Providing services for acute low-back pain: A survey of Australian physiotherapists

A survey of Indian physiotherapists' clinical practice patterns and adherence to clinical guidelines in the management of patients with acute low back pain

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) exist for the management of non-specific low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study is to evaluate if Indian physiotherapists' follow CPGs when treating patients with acute LBP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire was used to collect demographic information, views, and opinion about acute LBP and CPGs, and management strategies of a clinical vignette presenting a patient with acute LBP.

RESULTS

Responses from 328 physiotherapists were included in this study. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated familiarity with CPGs for LBP and 75.3% (n = 328) respondents indicated that their intervention choices aligned with guidelines to at least some extent. Participants with post-graduate and doctoral degrees were more accustomed to CPGs than those with bachelor's degrees (p < 0.01). There were significant differences in clinical practice (p < 0.01) between therapists who expressed familiarity with guidelines and those who were not, as well as those with and without post-graduate and doctoral degrees.

CONCLUSION

In general, the study showed adherence to guidelines; however, there were areas that did not align with established evidence, especially referral for radiology and use of electrical modalities.

The effect of exercise engagement on low back disability at 12-months is mediated by pain and catastrophizing in a community sample of people with chronic low back pain

Despite being a first-line treatment recommendation, there is uncertainly for how exercise helps people with chronic low back pain. We designed this study to examine how exercise might help people with chronic low back pain by following a large community sample for 1-year. Qualitative questionnaires and self-report measures were collected every 3-months for 1-year in 400 people with chronic low back pain. People were not provided any specific treatment advice as part of this study but were allowed to engage with any normal physical activity, treatment, or medication as part of their normal life. Exercise engagement was defined from inspection of participant qualitative responses, according to minimum acceptable levels of exercise that elicit symptom reduction. Multiple mediation analysis was performed to examine the effect of exercise engagement on disability through the proposed mediators (pain, fear, catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, self-efficacy). The significant effect of exercise engagement on reductions in disability at 6- and 12-months was explained through pain and catastrophizing. People with chronic low back pain who reported worsening of symptoms over the year had similar reporting of exercise throughout the 12-months to people who had improvements in disability. Exercise can reduce disability through the effect on pain and catastrophizing, but how this effect occurs (i.e., an active or passive component of exercise) is unclear.

Improving adherence to acute low back pain guideline recommendations with chiropractors and physiotherapists: the ALIGN cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Acute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors’ and physiotherapists’ adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective.

Methods

Physiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months).

Results

A total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI − 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI − 0.48, 1.21, scale 0–24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74).

Conclusions

Intervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257. Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06053-x.

Effects of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain is associated with pain and disability, but symptoms are often self-healing. The effectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain remains uncertain with conflicting evidence from systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the effects of exercise therapy, compared with other interventions, on pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects in adult patients with acute low back pain.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, PEDro, Open Grey, Web of Science, and PROSPERO were searched for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors using AMSTAR. Meta-analyses were performed if possible, using data from the original studies. Data for pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects were analyzed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

The searches retrieved 2602 records, of which 134 publications were selected for full-text screening. Twenty-four reviews were included, in which 21 randomized controlled trials (n = 2685) presented data for an acute population, related to 69 comparisons. Overlap was high, 76%, with a corrected covered area of 0.14. Methodological quality varied from low to high. Exercise therapy was categorized into general exercise therapy, stabilization exercise, and McKenzie therapy. No important difference in pain or disability was evident when exercise therapy was compared with sham ultrasound, nor for the comparators usual care, spinal manipulative therapy, advice to stay active, and educational booklet. Neither McKenzie therapy nor stabilization exercise yielded any important difference in effects compared with other types of exercise therapy. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest very low to moderate certainty of evidence that exercise therapy may result in little or no important difference in pain or disability, compared with other interventions, in adult patients with acute low back pain. A limitation of this systematic review is that some included reviews were of low quality. When implementing findings of this systematic review in clinical practice, patients' preferences and the clinician's expertise also should be considered, to determine if and when exercise therapy should be the intervention of choice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD46146, available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=46146 .

Adherence to key domains in low back pain guidelines: A cross-sectional study of Danish physiotherapists

Objective

The aim of the study was threefold: Firstly, to investigate the adherence to clinical practice guidelines for low back pain (LBP) among Danish physiotherapists with regard to three key domains: (a) activity, (b) work and (c) psychosocial risk factors. Secondly, to investigate whether adherence differed between physiotherapists working in private clinics (private physiotherapists) and physiotherapists working at public healthcare centres (public physiotherapists). Thirdly, to describe the physiotherapists' treatment modalities for patients with LBP.

Methods

A cross‐sectional online survey was conducted with 817 physiotherapists working in the Central Denmark Region. Adherence to the guideline domains was assessed using two vignettes. The difference in adherence between the groups was assessed using the Chi‐squared test. Treatment modalities were reported using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 234 physiotherapists responded, hereof 163 private physiotherapists and 71 public physiotherapists (response rate 29%). The proportions of physiotherapists managing the patients strictly in line with the guideline domains were 32% (activity), 16% (work) and 82% (psychosocial risk factors) for Vignette 1 and 6% (activity), 53% (work) and 60% (psychosocial risk factors) for Vignette 2. Public physiotherapists were more likely to manage patients strictly in line with guidelines for assessing the psychosocial risk factors compared to private physiotherapist (Vignette 1: 92% vs. 77% p = .030; Vignette 2:70% vs. 55% p = .035). Regarding the other two domains, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of adherence (p > .05). Concerning treatment modalities, the majority of physiotherapists instructed the patients in adopting an exercise program or informed the patients about the benign nature and prognosis of LBP.

