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Economic evaluation alongside cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A stratified approach to exercise therapy may yield superior clinical and economic outcomes, given the large heterogeneity of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up of a model of stratified exercise therapy compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA, from a societal and healthcare perspective.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA (n = 335), comparing subgroup-specific exercise therapy for a 'high muscle strength subgroup', 'low muscle strength subgroup', and 'obesity subgroup' supplemented by a dietary intervention for the 'obesity subgroup' (experimental group), with usual ('non-stratified') exercise therapy (control group). Clinical outcomes included quality-adjusted life years - QALYs (EuroQol-5D-5 L), knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in daily living). Costs were measured by self-reported questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Data were analyzed through linear regression. Bootstrapping techniques were applied to estimate statistical uncertainty.

RESULTS

During 12-month follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. The total societal costs of the experimental group were on average lower compared to the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: € 405 [-1728, 918]), albeit with a high level of uncertainty. We found a negligible difference in QALYs between groups (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.006 [-0.011, 0.023]). The probability of stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy from the societal perspective was around 73%, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, this probability decreased substantially to 50% (willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000/QALY) when using the healthcare perspective. Similar results were found for knee pain and physical functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear evidence that stratified exercise therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA. However, results should be interpreted with caution as the study power was lower than intended, due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Treatment effect modifiers for individuals with acute low back pain: secondary analysis of the TARGET trial

ABSTRACT

Treatment effect modifiers identify patient characteristics associated with treatment responses. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify potential treatment effect modifiers for disability from the TARGET trial that compared usual care (control) with usual care + psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). The sample consisted of a STarT Back tool identified high-risk patients with acute low back pain that completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data at index visit and 6 months later (n = 1250). Candidate treatment effect modifiers were identified a priori and informed by the literature. Linear mixed models tested for treatment effect modification through tests of statistical interaction. All statistical interactions ( P ≤ 0.20) were stratified by modifier to inspect for specific effects ( P ≤ 0.05). Smoking was identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment * smoking interaction, P = 0.08). In participants who were smokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 5.5; 95% CI: 0.6-10.4; P = 0.03) compared with usual care. In participants who were nonsmokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 1.5; 95% CI: -1.4 to 4.4; P = 0.31) compared with usual care. Pain medication was also identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment × pain medication interaction, P = 0.10). In participants prescribed ≥3 pain medications, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 7.1; 95% CI: -0.1 to 14.2; P = 0.05) compared with usual care. The PIPT effect for participants prescribed no pain medication was (ODI = 3.5; 95% CI: -0.4 to 7.4; P = 0.08) and for participants prescribed 1 to 2 pain medications was (ODI = 0.6; 95% CI: -2.5 to 3.7; P = 0.70) when compared with usual care. These findings may be used for generating hypotheses and planning future clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of tailored application of PIPT.

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.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021).

Interventions

Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance.

Results

Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Patient perspectives of care pathways for people with low back pain: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) care pathways aim to enhance health outcomes through patient-clinician mutual decision-making and care coordination. However, challenges to successful translation into practice include patients' understanding, expectation, and acceptance of treatment and management strategies for LBP. This study explored patients' perspectives and/or experience of care pathways and their involvement in decision-making in primary care.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 participants with LBP recruited from the community. Inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted within the design framework to enable a systematic comparison of experiences across participants and within individual cases.

RESULTS

Five themes described participant perspectives and understanding of care pathways: i) care pathways can guide decision-making; ii) familiarity with no and/or stepped care pathway, but preference for matched or blend of care pathways; iii) engaging in shared decision-making; iv) patient-related barriers to implementation; v) patient-related facilitators to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants felt that existing care pathways did not meet their needs when pain persisted. Participants preferred matched or hybrid care pathways and suggested that implementation of such pathways should focus on addressing an individual's needs. Adopting a holistic approach, and clarity in shared decision-making, were deemed crucial for effective implementation of LBP pathways in practice. Consumer (patient) engagement in the design of LBP care pathways is recommended.

