Structure-oriented beliefs and disability due to back pain

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

"If I can get over that, I can get over anything"--understanding how individuals with acute whiplash disorders form beliefs about pain and recovery: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Beliefs held by patients have been shown to influence outcomes in acute whiplash associated disorders (WAD). The aim was to identify beliefs about pain and recovery present in the narratives of individuals with WAD and to understand how and why individuals' came to hold these beliefs.

DESIGN

A qualitative study. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (n=20) were enrolled in a large, pragmatic randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy for acute WAD. Participants were interviewed after they completed their treatment.

RESULTS

A range of beliefs were evident. These included beliefs about exercise and activity, ability to self-manage symptoms, expectations of recovery and competing priorities. Some beliefs appeared to be barriers to recovery despite all participants having consulted several health professionals. Health professionals were highly influential over how individuals' thought about and managed their injury. The pain experienced influenced how individuals thought and behaved as did past experiences of injury and illness. Competing priorities were a potential barrier to engaging with treatment. We identified examples of how beliefs and behaviour changed in response to information from health professionals and the pain they experienced.

CONCLUSION

People with WAD hold a range of beliefs about pain and recovery and some appear unhelpful to recovery. Health professionals can influence these beliefs and encourage behaviours that aid recovery. Understanding how patients form beliefs may help health professionals to address unhelpful beliefs. It is important that advice and education provided is in line with the current evidenced based understanding of pain and recovery.

Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.

RESULTS

Four high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.

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

This study investigated the assessment of acute (<12 weeks duration) nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) by primary care clinicians. The aims were to determine the methods used, whether methods differ across professional disciplines, and the extent to which clinicians assess across domains of health. Survey data were gathered from 651 primary care clinicians from six professional disciplines (Physiotherapy, Manipulative Physiotherapy, Chiropractic, Osteopathy, General Medicine, and Musculoskeletal Medicine). Descriptive statistics (proportions and frequency of use distributions) were used to describe assessment technique use, Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine between-discipline differences in the use of each assessment technique, and Bonferroni-adjusted inferential confidence intervals were constructed to allow visual comparison of the use of assessment techniques from five health domains. The results indicate that the methods used by different professional disciplines to assess NSLBP vary considerably, as 44 out of 48 assessment techniques showed significantly different utilisation rates across professions. Furthermore, assessment across domains of health in this condition was variable, as clinicians commonly assess physical impairments and pain and less commonly assess activity limitation and psychosocial function (100% of clinicians very frequently or often assess physical impairment, 99% [95%CI 98-100%] assess pain, 21% [95%CI 15-27%] assess activity limitation, and 7% [95%CI 3-11%] assess psychosocial function). Adoption of greater standardisation of assessment by clinicians may require demonstration of the capacity of this standardisation to improve patient outcomes.