Primary care clinicians use variable methods to assess acute nonspecific low back pain and usually focus on impairments

How do people with chronic low back pain pick a pencil off the floor?

BACKGROUND

Picking objects off the floor is provocative for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). There are no clinically applicable methods evaluating movement strategies for this task. The relationship between strategy and multidimensional profiles is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a movement evaluation tool (MET) to examine movement strategies in people with CLBP (n = 289) picking a pencil off the floor. Describe those movement strategies, and determine reliability of the MET. Explore differences across multidimensional profiles and movement strategies.

METHODS

An MET was developed using literature and iterative processes, and its inter-rater agreement determined. Latent class analysis (LCA) derived classes demonstrating different strategies using six movement parameters as indicator variables. Differences between classes across multidimensional profiles were investigated using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, or chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Six movement parameters were evaluated. There was substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's Kappa = 0.39-0.79) across parameters. LCA derived three classes with different strategies: Class 1 (71.8%) intermediate trunk inclination/knee flexion; Class 2 (24.5%) greater forward trunk inclination, lower knee flexion; Class 3 (3.7%) lower forward trunk inclination, greater knee flexion. Pain duration differed across all classes (p ≤ .001). Time taken to complete forward bends differed between Class 3 and other classes (p = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Movement strategies can be reliably assessed using the MET. Three strategies for picking lightweight objects off the floor were derived, which differed across pain duration and speed of movement.

Pain-Associated Psychological Distress Is of High Prevalence in Patients With Hip Pain: Characterizing Psychological Distress and Phenotypes

Purpose

To identify common pain-related psychological factors among patients seeking care for athletic hip pain, as well as characterize psychological distress phenotypes and compare hip-specific quality-of-life measures across those phenotypes.

Methods

A total of 721 patients were recruited from hip preservation clinics. The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome-Yellow Flag Assessment Tool (OSPRO-YF) was used to identify the presence or absence of 11 different pain-associated psychological distress characteristics (yellow flags), while the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) was used to assess hip-related quality of life. Latent class analysis identified patient subgroups (phenotypes) based on naturally occurring combinations of distress characteristics. An analysis of variance was used to compare demographics, number of yellow flags, and iHOT-12 scores across phenotypes.

Results

The median (interquartile range) number of yellow flags was 6 (3-9), with 13.5% of the sample reporting 11 yellow flags. Latent class analysis (L2 = 543.3, classification errors = 0.082) resulted in 4 phenotypes: high distress (n = 299, 41.5%), low distress (n = 172, 23.9%), low self-efficacy and acceptance (n = 74, 10.3%), and negative pain coping (n = 276, 24.4%). Significant differences in mean yellow flags existed between all phenotypes except low self-efficacy and negative pain coping. There were no differences in demographics between phenotypes. The high distress class had the lowest mean iHOT-12 score (mean [SD], 23.5 [17.6]), with significant differences found between each phenotypic class.

Conclusions

There was a high prevalence of pain-associated psychological distress in patients presenting to tertiary hip arthroscopy clinics with hip pain. Furthermore, hip quality-of-life outcome scores were uniformly lower in patients with higher levels of psychological distress.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Guideline adherent screening and referral: do third year Doctor of Physical Therapy students identify red and yellow flags within descriptive patient cases? a United States based survey study

INTRODUCTION

The need for early detection and appropriate management of flags in physical therapy has been established. The lack of early detection has been shown to lead to poor outcomes such as serious pathology, increased disability, prolonged symptoms, and increased healthcare utilization.

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this survey study was to assess third-year Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students' adherence to clinical practice guidelines specifically in the identification and management of red and yellow flags through a case-based approach.

METHODS

A survey including three different flag case scenarios was sent to DPT students in 15 geographically diverse physical therapy programs. Previously published case scenarios measuring adherence to practice guidelines were used. Correlational analyses were performed to link student demographic details and guideline adherent management.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 64 students. Guideline adherent management was greater for red flags (85%) than yellow flag cases (25% and 42%). No significant relationship was noted between the student details and guideline adherent management.

CONCLUSION

DPT students may need additional educational content related to yellow flag screening. Educators may consider utilizing published red and yellow flag cases to guide decision-making and highlight best screening practices.

The ability of physiotherapists to identify psychosocial factors in patients with musculoskeletal pain: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

It is not known how well physiotherapists identify psychosocial factors in people with musculoskeletal pain, when using clinical judgement. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the research related to physiotherapist ability in identifying psychosocial factors and to subsequently identify gaps in the literature to help direct future research.

DATA SOURCES

Searches using relevant key words, were conducted of Medline, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar. All primary quantitative and qualitative research from the year 2000 onwards, which met the search criteria, were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A data extraction tool was used to tabulate data regarding demographics, study design and key findings of the included papers. The Mixed Methods Appraisals Tool (MMAT) was utilised to help examine the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

Overall, the quality of the included studies was moderate. The total number of studies which met the inclusion criteria was relatively small (n = 20). The most common method for determining ability was comparison of physiotherapist estimations with validated screening tools or questionnaires. Physiotherapist estimates of psychosocial factors were poor and in the qualitative research, the lack of clinician confidence in psychosocial assessment was evident.

CONCLUSION

The available research suggests that physiotherapists lack confidence and ability in identifying psychosocial factors. More rigorous, mixed-methods research is warranted to capture the complexity of the research question.

Concurrent validity of DorsaVi wireless motion sensor system Version 6 and the Vicon motion analysis system during lifting

Background

Wearable sensor technology may allow accurate monitoring of spine movement outside a clinical setting. The concurrent validity of wearable sensors during multiplane tasks, such as lifting, is unknown. This study assessed DorsaVi Version 6 sensors for their concurrent validity with the Vicon motion analysis system for measuring lumbar flexion during lifting.

Methods

Twelve participants (nine with, and three without back pain) wore sensors on T12 and S2 spinal levels with Vicon surface markers attached to those sensors. Participants performed 5 symmetrical (lifting from front) and 20 asymmetrical lifts (alternate lifting from left and right). The global-T12-angle, global-S2-angle and the angle between these two sensors (relative-lumbar-angle) were output in the sagittal plane. Agreement between systems was determined through-range and at peak flexion, using multilevel mixed-effects regression models to calculate root mean square errors and standard deviation. Mean differences and limits of agreement for peak flexion were calculated using the Bland Altman method.