Disability Among Persons With Chronic Severe Back Pain: Results From a Nationally Representative Population-based Sample

We evaluated the association between the chronic severe back pain with disability and participation, in U.S. Adults using data from the US 2019 National Health Interview Survey. In our sample of 2,925 adults (weighted n: 20,468,134) who reported having chronic severe back pain, 60% reported mobility disability, 60% had work limitations, 34% were limited for social participation and 16% had self-care limitations. Older age (65+) was associated with mobility difficulties (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.28,6.09) and work limitation (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.61,3.05). Lower socioeconomic status was associated with increasing odds of disability across the 4 categories. Being obese was only associated with mobility difficulties (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.41,2.71), while not working in the past week was associated with difficulties in mobility (OR 3.55, 95% CI 2.64,4.75), self-care (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.20,5.08), and social participation (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.13,4.80). Comorbidities were highly associated with limitations in all 4 categories. Those deeming their ability to manage their pain ineffective were twice as likely to have limitations in self-care, social and work participation but not mobility. Identifying factors associated with disability and limitation may help target appropriate management for persons with chronic pain at high risk for disability. PERSPECTIVE: We evaluated the association between the chronic severe back pain with disability and participation, in a representative sample of Americans. Identifying factors associated with a likelihood of disability may help target appropriate pain management for persons at high risk for disability due to chronic severe back pain.

The Fibromyalgia Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Physical Therapy Study Protocol: A Multisite Embedded Pragmatic Trial

OBJECTIVES

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a nonpharmacological intervention that provides an electrical current through the skin to produce analgesia. The primary purpose of this study is to examine if the addition of TENS to routine physical therapy improves movement-evoked pain in individuals with fibromyalgia in a physical therapy clinical setting.

METHODS

Fibromyalgia TENS in Physical Therapy Study is a phase III embedded pragmatic clinical trial funded through the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-Term Initiative. This trial will utilize a randomized cluster design that includes more than 110 physical therapists in 24 to 30 physical therapy clinics within 6 health care systems and 7 states. Clinics will be randomized to TENS or No-TENS, stratified by health care system and clinic size. The plan is to enroll 600 participants, with all participants completing physical therapy as prescribed by their physical therapist. Participants at TENS clinics will utilize TENS for a minimum of 2-hour per day while at the physical therapy clinic and at home when active. The primary outcome is reduction in movement-evoked pain from baseline to day 60 on an 11-point numeric rating scale when participants sit and stand 5 times (Sit and Stand Test). Secondary outcomes include resting pain and fatigue, pain interference, fibromyalgia disease activity, movement-evoked fatigue, multidimensional assessment of fatigue, rapid assessment of physical activity, patient global impression of change, and common data elements shared across studies supported through the Helping to End Addiction Long-Term Initiative.

IMPACT

The findings from this study will provide effectiveness data on TENS for individuals with fibromyalgia for health care policymakers, clinicians, and insurers. Data from this study will also inform future pragmatic trials for nonpharmacological interventions and chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions.

Prospective observational study investigating the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool and the clinical effectiveness of stratified care in an emergency department setting

PURPOSE

To determine the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool (SBT) undertaken at baseline and 6 weeks to classify Emergency Department (ED) patients with LBP into groups at low, medium or high risk of persistent disability at 3 months. A secondary aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of pragmatic risk-matched treatment in an ED cohort at 3 months.

METHODS

A prospective observational multi-centre study took place in the physiotherapy services linked to the ED in four teaching hospitals in Dublin, Ireland. Patients were stratified into low, medium and high-risk groups at their baseline assessment. Participants received stratified care, where the content of their treatment was matched to their risk profile. Outcomes completed at baseline and 3 months included pain and disability. Linear regression analyses assessed if baseline or 6-week SBT score were predictive of disability at 3 months. Changes in the primary outcome of disability were dichotomised into those who achieved/ did not achieve a 30% improvement in their RMDQ at 6 weeks and 3 months.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 118 patients with a primary complaint of LBP ± leg pain with 67 (56.7%) completing their 6-week and 3-month follow-up. Baseline RMDQ and being in medium or high risk SBT group at 6 weeks were predictive of persistent disability at 3 months. A total of 54 (80.6%) participants reported a > 30% improvement at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Disability at baseline and SBT administered at 6 weeks more accurately predicted disability at 3 months than SBT at baseline in an ED population.

