Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

Investigating a structured diagnostic approach for chronic breathlessness in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a need to reduce delays to diagnosis for chronic breathlessness to improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a mixed-methods feasibility study of a larger cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) investigating a structured symptom-based diagnostic approach versus usual care for chronic breathlessness in primary care.

METHODS

10 general practitioner practices were cluster randomised to a structured diagnostic approach for chronic breathlessness including early parallel investigations (intervention) or usual care. Adults over 40 years old at participating practices were eligible if presenting with chronic breathlessness without an existing explanatory diagnosis. The primary feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention rate at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included number of investigations at 3 months, and investigations, diagnoses and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1 year. Semistructured interviews were completed with patients and clinicians, and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Recruitment rate was 32% (48/150): 65% female, mean (SD) age 66 (11) years, body mass index 31.2 kg/m2 (6.5), median (IQR) Medical Research Council dyspnoea 2 (2-3). Retention rate was 85% (41/48). At 3 months, the intervention group had a median (IQR) of 8 (7-9) investigations compared with 5 (3-6) investigations with usual care. 11/25 (44%) patients in the intervention group had coded diagnosis for breathlessness at 12 months compared with 6/23 (26%) with usual care. Potential improvements in symptom burden and quality of life were observed in the intervention group above usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

A cRCT investigating a symptom-based diagnostic approach for chronic breathlessness is feasible in primary care showing potential for timely investigations and diagnoses, with PROMs potentially indicating patient-level benefit. A further refined fully powered cRCT with health economic analysis is needed.

The prognostic reasoning by physiotherapists of musculoskeletal disorders: A phenomenological exploratory study

QUESTION(S)

What are the prognostic reasoning practices of physiotherapists towards musculoskeletal disorders?

DESIGN

Exploratory phenomenological study.

PARTICIPANTS

15 physiotherapists who currently treat musculoskeletal disorders.

DATE ANALYSIS

Semi-structured interviews were implemented to collect data which was analysed using an inductive coding and thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified. First, how physiotherapists considered prognosis within clinical practice. Whilst prognosis is an important consideration, in some circumstances it either may not be considered or is implied. Second, how physiotherapists determine prognosis for musculoskeletal disorders. Several factors shaped the ability of physiotherapists to determine prognosis including how they determine prognosis, and the barriers and facilitators towards determining prognosis. Finally, how physiotherapists discuss prognosis with individuals who have a musculoskeletal disorder. These discussions were shaped by the prognostic information provided, as well as the barriers and facilitators towards discussing prognosis.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic reasoning of physiotherapists appears to be influenced initially by whether they consider it or not. It is then shaped by both barriers and facilitators towards determining and discussing prognosis. Facilitators for this prognostic reasoning process appear to be aligned with the biomedical model of health, whilst barriers more aligned with psychosocial factors. To improve prognostic reasoning, physiotherapists should continue to strive to conceptualize prognosis within a biopsychosocial framework. Doing so will improve the ability of physiotherapists to prognosticate, which will subsequently improve outcomes associated with musculoskeletal disorders.

Evaluating the effectiveness of patient-tailored treatment for patients with non-specific (sub)acute neck pain

BACKGROUND

An important issue in the debate about best practice management of non-specific neck pain (NSNP) is the effectiveness of tailored versus generalized interventions.

METHODS

Participants with (sub)acute NSNP were randomly allocated to a patient-tailored treatment (PTT), non-patient-tailored treatment (NPTT) or control group (no intervention). The outcome measures were pain (NPRS), disability (NDI), global perceived effect and satisfaction (GPES), productivity costs, and medical consumption. Patients were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-intervention. Evolution of the complaints, treatment adherence, and medication intake was registered during the intervention period. Linear mixed models were used to examine interaction effects as well as between- and within-group differences.

RESULTS

Sixty-one participants were included. There was no "Group x Time"-interaction effect for all outcome measures. Nevertheless, all groups showed significant and clinically relevant within-group differences at all time points for pain and disability (p < 0.001). At 6 months follow-up, NPTT was superior to PTT for reductions in pain but not for disability. At 1 year, the number of responders in the NPTT group remained higher (75%) compared to the PTT group (40%).

CONCLUSION

This study found a significant and clinically relevant reduction of pain and disability within all groups. Patient-tailored treatment as well as NPTT can be considered an effective method when aiming for a reduction in pain and disability at short-term (12 weeks). However, NPTT seemed to be more effective at 1-year follow-up and therapists should consider spontaneous recovery. The results should be interpreted with caution and further research is warranted.

ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol

Background

Clinical specialist physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal triage clinics were introduced nationally in Ireland in 2011 to improve patient care and reduce waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology. Evidence has shown them to be effective in reducing waiting lists, however there are currently no data on longitudinal patient outcomes following attendance at these clinics. The primary aim of this prospective, cohort study is to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondary aims are to describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics and measure self-reported use of healthcare resources up to 12 months post-MSK-triage appointment. This is a prospective cohort study.

Methods

ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage (ADAPT MSK) will recruit a cohort of 252 adults through musculoskeletal triage clinics across five secondary care sites in Ireland. The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines will be adhered to for future reporting. Adults (≥ 18 years old) attending physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal triage clinics with musculoskeletal pain, who do not require surgical or consultant-led medical care will be considered for participation in this study. Participant demographics, health literacy, healthcare utilisation, and self-report questionnaires on pain, function, musculoskeletal health status, musculoskeletal risk stratification, fear of movement, and psychological distress will be obtained at baseline, with follow-ups at three, six, and 12 months. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function. Secondary outcomes include musculoskeletal risk stratification status, musculoskeletal health status, healthcare utilisation, and work status. Descriptive statistics will be used to profile the cohort of participants and predictors of outcome will be assessed using multivariable linear regression.