Results

For through-range measures of symmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 0.86° (0.78) at global-T12-angle, 0.90° (0.84) at global-S2-angle and 1.34° (1.25) at relative-lumbar-angle. For through-range measures of asymmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 1.84° (1.58) at global-T12-angle, 1.90° (1.65) at global-S2-angle and 1.70° (1.54) at relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of symmetrical lifts, was − 0.90° (-6.80 to 5.00) for global-T12-angle, 0.60° (-2.16 to 3.36) for global-S2-angle and − 1.20° (-8.06 to 5.67) for relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of asymmetrical lifts was − 1.59° (-8.66 to 5.48) for global-T12-angle, -0.60° (-7.00 to 5.79) for global-S2-angle and − 0.84° (-8.55 to 6.88) for relative-lumbar-angle.

Conclusion

The root means squared errors were slightly better for symmetrical lifts than they were for asymmetrical lifts. Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement showed variability across lift types. However, the root mean squared errors for all lifts were better than previous research and below clinically acceptable thresholds. This research supports the use of lumbar flexion measurements from these inertial measurement units in populations with low back pain, where multi-plane lifting movements are assessed.

Physiotherapists could detect changes of 12 degrees or more in single-plane movement when observing forward bending, squat or hand-over-head: A cross-sectional experiment

BACKGROUND

The visual accuracy of physiotherapists to detect changes in dynamic joint angles is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate (i) the smallest detectable change in movement that physiotherapists could visually observe, and (ii) whether visual accuracy was associated with the functional activity observed or characteristics of the physiotherapist.

METHODS

Thirty-four physiotherapists viewed and rated videos of squat, hand-over-head, forward bend functional activities and an artificial test condition (a reference movement followed by subsequent movements showing random differences in peak angle from 0° to 15°, so 18 sets of paired videos per functional activity). They rated each range of movement (same/more/less) relative to the reference movement, while their visual tracking was continuously monitored. Accuracy was calculated (multilevel regression) using two thresholds - two correct out of three viewings (2/3) and three correct out of three viewings (3/3).

RESULTS

More than 80% of physiotherapists were able to detect 9° difference using the 2/3 threshold and 12° using the 3/3 threshold. There was no association (p > 0.05) between visual accuracy and experience, sex, or movement type, except when viewing shoulder abduction compared with knee flexion using the 3/3 threshold. The only association between accuracy and visual tracking characteristics was for assessing lumbar flexion, where use of more visual fixation areas and a shorter fixation time per area were more accurate.

CONCLUSION

Physiotherapists were consistently accurate at detecting changes of ≥12° in single-plane, low-speed functional activities. Visual accuracy was not explained by experience or sex, and rarely associated with functional activity type or visual fixation.

Providing information at the initial consultation to patients with low back pain across general practice, chiropractic and physiotherapy - a cross-sectorial study of Danish primary care

OBJECTIVE

Clinical guidelines for managing low back pain (LBP) emphasise patient information, patient education and physical activity as key components. Little is known about who actually receives information. This study investigates to what extent information at the first consultation with general practitioner (GP), chiropractor (DC) and physiotherapist (PT) in Danish primary care is provided to patients with LBP.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This cross-sectorial study was conducted as a prospective survey registration of LBP consultations at the three primary health care professions in Denmark.

INTERVENTION

Clinicians ticked off a paper survey chart during or after consultations with patients who visited the clinic for LBP (Approval number: ID # 11.220).

SUBJECTS

33 GPs, 43 DCs and 61 PTs registered first-time consultations.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was provision of information, overall and across care settings.

RESULTS

The overall proportion of patients provided with information was 72%, but this varied among professions (GP, 44%; DC, 76%; and PT, 74%). Provision of information increased to 78% if patients had increased emotional distress or back-related leg pain below the knee. The strongest association with provision of information was having two or three signs of elevated distress (OR 2.58 and 5.05, respectively, p= 0.00) or physical disability (OR 2.55, p= 0.00).

CONCLUSION

In more than a quarter of first-time consultations, patient information was not provided. Large variation in providing information was found across the settings. The proportion provided with information increased for sub-populations having elevated distress or back-related leg pain below the knee.Key Points Clinical guidelines recommend patient information, patient education and physical activity for managing low back pain (LBP)  • Information is not provided in more than a quarter of first-time consultations in Danish primary care settings that manage these patients. • Information increased for the sub-populations having elevated distress and back-related leg pain below the knee. • The conducted primary care surveys monitored clinical activity and illustrated variations in provision of information.

A vision for the future of wearable sensors in spine care and its challenges: narrative review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to: (I) provide a brief overview of some topical areas of current literature regarding applications of wearable sensors in the management of low back pain (LBP); (II) present a vision for a future comprehensive system that integrates wearable sensors to measure multiple parameters in the real world that contributes data to guide treatment selection (aided by artificial intelligence), uses wearables to aid treatment support, adherence and outcome monitoring, and interrogates the response of the individual patient to the prescribed treatment to guide future decision support for other individuals who present with LBP; and (III) consider the challenges that will need to be overcome to make such a system a reality.

BACKGROUND

Advances in wearable sensor technologies are opening new opportunities for the assessment and management of spinal conditions. Although evidence of improvements in outcomes for individuals with LBP from the use of sensors is limited, there is enormous future potential.

METHODS

Narrative review and literature synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial research is underway by groups internationally to develop and test elements of this system, to design innovative new sensors that enable recording of new data in new ways, and to fuse data from multiple sources to provide rich information about an individual's experience of LBP. Together this system, incorporating data from wearable sensors has potential to personalise care in ways that were hitherto thought impossible. The potential is high but will require concerted effort to develop and ultimately will need to be feasible and more effective than existing management.

