What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 1: A synthesis of recommendation

Patients' expectations of physiotherapists before and after an intensive chronic low back pain rehabilitation programme: a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews and observations

PURPOSE

To investigate the expectations regarding physiotherapists of patients attending an interdisciplinary CLBP rehabilitation programme and the response to these expectations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thematic analysis was conducted, based on interviews of working-age patients with CLBP and without significant comorbidities.

RESULTS

Twenty patients participated (9 male, 11 female, aged 21-58 years; symptoms duration 4.3 ± 3.0 years; pain VAS 53 ± 21 mm). Patients expected to learn pain and activity management. Expected outcomes were a reduction of pain, increased well-being and a return to normality. A collaborative approach involving therapeutic and relational adaptation was expected. Despite divergences concerning emotional aspects, patients expected a large range of applied psychosocial skills.The programme met the expectations of most patients, especially when its goals matched those reported by the individuals. For most participants, the pain relief was below expectations. Active therapies were valued. After the programme, patients felt more ready to take responsibility for their back.

CONCLUSION

The expectation of developing self-management skills was prevalent. Expected treatments were mostly compatible with recommendations. Expectations to resume activities and decrease pain were in line with the rehabilitation goals, although the expected reduction in pain was overestimated. Relational expectations converged towards patient-centred care.

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Narrative review.

RESULTS

NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

Optimising management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: Findings from a pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability. The Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic controlled trial of the PDDM model and to explore its effectiveness compared to clinical practice guidelines' recommendations for LBP management.

METHODS

A pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial. Participants included physiotherapists and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design. Secondary exploratory analyses were conducted on LBP-related outcomes such as pain severity and interference at 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Feasibility of study procedures were confirmed, recruitment exceeded our target number of participants, and the eligibility criteria were deemed suitable. Lost to follow-up at 12 weeks was higher than expected (43.0%) and physiotherapists' compliance rates to the study protocol was lower than our predefined threshold (75.0% vs. 57.5%). A total of 44 physiotherapists and 91 patients were recruited. Recommendations for a larger scale trial were formulated. The PDDM model group demonstrated slightly better improvements in all clinical outcome measures compared to the control group at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The findings support the feasibility of conducting such trial contingent upon a few recommendations to foster proper future planning to determine the effectiveness of the PDDM model. Our results provide preliminary evidence of the PDDM model effectiveness to optimise LBP management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04893369.

Clinical practice guidelines on interventional management of low back pain: A synthesis of recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the recommendations on the interventional management of subacute and chronic nonradicular low back pain (LBP) from the 21 quality-appraised clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) identified in a previously published paper: "Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Interventional Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review." By disseminating this information, we aimed to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations into clinical practice. TYPE: Systematic Review LITERATURE SURVEY: Electronic bibliographic databases, guideline databases, and gray literature were searched from January 2016 to January 2020 to identify CPGs that met study criteria.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 21 CPGs were quality appraised and interventional management recommendations were extracted and organized into several treatment categories including epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency procedures (RF), facet injections, sacroiliac injections, and prolotherapy. Within each treatment category, the recommendations were organized based on two factors: quality of CPG and strength of recommendation.

SYNTHESIS

Overall, there was no consistency in recommendations for or against any interventional procedure, even when accounting for the quality of the CPG. In all of the CPGs reviewed, the most common strength of recommendation was weakly for. The second, third, and fourth most common strength of recommendations were inconclusive, weakly against, and strongly against, respectively, and the least common was strongly for. The treatment categories with the greatest number of recommendations were RF procedures (most common strength of recommendation was weakly for) and facet procedures. Among the high-quality CPGs, the most common strength of recommendation was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the interventional management recommendations for management of nonradicular LBP in the 21 CPGs appraised in this review were either weakly for, weakly against, or inconclusive, with several recommendations within each treatment category contradicting each other. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument quality appraisals of CPGs on interventional management of LBP were of unclear utility in guiding clinical implementation.

Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review of Recent International Guidelines for Diagnosis and Conservative Treatment

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a public and occupational health problem that is a major professional, economic and social burden. We aimed to provide a critical overview of current international recommendations regarding the management of non-specific cLBP. We conducted a narrative review of international guidelines for the diagnosis and conservative treatment of people with non-specific cLBP. Our literature search yielded five reviews of guidelines published between 2018 and 2021. In these five reviews, we identified eight international guidelines that fulfilled our selection criteria. We added the 2021 French guidelines into our analysis. Regarding diagnosis, most international guidelines recommend searching for so-called yellow, blue and black flags, in order to stratify the risk of chronicity and/or persistent disability. The relevance of clinical examination and imaging are under debate. Regarding management, most international guidelines recommend non-pharmacological treatments, including exercise therapy, physical activity, physiotherapy and education; however, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in selected cases, is the core treatment recommended for people with non-specific cLBP. Oral, topical or injected pharmacological treatments are under debate, and may be offered to selected and well-phenotyped patients. The diagnosis of people with cLBP may lack precision. All guidelines recommend multimodal management. In clinical practice, the management of individuals with non-specific cLBP should combine non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. Future research should focus on improving tailorization.

The treatment lottery of chronic back pain? A case series at a multidisciplinary pain centre

OBJECTIVES

Despite the number of people affected by chronic back pain, and the many available treatment options, even the best modalities provide limited pain reduction on a group level, often without simultaneous improvements in functioning or health-related quality of life. The objective was to provide an overview of the treatment of chronic back pain in clinical practice at a multidisciplinary pain centre, and to study patient and pain characteristics in different treatment groups.

METHODS

104 chronic back pain patients (primary ICD-10-SE-diagnosis M53.0-M54.9 excluding M54.1 and M54.3), referred to the Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, University Hospital, Linköping in 2015, were studied using data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation, self-reported medication data, and a retrospective medical record review.

RESULTS

The following treatment groups were identified: rehabilitation (n=21), analgesics (n=33), invasive intervention (n=14), and no treatment (n=35). Significant differences between groups were found with regards to age, sick leave, education level, persisting pain duration, punishing responses by significant other, previous invasive intervention, receiving sub-clinic, physician speciality and referring care level.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patient demographics were associated with treatment strategy to a higher degree than patient-reported outcome measures. Moreover, physician speciality and organisational factors seemed to play a role in treatment choice.

Does the implementation of clinical practice guidelines for low back and neck pain by physical therapists improve patient outcomes? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy for neck and low back pain is highly variable despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). This review aimed to determine the impact of CPG implementation on patient-level outcomes for spinal pain. Implementation strategies were also examined to determine prevalence and potential impact.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through April 2021 for studies assessing CPG implementation in physical therapy for neck and low back pain. Articles were screened for eligibility. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was utilized to determine study quality. Due to the heterogeneity between studies, a meta-analysis was not performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Implementation strategies were significantly varied between studies. Outcomes pertaining to healthcare utilization, pain, and physical functioning were assessed in relation to the implementation of CPGs. Multiple implementation strategies were identified, with Managing Quality as the most frequently utilized key implementation process. Findings indicate CPG implementation decreased healthcare utilization, but inconsistent results were found with physical functioning and pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

CPG implementation appears to have a beneficial effect on healthcare utilization outcomes, but may not impact pain and physical functioning outcomes. Effective CPG implementation strategies remain unknown, though utilizing implementation framework may improve outcomes. More research is needed to determine the most effective implementation strategies and effects on pain and physical function outcomes.

Observation of curative effect on meridian theory-based extracorporeal shock wave therapy for non-specific low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) is a major global socioeconomic burden, and the prevalence of NLBP is still on the rise. At present, there is no ideal drug to cure this disease. This may be the reason why patients often use complementary therapies. Among them, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has gradually received more attention and has become the main treatment method for NLBP. The purpose of this study is to provide scientific evidence for the effect and safety of meridian theory-based ESWT on NLBP.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the effect and safety of meridian theory-based ESWT on NLBP. This study will also provide more high-quality experimental evidence for the clinical application of meridian theory-based ESWT for the treatment of NLBP in future.

Methods

The study design is a single-blind, multi-center, randomized controlled trial. 66 patients with NLBP, aged 18 to 60 years, will be randomly divided into two groups: the experimental group (N = 33), which will receive meridian theory-based ESWT application, and the control group (N = 33) which will receive conventional ESWT treatment. These two applications will be carried out twice a week for two weeks. The primary outcome will be the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the secondary outcomes will be Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Surface Electromyography (sEMG), and Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15). All outcomes will be evaluated at baseline and after the intervention (7 days, 14 days).

Discussion

Results of this trial will contribute to providing rigorous clinical evidence for the efficacy and security of meridian theory-based ESWT for NLBP.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100051049. Registered on 10 September 2021, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=46316.

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.