Results

Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at national and international conferences. Engagement with a public patient involvement (PPI) panel will explore dissemination strategies for public and service user engagement.

Effectiveness of a physiotherapist-led triage and treatment service on WAITing time for adults with musculoskeletal pain referred to Australian public hospital physiotherapy clinics: a protocol for the WAIT-less trial

INTRODUCTION

Musculoskeletal pain is the second leading cause of disease burden in Australia, and there is a need to investigate new models of care to cope with the increasing demand for health services. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial investigating whether a physiotherapist-led triage and treatment service is non-inferior for improving function at 6 months and superior for reducing treatment waiting times, compared with usual care for patients with musculoskeletal pain referred to public hospital outpatient physiotherapy clinics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 368 participants (184 per arm) will be recruited from six public hospitals located in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. We will recruit adult patients newly referred to a public hospital physiotherapy outpatient clinic with a musculoskeletal condition that is typically managed by a physiotherapist (eg, back or neck pain, osteoarthritis, rehabilitation postorthopaedic surgery and sporting injuries). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the physiotherapist-led triage and treatment service or usual care. A physiotherapist will telephone participants in the intervention group and match them to different modes and types of care based on baseline characteristics. Participants at low risk of poor outcomes (assessed by the Keele STarT MSK tool) will be given simple advice and education during this call and instructed to call back if their symptoms do not improve in 6 weeks. Participants at medium risk of poor outcomes or requiring postoperative rehabilitation will be offered a course of telehealth (videoconference) physiotherapy targeting exercise-based self-management. Participants at high risk of poor outcomes and/or with potential nonprogressive radiculopathy will be offered a course of usual clinic-based physiotherapy as per all participants in the usual care group. Physical function (Patient Specific Functional Scale) at 6 months postrandomisation and waiting time (time from randomisation to first treatment) are coprimary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include other patient outcomes (eg, pain), health resource use, adverse events, process measures (eg, adherence) and costs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has approval from the Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (RPAH Zone; X24-0090 and 2024/ETH00585). Recruitment will commence in September 2024 and is expected to be completed by December 2025 with follow-ups completed by December 2026. The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in reputable international journals and presented at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR (ACTRN12624000947505).

Validation of a questionnaire for central nervous system aspects of joint pain: the CAP questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic-like pain, fatigue, cognitive difficulty, catastrophizing, anxiety, sleep disturbance, depression and widespread pain associate with a single factor in people with knee pain. We report the Central Aspects of Pain questionnaire (CAP) to characterize this across painful musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS

CAP was derived from the 8-item CAP-Knee questionnaire, and completed by participants with joint pain in the Investigating Musculoskeletal Health and Wellbeing survey. Subgroups had OA, back pain or FM. Acceptability was evaluated by feedback and data missingness. Correlation coefficients informed widespread pain scoring threshold in relation to the other items, and evaluated associations with pain. Factor analysis assessed CAP structure. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) between paper and electronic administration assessed reliability. Friedman test assessed score stability over 4 years in people reporting knee OA.

RESULTS

Data were from 3579 participants (58% female, median age 71 years), including subgroups with OA (n = 1158), back pain (n = 1292) or FM (n = 177). Across the three subgroups, ≥10/26 painful sites on the manikin scored widespread pain. Reliability was high [ICC = 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92)] and CAP scores fit to one- and two-factor model, with a total CAP score that was associated with pain severity and quality (r = 0.50-0.72). In people with knee pain, CAP scores were stable over 4 years at the group level, but displayed significant temporal heterogeneity within individual participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Central aspects of pain are reliably measured by the CAP questionnaire across a range of painful musculoskeletal conditions, and is a changeable state.

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain is Associated With Depressive Symptoms in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Independent of Physical Activity

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of chronic musculoskeletal pain and depressive symptoms in adults is high; however, whether there is an association between these conditions in older adults is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of depressive symptoms with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and specifically with chronic LBP and knee osteoarthritis (OA), in community-dwelling older adults. In addition, we explored whether physical activity can mitigate these associations.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design. A cross-sectional study design. Participants recruited were older adults (age ≥60 years) living in the community. Chronic musculoskeletal pain was assessed by specific questions regarding the presence of chronic LBP and knee OA. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Multivariable regression model adjusted for potential confounders (i.e., age, sex, economic status, body composition, and physical activity) was used to investigate the association between chronic musculoskeletal pain and depressive symptoms. Separate analyses were also conducted for older adults with LBP and with knee OA.

RESULTS

A total of 509 (69% women) older adults were recruited. The regression analysis showed that musculoskeletal pain was associated with higher depressive symptoms (β  = 2.52, 95% CI: 0.50 to 4.54; p-value < .05) compared with older adults without chronic musculoskeletal pain. Similarly, in the fully adjusted model, which included physical activity, LBP was associated with higher depressive symptoms (β  = 2.80, 95% CI: 0.82 to 4.79; p-value < .01). The association between knee OA and depressive symptoms was not statistically significant after adjusting for physical activity (β  = 2.00, 95% CI: -0.13 to 4.13; p-value = .06).

CONCLUSION

Older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain have higher depressive symptoms scores, when compared to those without musculoskeletal pain. Physical activity does not seem to influence this association.

A 7-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in people with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: evaluation of structural validity, hypothesis testing, internal consistency and minimally important change

BACKGROUND

The 17-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) is a commonly used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess kinesiophobia, but the measurement properties of the TSK in people with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

1) Revise the existing TSK by removing items, as needed, with inadequate functioning to optimise the TSK for people with FAIS, and 2) evaluate construct validity (both structural validity and hypothesis testing), internal consistency, and minimal important change.