Validation and Assessment of a Posture Measurement System with Magneto-Inertial Measurement Units

Inappropriate posture and the presence of spinal disorders require specific monitoring systems. In clinical settings, posture evaluation is commonly performed with visual observation, electrogoniometers or motion capture systems (MoCaps). Developing a measurement system that can be easily used also in non-structured environments would be highly beneficial for accurate posture monitoring. This work proposes a system based on three magneto-inertial measurement units (MIMU), placed on the backs of seventeen volunteers on the T3, T12 and S1 vertebrae. The reference system used for validation is a stereophotogrammetric motion capture system. The volunteers performed forward bending and sit-to-stand tests. The measured variables for identifying the posture were the kyphosis and the lordosis angles, as well as the range of movement (ROM) of the body segments. The comparison between MIMU and MoCap provided a maximum RMSE of 5.6° for the kyphosis and the lordosis angles. The average lumbo-pelvic contribution during forward bending (41.8 ± 8.6%) and the average lumbar ROM during sit-to-stand (31.8 ± 9.8° for sitting down, 29.6 ± 7.6° for standing up) obtained with the MIMU system agree with the literature. In conclusion, the MIMU system, which is wearable, inexpensive and easy to set up in non-structured environments, has been demonstrated to be effective in posture evaluation.

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.

Mind the gap - Evaluation of the promotion initiatives for implementation of the GLA:D® back clinician courses

BACKGROUND

Translation of research into practice is a methodological challenge. The GLA:D® Back program was initiated to implement evidence-based care for people with low back pain inspired by GLA:D® (Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark) that has succeeded in implementing evidence-based care for knee and hip osteoarthritis. This study evaluates the spread and reach of promotion initiatives for GLA:D® Back clinician courses, and the adoption of the GLA:D® Back intervention in clinical practice.

METHODS

Pre-defined success criteria addressed; i) spread; achievement of intended promotion activities (e.g. social media), ii) reach; recruitment of clinicians with certain profiles (e.g. gender balance). Adoption was defined as patient enrollment in the GLA:D® Back registry by course participants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate associations between adoption and clinician characteristics.

RESULTS

Most clinicians signed up based on information from colleagues (22%). Pre-defined goals for reach, except one, was obtained. 23% (140) of clinicians initiated the GLA:D® Back program in clinical practice within <90 days of course participation; mainly physiotherapists (p < 0.001). The odds ratio for starting GLA:D® Back patient care in a chiropractic setting was 7.4 [2.5; 21.4], indicating that physiotherapists employed by chiropractors mostly handled the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Future promotion strategies should recognize the influence of colleagues and professional networks. Converting clinician courses into patient care was mostly adopted physiotherapists. Although, evaluation processes were less useful in this study, future evaluation of health care processes has potential to inform the implementation of new models in future studies.

Factors influencing implementation of the GLA: D Back, an educational/exercise intervention for low back pain: a mixed-methods study

Introduction and aims:

Guidelines for low back pain (LBP) management recommend patient education and exercises. GLA:D Back, a structured group-based patient-education exercise program for LBP, facilitates evidence-based care implementation. This study aimed to inform on the implementation processes, assessing clinician-related factors. Objectives were to describe profiles of implementers and nonimplementers by demographics, and responses to the tailored version of the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire (DIBQ-t) qualitatively explore clinician perspectives on implementation, and compare the results of the DIBQ-t with the interview data to evaluate their fit of integration for facilitators, barriers, and new insights.

Methods:

A mixed-methods parallel design study was conducted. Physiotherapists and chiropractors, educated in the GLA:D Back program, were asked to complete the DIBQ-t (measuring theoretical determinants of implementation) 6 months after their training. Implementers and nonimplementers of the program were selected for interviews. Qualitative data were used to understand clinicians’ viewpoints on implementation, providing a broader perspective on the quantitative data and exploring new aspects.

Results:

More physiotherapists than chiropractors implemented the program. Implementers responded more positively on most domains of the DIBQ-t. The interviews revealed three themes important for implementation: personal gain, practicalities, and buying-in on the program. Clinicians’ attitudes to the program appeared additionally as relevant to implementation.

Conclusion:

The profession of the clinician was associated with implementation behavior. Implementers and nonimplementers identified the same themes but perceived them as either positive or negative. Both groups reported high levels of knowledge and skills, indicating that training alone is insufficient for implementation.

Preferred self-administered questionnaires to assess fear of movement, coping, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing in patients with musculoskeletal pain-A modified Delphi study

The way people with musculoskeletal disorders deal with pain influences their prognosis. Psychosocial factors that influence outcomes include fear of movement, coping, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing. A 3-round modified Delphi study was conducted with the aim to reach consensus on the most appropriate questionnaires to assess these 4 psychosocial factors in patients at risk of developing persistent musculoskeletal pain. The panel consisted of 36 experts, with track records in medicine, psychology, and allied health. To be considered an expert, a minimum number of authorships were required on research articles using self-administered questionnaires to assess these psychosocial factors in relevant patient populations. In round 1, the experts proposed 30 questionnaires to assess the 4 factors. In round 2, experts rated the questionnaires on suitability, considering clinimetric properties, content, feasibility, personal experiences, and expertise. The highest ranked questionnaires (maximally 5 per factor) were retained for round 3, in which the experts made a final assessment of the questionnaires and provided their positive and negative experiences with the questionnaires. Consensus was reached for the following questionnaires to assess (1) fear of movement: Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale (full version or 11-item version); (2) coping: Coping Strategies Questionnaire (initial or revised version) and Chronic Pain Coping Index; (3) self-efficacy: Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (full version or 2-item version); and (4) catastrophizing: Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the revised version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Although other questionnaires can be considered in specific circumstances, these questionnaires are recommended in people with musculoskeletal pain.

Brief Psychological Screening Questions Can be Useful for Ruling Out Psychological Conditions in Patients With Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Psychological symptoms are highly prevalent in chronic pain patients. Timely and accurate identification may enable individualized treatment and improve outcomes. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate the concurrent validity of brief psychological screening questions assessing anxiety, fear of movement, stress, pain catastrophization, and depression in chronic pain patients, and (2) to determine screening question cut-points at which the likely probability of having these psychological states was <10%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Responses to 1-item or 2-item screening questions within each of these 5 psychological constructs were compared with those of validated full-length questionnaires in 894 patients with diverse chronic pain conditions.

RESULTS

Compared with scores from full-length questionnaires, brief screening question scores had correlations between 0.54 and 0.66, and area under the curve between 0.79 and 0.83. At the dichotomized threshold scores that we chose, the posttest probability after a negative test result ranged from 6.5% to 8.6% for all these psychological constructs, except fear of movement. The pretest probability was so high (70%) for fear of movement that no threshold resulted in a posttest probability (negative test result) that was below 10%.