Patients' and clinicians' experiences with stratified exercise therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

We have developed a model of stratified exercise therapy that distinguishes three knee osteoarthritis (OA) subgroups ('high muscle strength subgroup', 'low muscle strength subgroup', 'obesity subgroup'), which are provided subgroup-specific exercise therapy (supplemented by a dietary intervention for the 'obesity subgroup'). In a large clinical trial, this intervention was found to be no more effective than usual exercise therapy. The present qualitative study aimed to explore experiences from users of this intervention, in order to identify possible improvements.

METHODS

Qualitative research design embedded within a cluster randomized controlled trial in a primary care setting. A random sample from the experimental arm (i.e., 15 patients, 11 physiotherapists and 5 dieticians) was interviewed on their experiences with receiving or applying the intervention. Qualitative data from these semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

We identified four themes: one theme regarding the positive experiences with the intervention and three themes regarding perceived barriers. Although users from all 3 perspectives (patients, physiotherapists and dieticians) generally perceived the intervention as having added value, we also identified several barriers, especially for the 'obesity subgroup'. In this 'obesity subgroup', physiotherapists perceived obesity as difficult to address, dieticians reported that more consultations are needed to reach sustainable weight loss and both physiotherapists and dieticians reported a lack of interprofessional collaboration. In the 'high muscle strength subgroup', the low number of supervised sessions was perceived as a barrier by some patients and physiotherapists, but as a facilitator by others. A final theme addressed barriers to knee OA treatment in general, with lack of motivation as the most prominent of these.

CONCLUSION

Our qualitative study revealed a number of barriers to effective application of the stratified exercise therapy, especially for the 'obesity subgroup'. Based on these barriers, the intervention and its implementation could possibly be improved. Moreover, these barriers are likely to account at least partly for the lack of superiority over usual exercise therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR): NL7463 (date of registration: 8 January 2019).

Needs assessment for health service design for people with back pain in a hospital setting: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is a need for effective health service solutions to provide greater structure and support for implementing evidence-based practice in back pain care. Patient involvement in developing these solutions is crucial to increase relevance, acceptability and uptake.

OBJECTIVES

To determine patients' perceived needs and barriers to best-practice back pain care, and potential solutions to better address care needs. The study is the third in a series of needs assessment studies feeding into the 'idea generation' for service design in a large teaching hospital in a culturally and linguistically diverse community in metropolitan Sydney, Australia.

DESIGN

We conducted a combination of focus groups and in-depth interviews using an interpretive description approach. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify the main themes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We purposively sampled patients with diverse characteristics from the neurosurgery and physiotherapy outpatient clinics, in particular those whose primary language was English, Arabic, Persian or Mandarin. Non-English audio recordings were translated and transcribed by bilingual researchers.

RESULTS

There were 24 participants (focus groups = 9; individual interviews = 15) when data saturation was reached. The analysis identified three key themes with several subthemes around what service designers needed to understand in helping people with back pain in this setting: (1) This is who I am; (2) It's not working for me; and (3) What I think I need.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study highlights that perceived unmet needs of patients are underpinned by unhelpful beliefs about the causes of and solutions for back pain, misaligned care expectations, unclear expectations of the hospital role and fragmentations in the health system. To design and implement a service that can deliver better back pain care, several solutions need to be integrated around: developing new resources that challenge unhelpful beliefs and set realistic expectations; improving access to education and self-management resources; focusing on individualized care; using a collaborative multidisciplinary approach within the hospital; and better connecting with and directing primary health care services.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A consumer representative of the Western Sydney Local Health District provided input during study conceptualisation and is duly recognized in the Acknowledgements section.

The 3-Month Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning.

Objective

This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.

Methods

The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up.

Results

Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z

Precision rehabilitation: optimizing function, adding value to health care

Precision medicine efforts are underway in many medical disciplines; however, the power of precision rehabilitation has not yet been explored. Precision medicine aims to deliver the right intervention, at the right time, in the right setting, for the right person, ultimately, bolstering the value of the care that we provide. To date precision medicine efforts have rarely focused on function at the level of a person, but precision rehabilitation is poised to change this and bring the focus on function to the broader precision medicine enterprise. To do this, subgroups of individuals must be identified based on their level of function via precise measurement of their abilities in the physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains. Adoption of electronic health records, advances in data storage and analytics, and improved measurement technology make this shift possible. Here we detail critical components of the precision rehabilitation framework, including 1) the synergistic use of various study designs, 2) the need for standardized functional measurements, 3) the importance of precise and longitudinal measures of function, 4) the utility of comprehensive databases, 5) the importance of predictive analyses, and 6) the need for system and team science. Precision rehabilitation has the potential to revolutionize clinical care, optimize function for all individuals, and magnify the value of rehabilitation in healthcare; however, to reap the benefits of precision rehabilitation, the rehabilitation community must actively pursue this shift.