METHODS

Cross-sectional cohort study including 153 young adults with FAIS. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate structural validity and the TSK was revised to remove items with poor function, improving CFA model fit. Hypothesis testing, internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and minimal important change (distribution-based method) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A 7-item version of the TSK provided the best CFA model fit with 10-items functioning poorly and needing to be removed. The 7-item TSK was uni-dimensional (single factor in EFA) and had adequate structural validity (Standardised Root Measure Square = 0.0771). The 7-item TSK had insufficient hypothesis testing with moderate correlations to 8/14 PROMs measuring different constructs. The 7-item TSK had adequate internal consistency (α = 0.783). The minimal important change of the 7-item TSK was 6.00 points (0-100 point scale).

CONCLUSION

We found that the '7-item TSK for FAIS', had superior structural validity to the original 17-item scale, suggesting that it may be more appropriate for use in this population. Further studies should evaluate other measurement properties of the 7-item scale.

Musculoskeletal Health and Work: Development and Internal-External Cross-Validation of a Model to Predict Risk of Work Absence and Presenteeism in People Seeking Primary Healthcare

PURPOSE

To develop and validate prediction models for the risk of future work absence and level of presenteeism, in adults seeking primary healthcare with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD).

METHODS

Six studies from the West-Midlands/Northwest regions of England, recruiting adults consulting primary care with MSD were included for model development and internal-external cross-validation (IECV). The primary outcome was any work absence within 6 months of their consultation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month presenteeism and 12-month work absence. Ten candidate predictors were included: age; sex; multisite pain; baseline pain score; pain duration; job type; anxiety/depression; comorbidities; absence in the previous 6 months; and baseline presenteeism.

RESULTS

For the 6-month absence model, 2179 participants (215 absences) were available across five studies. Calibration was promising, although varied across studies, with a pooled calibration slope of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.41-1.46) on IECV. On average, the model discriminated well between those with work absence within 6 months, and those without (IECV-pooled C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86). The 6-month presenteeism model, while well calibrated on average, showed some individual-level variation in predictive accuracy, and the 12-month absence model was poorly calibrated due to the small available size for model development.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed models predict 6-month work absence and presenteeism with reasonable accuracy, on average, in adults consulting with MSD. The model to predict 12-month absence was poorly calibrated and is not yet ready for use in practice. This information may support shared decision-making and targeting occupational health interventions at those with a higher risk of absence or presenteeism in the 6 months following consultation. Further external validation is needed before the models' use can be recommended or their impact on patients can be fully assessed.

Exploring equity of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the state-wide Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multi-disciplinary Service in Queensland Health

Objective This study aimed to explore equity of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to non-Indigenous Australians within a Queensland-wide musculoskeletal service. Method The service database was analysed between July 2018 and April 2022 across 18 Queensland Health facilities. Representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the service's patient population was first explored. Second, service and patient-related characteristics and outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients and non-Indigenous patients undergoing an episode of care in the service were compared using analysis of variance and chi-squared tests. Results A greater proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (4.34%) were represented within the service's patient population than in the general population (3.61%) state-wide. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients presented with a generally higher severity of clinical presentation across measures at initial consult. Very similar proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (63.2%) and non-Indigenous (64.3%) patients reported clinically meaningful treatment benefits. While a higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients (69.7%) were discharged from the service without requiring specialist review compared to non-Indigenous patients (65.6%), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients had higher rates of discharge due to non-attendance (20.8%) when compared to non-Indigenous (10.6%) patients (P <0.01). Conclusions Disparity in care retention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients compared to non-Indigenous patients was observed within the musculoskeletal service. Consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is needed to address access barriers once in the service to guide service improvement.

Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the STarT musculoskeletal tool

BACKGROUND

The Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT) musculoskeletal (MSK) tool stratifies patients with MSK disorders (MSDs) into prognostic categories based on poor outcomes.

PURPOSE

This study aimed at investigating the validity and reliability of the Persian STarT MSK tool in people suffering from painful MSDs in Iran.

METHODS

A total of 593 subjects with painful MSDs including neck, shoulder, low back, knee, and multisite pain received and completed the STarT MSK tool, visual analog scale (VAS), EuroQol five-dimensions three-levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-3 L), short form-36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36), and Örebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) in the first visit. To examine test-retest reliability, 234 patients completed the STarT MSK tool 2 days after the initial visit.

RESULTS

In this study, 139 (23.5%), 266 (44.9%), and 188 (31.7%) participants were classified as low-, medium-, and high-risk groupings for poor outcomes, respectively. Spearman's correlation coefficient showed a strong relationship among Persian STarT MSK tool and EQ-5D-3 L (-0.78), SF-36 (-0.76), and OMPSQ (0.70). The results of known-group validity indicated that this tool could distinguish among the participants in different risk subgroups based on the scores of the ÖMPSQ, VAS, SF36, and EQ-5D-5 L (p < .001). No ceiling and floor effects were observed. Cronbach's alpha and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) were acceptable (0.71) and excellent (0.98), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Persian version of STarT MSK tool has shown to be a valid and reliable instrument to stratify people with painful MSDs into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups based on persistent pain disability.

What do we mean by 'self-management' for chronic low back pain? A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting 60-80% of the general population within their lifetime. Given the large numbers of people affected, self-management approaches have been introduced as a way to manage this condition with endorsement by the national institute for health and care excellence. Interventions are often termed self-management without defining either content or goals. Our study sought to determine the content, characteristics, and evidence for self-management of CLBP.