DISCUSSION

Use of these screening tests and scoring thresholds would have correctly identified that between 38.5% and 60.5% of the sample were unlikely to have these psychological states (true negatives), with a false-negative rate between 3.4% and 5.3%. This would allow clinicians to focus on whether there are other patient attributes in those patients requiring more thorough investigation using comprehensive validated questionnaires or structured clinical interviews.

The Multidimensional Symptom Index: A new patient-reported outcome for pain phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

There are few patient-reported outcomes routinely used that capture frequency and interference of different pain-related symptoms on a single scale. The purpose of this study was to describe the development and initial validation of the new Multidimensional Symptom Index (MSI).

METHODS

Items were generated from patient interviews of the experience of chronic pain. Health valuations were created from rankings of 82 healthy subjects for each of 120 symptom (×10) × frequency (×3) × interference (×4) combinations using preference-based health valuations (0-100). Ranks for each symptom combination were then used in scale scoring. A sample of 300 patients with acute or chronic pain subsequently completed the MSI and a battery of other tools. Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses were triangulated with theory to arrive at the factor structure. Convergent validity was tested against established measures.

RESULTS

Health rankings resulted in scores of 0-12 for each of the 10 symptom types. Factor analyses revealed two factors: MSI Somatic Symptoms and MSI Non-Somatic Symptoms. The MSI also quantified number of symptoms experienced (/10), mean frequency (/3) and mean interference (/4). The indices showed appropriate associations with the established PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

The MSI is a new symptom-focused PRO that allows patient phenotyping and may have value for screening, prognosis and evaluating change.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article presents the development and psychometric properties of a new measure of pain and related symptom frequency and interference. This measure could aid clinicians in establishing clinically relevant pain phenotypes for screening, prognosis and treatment decisions.

Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review

Background

Evidence-based practice (EBP) gaps are widespread across health disciplines. Understanding factors supporting the uptake of evidence can inform the design of strategies to narrow these EBP gaps. Although research utilization (RU) and the factors associated with EBP have been reported in several health disciplines, to date this area has not been reviewed comprehensively in the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this review was to report on the current state of knowledge on EBP, RU, and knowledge translation (KT) in chiropractic.

Methods

A scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework was used to systematically select and summarize existing literature. Searches were conducted using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms from the earliest date available in each database to May 2015. Quantitative and thematic analyses of the selected literature were conducted.

Results

Nearly 85 % (56/67) of the included studies were conducted in Canada, USA, UK or Australia. Thematic analysis for the three categories (EBP, RU, KT) revealed two themes related to EBP (attitudes and beliefs of chiropractors; implementation of EBP), three related to RU (guideline adherence; frequency and sources of information accessed; and perceived value of websites and search engines), and three related to KT (knowledge practice gaps; barriers and facilitators to knowledge use; and selection, tailoring, and implementation of interventions). EBP gaps were noted in the areas of assessment of activity limitation, determination of psychosocial factors influencing pain, general health indicators, establishing a prognosis, and exercise prescription. While most practitioners believed EBP and research to be important and a few studies suggested that traditional and online educational strategies could improve patient care, use of EBP and guideline adherence varied widely.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that the majority of chiropractors hold favourable attitudes and beliefs toward EBP. However, much remains to be done for chiropractors to routinely apply evidence into clinical practice. Educational strategies aimed at practicing chiropractors can lead to more EBP and improved patient care. The chiropractic profession requires more robust dissemination and implementation research to improve guideline adherence and patient health outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1175-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development of a Yellow Flag Assessment Tool for Orthopaedic Physical Therapists: Results From the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) Cohort

Study Design Clinical measurement, cross-sectional. Background Pain-associated psychological distress adversely influences outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal pain. However, assessment of pain-associated psychological distress (ie, yellow flags) is not routinely performed in orthopaedic physical therapy practice. A standardized yellow flag assessment tool will better inform treatment decision making related to psychologically informed practice. Objectives To describe the development of a concise, multidimensional yellow flag assessment tool for application in orthopaedic physical therapy clinical practice. Methods A 136-item yellow flag item bank was developed from validated psychological questionnaires across domains related to pain vulnerability (negative mood, fear avoidance) and resilience (positive affect/coping). Patients seeking physical therapy with neck, back, knee, or shoulder pain completed the item bank. Iterative statistical analyses determined minimal item sets meeting thresholds for identifying elevated vulnerability or low resilience (ie, upper or lower quartile, as indicated). Further item reduction yielded a concise yellow flag assessment tool to assess 11 psychological constructs measuring pain-associated psychological distress. Correlations between the assessment tool and individual psychological questionnaires were measured and compared between anatomical regions. Concurrent validity was assessed by determining variance explained in pain and disability scores by the assessment tool. Results Subjects with elevated vulnerability and decreased resilience were identified with a high degree of accuracy (minimum of 85%) using a 17-item tool. Correlations were moderate to high between the 17-item tool and individual psychological questionnaires, with no significant differences in correlations between different anatomical regions. Shorter 10- and 7-item versions of the assessment tool allow clinicians the flexibility to assess for yellow flags quickly with acceptable trade-offs in accuracy (81% and 75%, respectively). All versions of the tool explained significant additional variance in pain and disability scores (range, 19.3%-36.7%) after accounting for demographics, historical variables, and anatomical region of pain. Conclusion Concise assessment of yellow flags is feasible in outpatient physical therapy settings. This multidimensional tool advances assessment of pain-associated psychological distress through the addition of positive affect/coping constructs and estimation of full questionnaire scores. Further study is warranted to determine how this tool complements established risk-assessment tools by providing the option for efficient treatment monitoring. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(5):327-345. Epub 21 Mar 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6487.

Clinical examination findings as prognostic factors in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature

Background

There is a strong tradition of performing a clinical examination of low back pain (LBP) patients and this is generally recommended in guidelines. However, establishing a pathoanatomic diagnosis does not seem possible in most LBP patients and clinical tests may potentially be more relevant as prognostic factors. The aim of this review of the literature was to systematically assess the association between low-tech clinical tests commonly used in adult patients with acute, recurrent or chronic LBP and short- and long-term outcome.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and MANTIS were searched from inception to June 2012. Prospective clinical studies of adult patients with LBP with or without leg pain and/or signs of nerve root involvement or spinal stenosis, receiving non-surgical or no treatment, which investigated the association between low-tech clinical tests and outcome were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study quality were performed independently by two reviewers.