Implementation of Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain: Where Do We Stand, Where Do We Go?

Low back pain continues to be a leading cause of disability and cost throughout the world. Evidence-based guidelines recommend use of non-pharmacological interventions to address decreases in physical function due to low back pain. Psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) is one way to effectively and efficiently address the need for non-pharmacological approaches. However, adoption of psychologically informed practice (PiP) by physical therapists has shown mixed results due to implementation challenges. In this perspective, we discuss the current state of PIPT training and implementation. We also propose a conceptual roadmap for future implementation needs related to increasing delivery of PIPT-informed approaches.

Implementation of a novel stratified PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in primary care: protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial (the PACE MSK trial)

Introduction

Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions constitute the highest burden of disease globally, with healthcare services often utilised inappropriately and overburdened. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel clinical PAthway of CarE programme (PACE programme), where care is provided based on people’s risk of poor outcome.

Methods and analysis

Multicentre randomised controlled trial. 716 people with MSK conditions (low back pain, neck pain or knee osteoarthritis) will be recruited in primary care. They will be stratified for risk of a poor outcome (low risk/high risk) using the Short Form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (SF-ÖMSPQ) then randomised to usual care (n=358) or the PACE programme (n=358). Participants at low risk in the PACE programme will receive up to 3 sessions of guideline based care from their primary healthcare professional (HCP) supported by a custom designed website (mypainhub.com). Those at high risk will be referred to an allied health MSK specialist who will conduct a comprehensive patient-centred assessment then liaise with the primary HCP to determine further care. Primary outcome (SF 12-item PCS) and secondary outcomes (eg, pain self-efficacy, psychological health) will be collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be measured as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Health economic analysis will include direct and indirect costs. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Primary and secondary outcomes will be analysed independently, using generalised linear models. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies embedded within the trial will evaluate patient experience, health professional practice and interprofessional collaboration.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been received from the following Human Research Ethics Committees: The University of Sydney (2018/926), The University of Queensland (2019000700/2018/926), University of Melbourne (1954239), Curtin University (HRE2019-0263) and Northern Sydney Local Health District (2019/ETH03632). Dissemination of findings will occur via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and social media.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12619000871145.

Effectiveness of stratified treatment for back pain in Danish primary care: A randomized controlled trial

Background

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of stratified care demonstrated superior clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness for low back pain (LBP) patients in UK primary care. This is the first study in Europe, outside of the original UK study, to investigate the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of stratified care compared with current practice for patients with non‐specific LBP.

Methods

The study was a two‐armed RCT. Danish primary care patients with LBP were randomized to stratified care (n = 169) or current practice (n = 164). Primary outcomes at 3‐ and 12‐months' follow‐up were Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDMQ), patient‐reported global change and time off work. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, patient satisfaction, healthcare resource utilization and quality‐adjusted life years.

Results

Intention‐to‐treat analyses found no between‐group difference in RMDQ scores at 3 months (0.5, 95% CI −1.8 to 0.9) or 12 months (0.4, −2.1 to 1.3). No overall differences were found between the arms at 3 and 12 months with respect to time off work or secondary outcomes. Stratified care intervention resulted in significantly fewer treatment sessions (3.5 [SD 3.1] vs. 4.5 [3.5]) and significantly lower total healthcare costs (€) (13.4 [529] vs. 228 [830], p = .002). There was no difference in cost‐effectiveness (0.09, 0.05 to 0.13 vs. 0.10, 0.07–0.14, p = .70).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients with non‐specific LBP receiving stratified care and those receiving current practice. However, stratified care may reduce total healthcare costs if implemented in Danish primary care.

Significance

Stratified care for low back pain based on risk profile is recommended by recent evidence based clinical guidelines. This study is the first broad replication of the STarT Back Trial in Europe. Therefore, the study adds to the body of knowledge evaluating the effectiveness of stratified care for low back pain in primary care, and provides insight into the effects of stratification on clinical practice.