METHODS

This narrative review was conducted using a systematic approach to search journal articles in English that focused on CLBP self-management. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were used to identify publications with terms relating to back pain and self-management from January 2016 until January 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 15 studies were found suitable for inclusion in the review. Core components of self-management strategies include exercise, education, and psychological interventions, but there was a lack of consistency with respect to content. Intervention characteristics were either under-reported or varied. Furthermore, outcome measures used to assess these self-management programmes were diverse, mainly focusing on functional disability and pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconsistencies in the content of self-management interventions, intervention characteristics, and outcome measures used for assessing self-management programmes were found across the literature. Current self-management approaches do not consider the complex biopsychosocial nature of CLBP. A consensus on the key components of self-management interventions, and how they should be evaluated, will pave the way for research to determine whether self-management can effectively manage CLBP.

Development and External Validation of Individualized Prediction Models for Pain Intensity Outcomes in Patients With Neck Pain, Low Back Pain, or Both in Primary Care Settings

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop and externally validate multivariable prediction models for future pain intensity outcomes to inform targeted interventions for patients with neck or low back pain in primary care settings.

METHODS

Model development data were obtained from a group of 679 adults with neck or low back pain who consulted a participating United Kingdom general practice. Predictors included self-report items regarding pain severity and impact from the STarT MSK Tool. Pain intensity at 2 and 6 months was modeled separately for continuous and dichotomized outcomes using linear and logistic regression, respectively. External validation of all models was conducted in a separate group of 586 patients recruited from a similar population with patients' predictor information collected both at point of consultation and 2 to 4 weeks later using self-report questionnaires. Calibration and discrimination of the models were assessed separately using STarT MSK Tool data from both time points to assess differences in predictive performance.

RESULTS

Pain intensity and patients reporting their condition would last a long time contributed most to predictions of future pain intensity conditional on other variables. On external validation, models were reasonably well calibrated on average when using tool measurements taken 2 to 4 weeks after consultation (calibration slope = 0.848 [95% CI = 0.767 to 0.928] for 2-month pain intensity score), but performance was poor using point-of-consultation tool data (calibration slope for 2-month pain intensity score of 0.650 [95% CI = 0.549 to 0.750]).

CONCLUSION

Model predictive accuracy was good when predictors were measured 2 to 4 weeks after primary care consultation, but poor when measured at the point of consultation. Future research will explore whether additional, nonmodifiable predictors improve point-of-consultation predictive performance.

IMPACT

External validation demonstrated that these individualized prediction models were not sufficiently accurate to recommend their use in clinical practice. Further research is required to improve performance through inclusion of additional nonmodifiable risk factors.

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

ABSTRACT

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

The Swedish version of the STarT MSK Tool: cross-cultural adaption, test-retest reliability, and aspects of validity

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a common reason for seeking primary health care. The STarT Musculoskeletal (MSK) tool is designed to stratify patients suffering from MSDs to risk groups, based on prognostic factors.

AIM

The aim was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the STarT MSK tool in a Swedish primary health care context through testing of reliability and construct validity.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with MSDs seeking primary care (n = 99). The STarT MSK was translated using international recommendations. Construct validity was investigated by correlation analysis (Spearmans Rho) with the following reference instruments: the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPQ), the EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) and the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSKHQ). Reliability was tested using test-retest (Intra Class Correlation, ICC2.1) (n = 31). Known-groups validity was calculated with a difference of 10% between risk groups based on how the participants had answered.

RESULTS

The STarT MSK was successfully translated into Swedish. The participants were grouped into low risk (n = 28), medium risk (n = 60) and high risk (n = 11). The construct validity showed a moderate to high correlation with the ÖMPQ (r = .61), EQ-5D (r = .59) and MSK-HQ (r = .56). All separate items except item 2 and 9 correlated according to predefined hypotheses. Test-retest demonstrated an excellent reliability for the total score (ICC2.1 0.85) (n = 31). The STarT MSK tool was able to differentiate by 10% between the risk groups, based on how the participants had answered.

CONCLUSION

The STarT MSK has been successfully translated and adapted into Swedish and shows acceptable measurement properties regarding test-retest reliability and aspects of validity and seems to be able to discriminate between the proposed risk groups. The tool can therefore be useful in a Swedish primary health care context. A future study needs to determine the tools predictive validity and to investigate if stratification to risk groups leads to a faster recovery and to lower health care costs.

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.

Supported self-management for all with musculoskeletal pain: an inclusive approach to intervention development: the EASIER study

BACKGROUND

Supported self-management interventions for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions may not adequately support those with limited health literacy, leading to inequalities in care and variable outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model for inclusive supported self-management intervention(s) for MSK pain that take account of health literacy.

METHODS

A mixed methods study with four work-packages was conducted: work package 1: secondary analysis of existing data to identify potential targets for intervention; work package 2: evidence synthesis to assess effective components of self-management interventions taking into account health literacy; work package 3: views of community members and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on essential components; work package 4: triangulation of findings and an online modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on key components of a logic model.

FINDINGS

Findings identified targets for intervention as self-efficacy, illness perceptions, and pain catastrophizing. A range of intervention components were identified (e.g. information in diverse formats offered at specific times, action planning and visual demonstrations of exercise). Support should be multi-professional using a combination of delivery modes (e.g. remote, face-to-face).

CONCLUSIONS

This research has developed a patient-centred model for a multi-disciplinary, multi-modal approach to supported self-management for patients with MSK pain and varying levels of health literacy. The model is evidence-based and acceptable to both patients and HCPs, with potential for significant impact on the management of MSK pain and for improving patient health outcomes. Further work is needed to establish its efficacy.