Results

A total of 5,332 citations were retrieved and screened for eligibility, 342 articles were assessed as full text and 49 met the inclusion criteria. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis was performed. Associations between clinical tests and outcomes were often inconsistent between studies. In more than one third of the tests, there was no evidence of the tests being associated with outcome. Only two clinical tests demonstrated a consistent association with at least one of the outcomes: centralization and non-organic signs.

Conclusions

For most clinical tests in LBP there is not consistent evidence for an association with outcome. Centralization and non-organic signs are exceptions from that. None of the other clinical tests have been investigated in confirmatory studies and study quality is generally low. There is a need for hypothesis testing studies designed specifically to investigate the prognostic value of the clinical tests, and a need for standardization of the performance and interpretation of tests.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0054-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mobile-Web app to self-manage low back pain: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nonspecific low back pain (NLBP) is the diagnosis for individuals with back pain that has no underlying medical cause (eg, tumor, infection, fracture, herniated disc, spinal stenosis). The American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Pain Society (APS) recommend multidisciplinary treatments for NLBP that lasts more than 4 weeks. This approach, however, is impractical for many physicians to implement, and relatively few providers offer NLBP treatment that meets the joint ACP-APS guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the efficacy of a mobile-Web intervention called "FitBack" to help users implement self-tailored strategies to manage and prevent NLBP occurrences.

METHODS

A total of 597 adults were recruited, screened, consented, and assessed online at baseline, at 2 months (T2), and at 4 months (T3). After baseline assessments, participants were randomized into three groups: FitBack intervention, alternative care group that received 8 emails urging participants to link to six Internet resources for NLBP, and control group. The FitBack group also received weekly email reminder prompts for 8 weeks plus emails to do assessments. The control group was only contacted to do assessments.

RESULTS

Users of the FitBack program showed greater improvement compared to the control group in every comparison of the critical physical, behavioral, and worksite outcome measures at 4-month follow-up. In addition, users of the FitBack program performed better than the alternative care group on current back pain, behavioral, and worksite outcomes at 4-month follow-up. For example, subjects in the control group were 1.7 times more likely to report current back pain than subjects in the FitBack group; subjects in the alternative care group were 1.6 times more likely to report current back pain at 4-month follow-up. Further, the users of the FitBack program showed greater improvement compared to both the control and alternative care groups at 4-month follow-up on patient activation, constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior, and attitudes toward pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This research demonstrated that a theoretically based stand-alone mobile-Web intervention that tailors content to users' preferences and interests can be an effective tool in self-management of low back pain. When viewed from the RE-AIM perspective (ie, reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation fidelity, and maintenance), this study supports the notion that there is considerable value in this type of intervention as a potentially cost-effective tool that can reach large numbers of people. The results are promising considering that the FitBack intervention was neither supported by professional caregivers nor integrated within a health promotion campaign, which might have provided additional support for participants. Still, more research is needed on how self-guided mobile-Web interventions will be used over time and to understand factors associated with continuing user engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01950091; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01950091 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6TwZucX77).

The concurrent validity of brief screening questions for anxiety, depression, social isolation, catastrophization, and fear of movement in people with low back pain

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to (1) test the concurrent validity of brief screening questions for 5 psychosocial constructs (anxiety, depression, social isolation, catastrophization, and fear of movement) and (2) translate into Danish and validate those screening questions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from 5 cross-sectional samples (total n=1105) of people seeking care for low back pain in Australian primary care settings and a Danish secondary care hospital. The responses to English and Danish-translated versions of 1-item or 2-item screening questions were compared with those of validated full-length questionnaires.

RESULTS

Compared with anxiety, depression, and social isolation scores from full-length questionnaires, screening questionnaire responses demonstrated: a correlation of 0.62 to 0.83, overall accuracy of 78% to 91%, sensitivity of 70% to 82%, specificity of 75% to 95%, positive likelihood ratios of 3.3 to 13.9, and negative likelihood ratios of 0.21 to 0.33. For catastrophization and fear of movement, the results demonstrated: correlation of 0.89 to 0.95, overall accuracy of 88% to 93%, sensitivity of 78% to 88%, specificity of 91% to 96%, positive likelihood ratios of 9.5 to 20.8, and negative likelihood ratios of 0.13 to 0.23.

DISCUSSION

The concurrent validity of these screening questions was comparable to, or better than, alternate questions previously reported, and stable across age, sex, pain intensity, pain duration, and counties. On the basis of the observed likelihood ratios, all of the screening questions provided moderate or strong evidence to rule in or out an extreme score on each psychosocial construct. Given the ease of administration of these brief screening questions, their prognostic and treatment implications should be investigated.

Subgrouping for patients with low back pain: a multidimensional approach incorporating cluster analysis and the STarT Back Screening Tool

Early screening for psychological distress has been suggested to improve patient management for individuals experiencing low back pain. This study compared 2 approaches to psychological screening (ie, multidimensional and unidimensional) so that preliminary recommendations on which approach may be appropriate for use in clinical settings other than primary care could be provided. Specifically, this study investigated aspects of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT): 1) discriminant validity by evaluating its relationship with unidimensional psychological measures and 2) construct validity by evaluating how SBT risk categories compared to empirically derived subgroups using unidimensional psychological and disability measures. Patients (N = 146) receiving physical therapy for LBP were administered the SBT and a battery of unidimensional psychological measures at initial evaluation. Clinical measures consisted of pain intensity and self-reported disability. Several SBT risk-dependent relationships (ie, SBT low < medium < high risk) were identified for unidimensional psychological measure scores, with depressive symptom scores associated with the strongest influence on SBT risk categorization. Empirically derived subgroups indicated that there was no evidence of distinctive patterns among psychological or disability measures other than high or low profiles; therefore, 2 groups may provide a clearer representation of the level of pain-associated psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and disability in this setting compared with 3 groups as suggested when using the SBT in primary care settings.