Conclusion

Overall, the participating Danish physiotherapists strictly adhered to only one out of three key domains. This underlines the importance of bringing focus on implementing the current guidelines' recommendations in clinical practice.

Medical and allied health service use during acute and chronic post-injury periods in whiplash injured individuals

BACKGROUND

Individuals with whiplash associated disorder (WAD) frequently experience neck pain in addition to other physical, psychological and social symptoms. Consequently, treatment is sought from a variety of health professionals. The limited data available about health services use in this population are conflicting. This study aimed to characterise health service use in individuals with WAD from a motor vehicle crash.

METHODS

Medical (general practitioner (GP), medical specialist, emergency services (ED), radiology - x-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound) and allied health service (physiotherapy, chiropractor, psychologist, osteopath, occupational therapy) use during acute (< 12 weeks) and chronic (12 weeks to 2 years) post-injury periods were analysed in adults claiming compensation for WAD in the no-fault jurisdiction of Victoria, Australia (n = 37,315).

RESULTS

Most WAD claimants had an acute post-injury health service payment (95%, n = 35,348), and approximately one-third (29%, n = 10,871) had a chronic post-injury health service payment. During an acute post-injury period, the most frequently compensated services were for: ED (82% of acute claimants), radiology (56%), and medical specialist (38%). Whereas, physiotherapy (64.4% of chronic claimants), GP (48.1%), and radiology (34.6%) were the most frequently paid services during the chronic period. Females received significantly more payments from physiotherapists (F = 23.4%, M = 18%, z = - 11.3, p < .001, r = 0.13), chiropractors (F = 7.4%, M = 5.6%, z = - 6.3, p < .001, r = 0.13), and psychologists (F = 4.2%, M = 2.8%, z = - 6.7, p < .001, r = 0.18); whereas, males received significantly more medical services payments from medical specialists (F = 41.8%, M = 43.8%, z = - 3.7, p < .001, r = 0.03), ED (F = 74.0%, M = 76.3%, z = - 4.9, p < .001, r = 0.03) and radiology (F = 58.3%, M = 60.1%, z = - 3.4, p < .001, r = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with WAD claimed for a range of health services. Radiology imaging use during the acute post-injury period, and physiotherapy and chiropractor service use during the chronic post-injury period appeared concordant with current WAD management guidelines. Conversely, low physiotherapy and chiropractic use during an acute post-injury period, and high radiology and medical specialists use during the chronic post-injury period appeared discordant with current guidelines. Strategies are needed to help inform medical health professionals of the current guidelines to promote early access to health professionals likely to provide an active approach to treatment, and to address unnecessary referral to radiology and medical specialists in individuals with on-going WAD.

Do physical therapists follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions? Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Physicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists' treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

We performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' from the earliest record to April 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Using medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes).

RESULTS

We included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits).

CONCLUSIONS

Many physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094979.

Imaging use for low back pain by Ontario primary care clinicians: protocol for a mixed methods study - the Back ON study

BACKGROUND

At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings.

METHODS

The project will comprise an inception cohort study and a concurrent qualitative study. For the cohort study, we will recruit 175 primary care clinicians (50 each from physiotherapy and chiropractic; 75 from family medicine), and 3750 patients with a new episode of LBP who present to these clinicians. Clinicians will collect data in the clinic, and each participant will be tracked for 12 months using Ontario health administrative and self-reported data to measure diagnostic imaging use and other health outcomes. We will assess characteristics of the clinicians, patients and encounters to identify variables associated with inappropriate imaging. In the qualitative study we will conduct in-depth interviews with primary care clinicians and patients.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first Canadian study to accurately document the extent of the overuse of imaging for LBP, and the first worldwide to include data from the main healthcare professions offering primary care for people with LBP. This study will provide robust information about rates of inappropriate imaging for LBP, along with factors associated with, and an understanding of, potential reasons for inappropriate imaging.

The type and pain provoking nature of exercise prescribed for low back pain: A survey of Australian health professionals

OBJECTIVES

To explore the type of exercise prescribed by Australian health professionals for LBP, and whether the exercises prescribed are pain-free or into pain.

METHODS

A survey of physiotherapists and exercise physiologists was conducted from all states/territories in Australia. The survey contained two chronic LBP vignettes with different pain mechanisms (dominant nociceptive or central sensitisation pain) and one acute LBP vignette. Respondents were asked if they would prescribe advice to stay active and exercise. If exercise was prescribed, respondents were asked to specify the type and pain provoking nature (exercise with no pain, exercise to the start of pain, exercise with pain at a tolerable level or exercise irrespective of pain).

RESULTS

The response rate was 17%(218/1276). Most respondents prescribed advice to stay active(≥95%) and exercise(≥90%) for all vignettes. Irrespective of the vignette, several exercises were prescribed [aerobic (57-85% of clinicians), motor control (62-84% of clinicians), range of motion (72-75% of clinicians)]. Strengthening exercise was prescribed more for chronic(>60%) than acute LBP(23%). Irrespective of the exercise, between 20 and 25% of respondents prescribed pain-free exercise, between 71 and 79% of respondents prescribed exercise into pain, and ≤4% prescribed exercise irrespective of pain for acute and chronic LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Several exercises are prescribed for LBP, irrespective of pain mechanism or duration, with more clinicians prescribing strengthening exercise for chronic than acute LBP. Most clinicians prescribed exercise into pain for acute and chronic LBP, irrespective of the exercise. Further research should determine which exercises are beneficial based on pain mechanism and duration, and whether exercise into pain should be prescribed for LBP.

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

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