Development and feasibility of stratified primary care physiotherapy integrated with eHealth in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: results of a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Providing individualized care based on the context and preferences of the patient is important. Knowledge on both prognostic risk stratification and blended eHealth care in musculoskeletal conditions is increasing and seems promising. Stratification can be used to match patients to the most optimal content and intensity of treatment as well as mode of treatment delivery (i.e. face-to-face or blended with eHealth). However, research on the integration of stratified and blended eHealth care with corresponding matched treatment options for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints is lacking.

METHODS

This study was a mixed methods study comprising the development of matched treatment options, followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of the developed Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach. In the first phase, three focus groups with physiotherapists and physiotherapy experts were conducted. The second phase investigated the feasibility (i.e. satisfaction, usability and experiences) of the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for both physiotherapists and patients in a multicenter single-arm convergent parallel mixed methods feasibility study.

RESULTS

In the first phase, matched treatment options were developed for six patient subgroups. Recommendations for content and intensity of physiotherapy were matched to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool: low/medium/high risk). In addition, selection of mode of treatment delivery was matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (using the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist: yes/no). A paper-based workbook and e-Exercise app modules were developed as two different mode of treatment delivery options, to support physiotherapists. Feasibility was evaluated in the second phase. Physiotherapists and patients were mildly satisfied with the new approach. Usability of the physiotherapist dashboard to set up the e-Exercise app was considered 'OK' by physiotherapists. Patients considered the e-Exercise app to be of 'best imaginable' usability. The paper-based workbook was not used.

CONCLUSION

Results of the focus groups led to the development of matched treatment options. Results of the feasibility study showed experiences with integrating stratified and blended eHealth care and have informed amendments to the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints ready to use within a future cluster randomized trial.

Pilot and feasibility studies: extending the conceptual framework

In 2016, we published a conceptual framework outlining the conclusions of our work in defining pilot and feasibility studies. Since then, the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials has been published and there have been further developments in the pilot study landscape. In this paper, we revisit and extend our framework to incorporate the various feasibility pathways open to researchers, which include internal pilot studies. We consider, with examples, when different approaches to feasibility and pilot studies are more effective and efficient, taking into account the pragmatic decisions that may need to be made. The ethical issues involved in pilot studies are discussed. We end with a consideration of the funders' perspective in making difficult resource decisions to include feasibility work and the policy implications of these; throughout, we provide examples of the uncertainties and compromises that researchers have to navigate to make progress in the most efficient way.

Developing tailored intervention strategies for implementation of stratified care to low back pain with physiotherapists in Nigeria: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Stratified care approach involving use of the STarT-Back tool to optimise care for patients with low back pain is gaining widespread attention in western countries. However, adoption and implementation of this approach in low-and-middle-income countries will be restricted by context-specific factors that need to be addressed. This study aimed to develop with physiotherapists, tailored intervention strategies for the implementation of stratified care for patients with low back pain.

METHODS

A two-round web-based Delphi survey was conducted among purposively sampled physiotherapists with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, with post-graduation certification or specialists. Thirty statements on barriers and enablers for implementation were extracted from the qualitative phase. Statements were rated by a Delphi panel with additional open-ended feedback. After each Delphi round, participants received feedback which informed their subsequent responses. Additional qualitative feedback were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The criteria for consensus and stability were pre-determined using percentage agreement (≥ 75%), median value (≥ 4), Inter-quartile range (≤ 1), and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test respectively.

RESULTS

Participants in the first round were 139 and 125 of them completed the study, yielding a response rate of 90%. Participants were aged 35.2 (SD6.6) years, and 55 (39.6%) were female. Consensus was achieved in 25/30 statements. Wilcoxon's test showed stability in responses after the 5 statements failed to reach consensus: 'translate the STarT-Back Tool to pidgin language' 71% (p = 0.76), 'begin implementation with government hospitals' 63% (p = 0.11), 'share knowledge with traditional bone setters' 35% (p = 0.67), 'get second opinion on clinician's advice' 63% (p = 0.24) and 'carry out online consultations' 65% (p = 0.41). Four statements strengthened by additional qualitative data achieved the highest consensus: 'patient education' (96%), 'quality improvement appraisals' (96%), 'undergraduate training on psychosocial care' (96%) and 'patient-clinician communication' (95%).

CONCLUSION

There was concordance of opinion that patients should be educated to correct misplaced expectations and proper time for communication is vital to implementation. This communication should be learned at undergraduate level, and for already qualified clinicians, quality improvement appraisals are key to sustained and effective care. These recommendations provide a framework for future research on monitored implementation of stratified care in middle-income countries.

Researcher's Perspective on Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary Care Physiotherapy Units through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF): A Scoping Review

(1) Background: Musculoskeletal disorders are the second cause of disability in the world. The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) is a tool for systematically describing functioning. Outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders and functioning concepts embedded in them have not been described under the ICF paradigm. The objective of this scoping review was to identify ICF categories representing the researcher's perspective and to compare them with the ICF core set for post-acute musculoskeletal conditions. (2) Methods: This review was conducted as follows: (a) literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases; (b) study selection applying inclusion criteria (PICOS): musculoskeletal conditions in primary care, application of physiotherapy as a treatment, outcome measures related to functioning, and experimental or observational studies conducted in Western countries during the last 10 years; (c) extraction of relevant concepts; (d) linkage to the ICF; (e) frequency analysis; and (f) comparison with the ICF core set. (3) Results: From 540 studies identified, a total of 51 were included, and 108 outcome measures were extracted. In the ICF linking process, 147 ICF categories were identified. Analysis of data showed that 84.2% of the categories in the ICF core set for post-acute musculoskeletal conditions can be covered by the outcome measures analyzed. Sixty-eight relevant additional ICF categories were identified. (4) Conclusion: Outcome measures analyzed partially represent the ICF core set taken as a reference. The identification of additional categories calls into question the applicability of this core set in primary care physiotherapy units.

Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations: qualitative findings from the STarT MSK cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The STarT MSK cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of risk-based stratified primary care versus usual care for patients with back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain. Trial quantitative results showed risk-based stratified care was not superior to usual care for patients' clinical outcomes, but the intervention led to some changes in GP clinical decision-making. This paper reports a linked qualitative study exploring how risk-based stratified care was perceived and used in the trial, from the perspectives of clinicians and patients.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 patients, and focus groups and interviews with 20 clinicians (GPs and physiotherapists) in the intervention arm of the trial. Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and the COM-B model.

MAIN FINDINGS

Risk-based stratified care (subgrouping and matching treatments) was found to have 'coherence' (i.e. made sense) to several clinicians and patients, in that it was well-integrated in practice, and supported clinical decision-making. However, for some GPs stratified care was less 'meaningful', as the risk-stratification tool did not fit with usual ways of consulting and added to already time-pressured consultations. GPs reported giving more patients written information/advice due to easier access to electronic information leaflets through the trial template and were motivated to refer patients to physiotherapy as they believed the trial resulted in faster physiotherapy access (although this was not the case). Patients and clinicians reported that risk-based stratified care influenced conversations in the consultation, prompting greater attention to psychosocial factors, and facilitating negotiation of treatment options. Physiotherapists saw benefits in receiving information about patients' risk subgroup on referral forms.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide context for interpreting some of the trial outcomes, particularly in relation to changes in clinical decision-making when risk-based stratified care was used. Findings also indicate potential reasons for lack of GP engagement with risk-based stratified care. Positive outcomes were identified that were not captured in the quantitative data, specifically that risk-based stratified care positively influenced some GP-patient conversations and facilitated negotiation of treatment options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN15366334 (26/04/2016).

Brief psychological screening for trapeziectomy: Identifying patients at high risk of a poor functional outcome

Introduction

This study investigates if the psychological subscale from the STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT Psych-sub) identifies patients at high risk of a poor functional outcome after a trapeziectomy based on modifiable psychological factors.

Methods

A total of 83 patients completed the STarT Psych-sub, QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand), Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) and a numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) before trapeziectomy. QuickDASH, PEM and NPRS were completed at 6 weeks, 16 weeks and 1 year after the trapeziectomy.

Results

The STarT Psych-sub stratified 24 patients (29%) as 'high-risk' and 59 (71%) as 'not high-risk' of a poor outcome. The 'high-risk' group reported worse function and pain (QuickDASH = 72.7, PEM = 81.1, NPRS = 8.3) at baseline than the 'not high-risk' group (QuickDASH = 56.1, PEM = 66.4, NPRS = 7.2). This difference remained constant at all time points after the trapeziectomy with 1-year scores on the QuickDASH = 39.6; PEM = 47.1 and NPRS = 3.7 for the 'high-risk' group and QuickDASH = 24.3; PEM = 33.3 and NPRS = 1.9 for the 'not high-risk' group.

Conclusions

Brief psychological screening shows that patients with psychological risk factors experience improved pain and function outcomes following trapeziectomy, however their outcomes are significantly worse than patients who do not have psychological risk factors.

Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations (STarT MSK): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Risk-based stratified care shows clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness versus usual primary care for non-specific low back pain but is untested for other common musculoskeletal disorders. We aimed to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care risk stratification (using Keele's STarT MSK Tool and risk-matched treatments) versus usual care for the five most common musculoskeletal presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multi-site pain).

METHODS

In this cluster-randomised, controlled trial in UK primary care with embedded qualitative and health economic studies we recruited patients from 24 general practices in the West Midlands region of England. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older whose general practitioner (GP) confirmed a consultation for a musculoskeletal presentation. General practices that consented to participate via a representative of the cluster were randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention or usual care, using stratified block randomisation. Researchers involved in data collection, outcome data entry, and statistical analysis were masked at both the cluster and individual participant level. Participating patients were told the study was examining GP treatment of common aches and pains and were not aware they were in a randomised trial. GPs in practices allocated to the intervention group were supported to deliver risk-based stratified care using a bespoke computer-based template, including the risk-stratification tool, and risk-matched treatment options for patients at low, medium, or high risk of poor disability or pain outcomes. There were 15 risk-matched treatment options. In the usual care group, patients with musculoskeletal pain consulting their GP received treatment as usual, typically including advice and education, medication, referral for investigations or tests, or referral to other services. The primary outcome was time-averaged pain intensity over 6 months. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15366334.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 104 GPs from 24 practices (12 per study group) identified 2494 patients with musculoskeletal pain. 1211 (49%) participants consented to questionnaires (534 in the intervention group and 677 in the usual care group), with 1070 (88%) completing the follow-up questionnaire at 6 months. We found no significant difference in time-averaged pain intensity (mean(SD) mean 4·4 [SD 2·3] in the intervention group vs 4·6 [2·5] in the control group; adjusted mean difference -0·16, 95% CI -0·65 to 0·34) or in standardised function score (mean -0·06 [SD 0·94] in the intervention group vs 0·05 [1·04]; adjusted mean difference -0·07, 95% CI -0·22 to 0·08). No serious adverse events or adverse events were reported. Risk stratification received positive patient and clinician feedback.