PERSPECTIVE

This study suggests that the SBT can replace administering several unidimensional psychological measures as a first-line screening measure for psychological distress. However, clinicians need to be aware of the potential for misclassification with SBT results when compared to unidimensional measures. This study also suggests that a modified SBT risk stratification scheme based on empirically derived subgroups could potentially assist in identifying elevated levels of pain-associated psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and disability in practice settings outside of primary care. Patients identified with elevated levels of pain-associated distress and maladaptive coping may be indicated for additional assessment using construct-specific questionnaires.

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared.

RESULTS

The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls).

CONCLUSIONS

On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.

Brief screening questions for depression in chiropractic patients with low back pain: identification of potentially useful questions and test of their predictive capacity

Background

Depression is an important prognostic factor in low back pain (LBP) that appears to be infrequent in chiropractic populations. Identification of depression in few patients would consequently implicate screening of many. It is therefore desirable to have brief screening tools for depression. The objective of this study was to investigate if one or two items from the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) could be a reasonable substitute for the complete scale.

Methods

The MDI was completed by 925 patients consulting a chiropractor due to a new episode of LBP. Outcome measures were LBP intensity and activity limitation at 3-months and 12-months follow-up. Single items on the MDI that correlated strongest and explained most variance in the total score were tested for associations with outcome. Finally, the predictive capacity was compared between the total scale and the items that showed the strongest associations with outcome measures.

Results

In this cohort 9% had signs of depression. The total MDI was significantly associated with outcome but explained very little of the variance in outcome. Four single items performed comparable to the total scale as prognostic factors. Items 1 and 3 explained the most variance in all outcome measures, and their predictive accuracies in terms of area under the curve were at least as high as for the categorised complete scale.

Conclusions

Baseline depression measured by the MDI was associated with a worse outcome in chiropractic patients with LBP. A single item (no. 1 or 3) was a reasonable substitute for the entire scale when screening for depression as a prognostic factor.

Knowledge and attitudes of low back pain in physicians based in clinical practice guidelines

Objective: To determine the level of knowledge and attitudes of physicians in Tijuana based on Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of Nonspecific Low Back Pain (NLBP). Methods: Prospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study. Data were obtained from doctors who practice in clinics, private surgeries, and/or government institutions. Results: Of a total of 56 doctors surveyed, 37 were men and 19 women. None of the doctors said they had not seen a patient with Back Pain. 49% knew the GPC, and 51% did not know of its existence. Conclusions: Although some physicians reported knowledge of the GPC, according to the results, there was a lack of full knowledge of, and adherence to these guidelines. Not knowing the GPC did not make it impossible to complete the questionnaire. The doctors felt more connected to the health system, but with less confidence in the management of cases of NLBP.

Experiences and perspectives of physical therapists managing patients covered by workers' compensation in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists have an active role in the rehabilitation of injured workers. However, regulations in Queensland, Australia, do not afford them the opportunity to participate in return-to-work (RTW) decisions in a standardized way. No prior research has explored the experiences and perceptions of therapists in determining work capacity.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate physical therapists' experiences with and perspectives on their role in determining readiness for RTW and work capacity for patients receiving workers' compensation in Queensland. Design A qualitative design was used. Participants were physical therapists who manage injured workers.

METHODS

Novice (n=5) and experienced (n=20) therapists managing patients receiving workers' compensation were selected through purposeful sampling to participate in a focus group or semistructured telephone interviews. Data obtained were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. Physical therapists' confidence in making RTW decisions was determined with 1 question scored on a 0 to 10 scale.

RESULTS

Themes identified were: (1) physical therapists believe they are important in RTW, (2) physical therapists use a variety of methods to determine work capacity, and (3) physical therapists experience a lack of role clarity. Therapists made recommendations for RTW using clinical judgment informed by subjective and objective information gathered from the injured worker. Novice therapists were less confident in making RTW decisions.

CONCLUSION

Therapists are well situated to gather and interpret the information necessary to make RTW recommendations. Strategies targeting the Australian Physiotherapy Association, physical therapists, and the regulators are needed to standardize assessment of readiness for RTW, improve role clarity, and assist novice practitioners.

Evidence-Based Practice and Chiropractic Care

Evidence-based practice has had a growing impact on chiropractic education and the delivery of chiropractic care. For evidence-based practice to penetrate and transform a profession, the penetration must occur at 2 levels. One level is the degree to which individual practitioners possess the willingness and basic skills to search and assess the literature. Chiropractic education received a significant boost in this realm in 2005 when the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine awarded 4 chiropractic institutions R25 education grants to strengthen their research/evidence-based practice curricula. The second level relates to whether the therapeutic interventions commonly employed by a particular health care discipline are supported by clinical research. A growing body of randomized controlled trials provides evidence of the effectiveness and safety of manual therapies.

A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a classification-based system for subacute and chronic low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of Delitto's classification-based treatment approach compared with usual physical therapy care in patients with subacute or chronic low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

No trial has evaluated this approach in patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Before randomization, all patients were classified by research physical therapists according to a modified version of Delitto's classification-based system. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. The statistician and the physical therapists were unblinded. Patients and assistants who collected follow-up questionnaires were blinded. Follow-up assessments were completed at 8, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using multilevel analysis. The main outcomes were global perceived effect, disability (Oswestry Disability Index, 0-100), and pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale, 0-10). Secondary outcomes were quality of life, fear-avoidance beliefs, and psychosocial status. RESULTS.: A total of 156 patients were included (classification-based group, n = 74; usual physical therapy group, n = 82). There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups for any of the outcomes at any of the follow-up time points. After 8 weeks, patients in the classification-based group had greater global perceived effect scores; adjusted odds ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 3.28), and higher adjusted Oswestry Disability Index and Numerical Rating Scale scores; mean adjusted differences of 0.48 points (95% CI, -4.59 to 3.63) and 0.49 points (95% CI, -1.34 to 0.37) respectively, but all differences were statistically nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

The classification-based system used in this study was not effective for improving physical therapy care outcomes in a population of patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.

A qualitative investigation of physical therapists' experiences and feelings of managing patients with nonspecific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists' management of patients with nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) has been found to be associated with their beliefs and attitudes toward NSLBP, as well as with guideline recommendations. Greater knowledge of physical therapists' experiences and feelings of treating patients with NSLBP may help to explain these associations and increase our understanding of some of the challenges physical therapists face when treating patients with NSLBP in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to understand more about how the personal experiences and feelings of physical therapists might influence their decision making when treating patients with NSLBP.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative study using a phenomenological hermeneutical approach and practitioner-as-researcher model.

METHODS

Eleven semistructured interviews with physical therapists were conducted and analyzed using the hermeneutical circle to identify key themes relating to their experiences and feelings in treating patients with NSLBP.

RESULTS

Three linked themes emerged: (1) physical therapists believe that NSLBP has an underlying mechanical and recurring nature, (2) physical therapists' attitude toward managing NSLBP is to empower patients to exercise and self-manage their pain and functional problems, and (3) physical therapists experience feelings of tension between the advice and treatment they feel is best for their patient and the patient's own beliefs and attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiences and feelings of physical therapists treating patients with NSLBP include conflict among their pain beliefs, attitudes, and working partnerships with patients. Treatment decisions may be influenced when physical therapists modify their beliefs and attitudes to reduce this sense of conflict. Improving physical therapist communication skills may help decrease feelings of conflict, enhance working relationships, and encourage a more consistent approach toward patients with NSLBP.

Management of people with acute low-back pain: a survey of Australian chiropractors

Introduction

Chiropractors commonly provide care to people with acute low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this survey was to determine how chiropractors intend to support and manage people with acute LBP and if this management is in accordance with two recommendations from an Australian evidence-based acute LBP guideline. The two recommendations were directed at minimising the use of plain x-ray and encouraging the patient to stay active.

Methods

This is a cross sectional survey of chiropractors in Australia. This paper is part of the ALIGN study in which a targeted implementation strategy was developed to improve the management of acute LBP in a chiropractic setting. This implementation strategy was subsequently tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. In this survey phase of the ALIGN study we approached a random sample of 880 chiropractors in three States of Australia. The mailed questionnaire consisted of five patient vignettes designed to represent people who would typically present to chiropractors with acute LBP. Four vignettes represented people who, according to the guideline, would not require a plain lumbar x-ray, and one vignette represented a person with a suspected vertebral fracture. Respondents were asked, for each vignette, to indicate which investigation(s) they would order, and which intervention(s) they would recommend or undertake.

Results

Of the 880 chiropractors approached, 137 were deemed ineligible to participate, mostly because they were not currently practising, or mail was returned to sender. We received completed questionnaires from 274 chiropractors (response rate of 37%). Male chiropractors made up 66% of respondents, 75% practised in an urban location and their mean number of years in practice was 15. Across the four vignettes where an x-ray was not indicated 68% (95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 64%, 71%) of chiropractors responded that they would order or take an x-ray. In addition 51% (95%CI: 47%, 56%) indicated they would give advice to stay active when it was indicated. For the vignette where a fracture was suspected, 95% (95% CI: 91%, 97%) of chiropractors would order an x-ray.

Conclusion

The intention of chiropractors surveyed in this study shows low adherence to two recommendations from an evidence-based guideline for acute LBP. Quality of care for these patients could be improved through effective implementation of evidence-based guidelines. Further research to find cost-effective methods to increase implementation is warranted.

Managing missing scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (Oswestry) responses.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of unanswered questions on the RMDQ23 (23-item RMDQ version) and Oswestry questionnaires. To determine whether managing RMDQ23 missing data using proportional recalculation is more accurate than simply ignoring missing data.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

It is likely that the most common method for calculating an RMDQ sum score is to simply ignore any unanswered questions. In contrast, the raw sum score on the Oswestry is converted to a 0 to 100 scale, with the advantage of allowing missing data to be accommodated by proportional recalculation.

METHODS

The prevalence of unanswered RMDQ23 questions was measured in a research project and a routine care setting. The accuracy of the RMDQ23 proportional recalculation method was measured using 311 fully completed RMDQ23 and matching Oswestry questionnaire sets. Raw sum scores were calculated, and questions systematically dropped. At each stage, sum scores were converted to a score on a 0 to 100 scale and the error calculated. Wilcoxon Tests were used to compare the magnitude of the error scores.

RESULTS

The prevalence of people who did not answer one or more questions was 29.5% (RMDQ23) in routine care, and 13.9% (Oswestry) and 20.3% (RMDQ23) in a research project. Proportional recalculation was a more accurate method to calculate RMDQ sum scores than simply ignoring missing data, when two or more questions were unanswered.

CONCLUSION

Because of less error when missing data are present, the most accurate method for expressing RMDQ sum scores collected using Yes/No answers is conversion to a 0 to 100 scale. This conversion method is (a) if all questions are answered or only one question is unanswered, multiply the raw sum score by 100 divided by the total number of questions, and (b) if two or more questions are unanswered, multiply the raw sum score by 100 divided by the number of answered questions.

Clinical prediction rules in the physiotherapy management of low back pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify, appraise and determine the clinical readiness of diagnostic, prescriptive and prognostic Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs) in the physiotherapy management of Low Back Pain (LBP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1990 to January 2010 using sensitive search strategies for identifying CPR and LBP studies. Citation tracking and hand-searching of relevant journals were used as supplemental strategies.

STUDY SELECTION

Two independent reviewers used a two-phase selection procedure to identify studies that explicitly aimed to develop one or more CPRs involving the physiotherapy management of LBP. Diagnostic, prescriptive and prognostic studies investigating CPRs at any stage of their development, derivation, validation, or impact-analysis, were considered for inclusion using a priori criteria. 7453 unique records were screened with 23 studies composing the final included sample.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data into evidence tables using a standardised instrument.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Identified studies were qualitatively synthesized. No attempt was made to statistically pool the results of individual studies. The 23 scientifically admissible studies described the development of 25 unique CPRs, including 15 diagnostic, 7 prescriptive and 3 prognostic rules. The majority (65%) of studies described the initial derivation of one or more CPRs. No studies investigating the impact phase of rule development were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current body of evidence does not enable confident direct clinical application of any of the identified CPRs. Further validation studies utilizing appropriate research designs and rigorous methodology are required to determine the performance and generalizability of the derived CPRs to other patient populations, clinicians and clinical settings.