INTERPRETATION

Risk stratification for patients in primary care with common musculoskeletal presentations did not lead to significant improvements in pain or function, although some aspects of GP decision making were affected, and GP and patients had positive experiences. The costs of risk-based stratified care were similar to usual care, and such a strategy only offers marginal changes in cost-effectiveness outcomes. The clinical implications from this trial are largely inconclusive.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Application of the Stratified Nursing Mode of the Prediction Model Constructed Based on Case System Data in the Nursing of Patients with Acute Renal Failure

Objective

To explore the application of the stratified nursing mode of the prediction model constructed based on case system data in the nursing of patients with acute renal failure (ARF).

Methods

A total of 84 patients with ARF confirmed in the hospital were enrolled between February 2020 and February 2022. According to the simple random grouping method, they were divided into an observation group and a control group, 42 cases in each group. The control group was given routine nursing while the observation group was given stratified nursing of the prediction model constructed based on case system data. All were nursed for 2 months.

Results

There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index (BMI), serum creatinine (Scr), hemoglobin (Hb), and albumin between the two groups (P > 0.05). Age >60 years, weight fluctuation >2 kg during dialysis, vascular blockage or infection, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic hepatopathy and stroke, bleeding tendency, and neuromuscular abnormalities were high-risk factors for ARF patients, hypertension, thyroid abnormalities, hyperlipidemia, persistent or repeated blood volume overload, and usage of antihypertensive drugs were moderate-risk factors for ARF patients, and nonpermeability dehydration was a low-risk factor of ARF patients. The scores of nursing satisfaction and treatment compliance in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). After 2 months of nursing, scores of SAS, SDS, and SPBS in both the groups were significantly decreased (P < 0.05), which were significantly lower in the observation group than those in the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The stratified nursing mode of the prediction model constructed based on case system data is conducive to timely and targeted nursing, with high patient satisfaction and cooperation, and a better psychological state.

Validation of the German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool: A cohort study with patients from physiotherapy clinics

BACKGROUND

The STarT-MSK-Tool is an adaptation of the well established STarT-Back-Tool, used to risk-stratify patients with a wider range of musculoskeletal presentations.

OBJECTIVE

To formally translate and cross-culturally adapt the Keele STarT-MSK risk stratification tool into German (STarT-MSKG) and to establish its reliability and validity.

METHODS

A formal, multi-step, forward and backward translation approach was used. To assess validity patients aged ≥18 years, with acute, subacute or chronic musculoskeletal presentations in the lumbar spine, hip, knee, shoulder, or neck were included. The prospective cohort was used with initial data collected electronically at the point-of-consultation. Retest and 6-month follow-up questionnaires were sent by email. Test-retest reliability, construct validity, discriminative ability, predictive ability and floor or ceiling effects were analysed using intraclass correlation coefficient, and comparisons with a reference standard (Orebro-Musculoskeletal-Pain-Questionnaire: OMPQ) using correlations, ROC-curves and regression models.

RESULTS

The participants' (n = 287) mean age was 47 (SD = 15.8) years, 51% were female, with 48.8% at low, 43.6% at medium, and 7.7% at high risk. With ICC = 0.75 (95% CI 0.69; 0.81) test-retest-reliability was good. Construct validity was good with correlations for the STarT-MSKG-Tool against the OMPQ-Tool of rs = 0.74 (95% CI 0.68, 0.79). The ability of the tool [comparison OMPQ] to predict 6-month pain and disability was acceptable with AUC = 0.77 (95% CI 0.71, 0.83) [OMPQ = 0.74] and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69, 0.82) [OMPQ = 0.72] respectively. However, the explained variance (linear/logistic regression) for predicting 6-month pain (21% [OMPQ = 17%]/logistic = 29%) and disability (linear = 20%:[OMPQ = 19%]/logistic = 26%), whilst being comparable to the existing OMPQ reference standard, fell short of the a priori target of ≥30%.

CONCLUSIONS

The German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool is a valid instrument for use across multiple musculoskeletal conditions and is availabe for use in clinical practice. Comparison with the OMPQ suggests it is a good alternative.

Stratifying workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal pain: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and construct validity of the Norwegian Keele STarT MSK tool

OBJECTIVES

Stratified care using prognostic models to estimate the risk profiles of patients has been increasing. A refined version of the popular STarT Back tool, the Keele STarT MSK tool, is a newly developed model for matched treatment across a wide range of musculoskeletal pain presentations. The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the Keele STarT MSK tool into Norwegian, examine its construct validity and assess the representativeness of the included sample.

METHODS

The Keele STarT MSK tool was formally translated into Norwegian following a multistep approach of forward and backward translation. A pre-final version was tested in 42 patients. Minor changes were implemented. To assess its construct validity, an online survey was conducted among workers aged 18-67 years who were on sick leave (>4 weeks) due to musculoskeletal disorders. Construct validity was evaluated in terms of convergent and discriminant validity using Pearson's correlation coefficient, and known-group validity by comparing risk subgroups as suggested by the COSMIN checklist. The representativeness of the sample was assessed by comparing demographic and sick leave information of participants to eligible non-participants (n=168,137).

RESULTS

A representative sample of 549 workers participated in the validity assessment; 74 participants (13.5%) were categorised as low risk, 314 (57.2%) as medium risk and 161 (29.3%) as high risk. The construct validity was found sufficient, with 90.9% and 75.0% of the pre-defined hypotheses confirmed for convergent and discriminant validity, and known-group validity, respectively. Floor or ceiling effects were not found.