Embedding psychosocial perspectives within clinical management of low back pain: integration of psychosocially informed management principles into physical therapist practice--challenges and opportunities

As the biopsychosocial model of health has become increasingly understood, it has become clear that there are complex, interdependent relationships between the physical and biomedical features of low back pain and the psychological and social factors that present concomitantly. Epidemiological studies have not only highlighted that psychological and social factors are associated with back pain and disability but also have shed light on the way in which these factors serve as prognostic indicators, or obstacles to recovery, predicting which patients will have a poor prognosis. Integrating the assessment of these obstacles to recovery into physical therapist practice and using this information to guide clinical decision making have the potential to improve the quality of care offered by physical therapists by improving the targeting of treatments to individuals and enhancing the therapist-patient relationship and adherence to management advice and treatment programs. In turn, such approaches may improve both patients' clinical outcomes and the efficiency and effectiveness of service provision, helping direct interventions to those who need them. This article summarizes the key challenges to embedding psychosocial perspectives within physical therapist practice for patients with low back pain and the opportunities that could be realized by doing so, and it highlights new developments in research, clinical practice, and education that are shaping future directions in this field.

Relationship between categorization with the STarT Back Screening Tool and prognosis for people receiving physical therapy for low back pain

BACKGROUND

The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) was recently developed for primary care providers to use as a screening tool for subgrouping people with low back pain (LBP) on the basis of modifiable prognostic factors. The use of the SBT in physical therapy has not been described.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to describe the use of the SBT in people receiving physical therapy for LBP and to describe patterns of change in clinical outcomes across the episode of care and among SBT categories.

DESIGN

This study was a prospective case series.

METHODS

A total of 214 patients receiving physical therapy for LBP were administered the SBT at the initial evaluation. Treatment was at the physical therapist's discretion. Clinical outcomes included pain intensity and disability scores collected at each session. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and baseline characteristics among SBT categories were compared. Hierarchical linear mixed models were used to examine patterns of change in predicted outcomes across the episode of care.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 44.3 years (SD=15.8), and 56.5% were women. The SBT categorized 33.2% of the patients as being at low risk, 47.7% as being at medium risk, and 19.2% as being at high risk. The high-risk category corresponded to the highest initial pain intensity and disability scores. The low-risk category corresponded to the lowest initial pain intensity and disability scores. Linear mixed models indicated different patterns of change in outcome scores for pain intensity (F=3.99) and disability (F=3.49) among SBT categories. Relative to the low-risk category, the high-risk category had larger improvements in predicted outcomes and the medium-risk category had similar improvements in predicted outcomes. Limitations The SBT was not administered to 24% of eligible patients. The timing of follow-up assessments was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

The SBT may provide important prognostic information for physical therapists.

Health literacy and beliefs among a community cohort with and without chronic low back pain

Health literacy, the ability to seek, understand and utilise health information, is important for good health. Suboptimal health literacy has been associated with poorer health outcomes in many chronic conditions although this has not been studied in chronic low back pain (CLBP). We examined the health literacy of individuals with CLBP using a mixed methods approach. One-hundred and seventeen adults, comprising 61 with no history of CLBP and 56 with CLBP (28 with low and high disability, respectively, as determined by a median split in Oswestry scores) participated. Data regarding severity of pain, LBP-related disability, fear avoidance, beliefs about LBP and pain catastrophizing were collected using questionnaires. Health literacy was measured using the Short-form Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA). A sub-sample of 36 participants with CLBP also participated in in-depth interviews to qualitatively explore their beliefs about LBP and experiences in seeking, understanding and using information related to LBP. LBP-related beliefs and behaviours, rather than pain intensity and health literacy skills, were found to be important correlates of disability related to LBP. Individuals with CLBP-high disability had poorer back pain beliefs and increased fear avoidance behaviours relating to physical activity. Health literacy (S-TOFHLA) was not related to LBP beliefs and attitudes. Qualitatively, individuals with CLBP-high disability adopted a more passive coping style and had a pathoanatomic view of their disorder compared to individuals with CLBP-low disability. While all participants with CLBP had adequate health literacy scores (S-TOFHLA), qualitative data highlighted difficulties in seeking, understanding and utilising LBP information.

Improving the care for people with acute low-back pain by allied health professionals (the ALIGN trial): A cluster randomised trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Variability between clinical practice guideline recommendations and actual clinical practice exists in many areas of health care. A 2004 systematic review examining the effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions concluded there was a lack of evidence to support decisions about effective interventions to promote the uptake of guidelines. Further, the review recommended the use of theory in the development of implementation interventions. A clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low-back pain has been developed in Australia (2003). Acute low-back pain is a common condition, has a high burden, and there is some indication of an evidence-practice gap in the allied health setting. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention which, if effective, may provide benefits for patients with this condition.

AIMS

This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention to increase allied health practitioners' (physiotherapists and chiropractors in Victoria, Australia) compliance with a clinical practice guideline for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP), compared with providing practitioners with a printed copy of the guideline. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of acute non-specific LBP patients who are either referred for or receive an x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-onset of acute LBP.

METHODS

The design of the study is a cluster randomised trial. Restricted randomisation was used to randomise 210 practices (clusters) to an intervention or control group. Practitioners in the control group received a printed copy of the guideline. Practitioners in the intervention group received a theory-based intervention developed to address prospectively identified barriers to practitioner compliance with the guideline. The intervention primarily consisted of an educational symposium. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific LBP of less than three months duration over a two-week data collection period, three months post the intervention symposia, are eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculations are based on recruiting between 15 to 40 patients per practice. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 (date registered 25th November 2009).

New models for primary care are needed for osteoarthritis

Musculoskeletal problems are the most common cause of restriction in daily life in most countries. Most health care for musculoskeletal problems is provided in primary care settings, and back pain and joint problems together represent the largest workload of cases of chronic disease seen and managed there. This article reflects on aspects of the occurrence, natural history, prognosis, and management of common joint problems in primary care. Although the biomedical model has contributed to major advances, a model that embraces chronic pain management and its psychological and social components is needed. In particular, primary care is the ideal arena to achieve high-impact secondary prevention of pain and disability in people with osteoarthritis. Physical therapists are in a crucial position in primary care to provide support for self-management of this condition, especially for interventions related to exercise and behavioral change.