CONCLUSIONS

The Keele STarT MSK tool was successfully translated into Norwegian. The construct validity of the tool was acceptable in a representative cohort of workers on sick leave as a result of musculoskeletal pain. However, the analyses raised concerns as to whether one of the questions captures the construct it is intended to measure.

Low Risk for Persistent Back Pain Disability Is Characterized by Lower Pain Sensitivity and Higher Physical Performance

OBJECTIVE

The STarT Back Tool (SBT) predicts risk for persistent low back pain (LBP)-related disability based on psychological distress levels. Other non-psychological factors associated with LBP, such as pain sensitivity and physical performance, may further characterize SBT-risk subgroups. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a low-risk SBT subgroup demonstrated lower pain sensitivity and/or higher physical performance compared with a medium-/high-risk SBT subgroup.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, secondary analysis, adults with LBP (N = 76) completed SBT and demographics (age, sex, race, chronicity) questionnaires. Participants underwent pain sensitivity (local and remote pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation) and physical performance (Back Performance Scale, walking speed, obstacle negotiation, Timed "Up & Go" [TUG], TUG Cognitive) testing. Independent samples t tests determined low- versus medium-/high-risk SBT subgroup differences. A follow-up discriminant function analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

The medium-/high-risk subgroup demonstrated a lower proportion of participants with acute pain. The low-risk subgroup demonstrated lower pain sensitivity (higher local pressure pain thresholds and higher conditioned pain modulation) and higher physical performance (superior Back Performance Scale scores, faster walking speeds, faster obstacle approach and crossing speeds, and faster TUG completion). Discriminant function analysis results supported the 2-subgroup classification and indicated strong to moderate relationships with obstacle crossing speed, chronicity, and conditioned pain modulation.

CONCLUSION

Lower pain sensitivity and higher physical performance characterized the low-risk SBT subgroup and may represent additional LBP prognostic factors associated with persistent disability. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm whether these factors can enhance SBT prediction accuracy and further direct treatment priorities.

IMPACT

Sensory and physical factors contribute to SBT risk classification, suggesting additional, non-psychological factors are indicative of favorable LBP outcomes. Findings highlight the need for assessment of multiple factors to improve LBP clinical prediction.

LAY SUMMARY

People at low risk for back pain disability have less sensitivity to pain and better physical performance. By measuring these factors, physical therapists could guide treatment and improve outcomes for people with back pain.

Impact of an interactive workshop on specialist physiotherapists' practice when implementing a new clinical care pathway for people with musculoskeletal conditions

BACKGROUND

A new pathway of care proposes early comprehensive assessment and targeted management by specialist musculoskeletal clinicians for people with musculoskeletal conditions at risk of poor outcomes. Adoption of this care pathway is likely to be influenced by beliefs and behaviours of specialist musculoskeletal clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an interactive educational workshop about the proposed clinical care pathway on knowledge, beliefs and practice of specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapists.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

METHODS

Fifty specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapists participated in a 2-day interactive educational workshop. Knowledge, beliefs and clinical practice behaviours were assessed immediately before the workshop and 3 months' later using surveys.

RESULTS

Knowledge about key guideline messages improved and were maintained at follow-up. Most participants agreed to provide more targeted interventions to patients at risk of poor outcome (92%, 95% CI: 81%-98%) and utilise prognostic screening tools (84%, 95% CI: 71 to 93). However, only 56% (95% CI: 39%-68%) of participants believed implementing a shared care pathway was easy. At follow-up, participants' beliefs were more aligned with the proposed care pathway (i.e., shared care: 83%, 95% CI: 68%-93%). With respect to clinical practice, there were 16% more referrals back to the primary physiotherapist at 3 months than before the workshop. Barriers (practitioner, patient and system factors) to implementation of the care pathway were discussed.

CONCLUSION

An interactive educational workshop influenced specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapists' knowledge, beliefs and clinical practice, but barriers need to be overcome to facilitate widespread implementation.

Feasibility of delivering and evaluating stratified care integrated with telehealth ('Rapid Stratified Telehealth') for patients with low back pain: protocol for a feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Long waiting time is an important barrier to accessing recommended care for low back pain (LBP) in Australia's public health system. This study describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to establish the feasibility of delivering and evaluating stratified care integrated with telehealth ('Rapid Stratified Telehealth'), which aims to reduce waiting times for LBP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a single-centre feasibility and pilot RCT with nested qualitative interviews. Sixty participants with LBP newly referred to a hospital outpatient clinic will be randomised to receive Rapid Stratified Telehealth or usual care. Rapid Stratified Telehealth involves matching the mode and type of care to participants' risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and presence of potential radiculopathy. 'Low risk' patients are matched to one session of advice over the telephone, 'medium risk' to telehealth physiotherapy plus App-based exercises, 'high risk' to telehealth physiotherapy, App-based exercises, and an online pain education programme, and 'potential radiculopathy' fast tracked to usual in-person care. Primary outcomes include the feasibility of delivering Rapid Stratified Telehealth (ie, acceptability assessed through interviews with clinicians and patients, intervention fidelity, appointment duration, App useability and online pain education programme usage) and evaluating Rapid Stratified Telehealth in a future trial (ie, recruitment rates, consent rates, lost to follow-up and missing data). Secondary outcomes include waiting times, number of appointments, intervention and healthcare costs, clinical outcomes (pain, function, quality of life, satisfaction), healthcare use and adverse events (AEs). Quantitative analyses will be descriptive and inform a future adequately-powered RCT. Interview data will be analysed using thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone: X21-0221). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621001104842.

STarT MSK tool: Translation, adaptation and validation in Hebrew

BACKGROUND

The Keele STarT MSK Tool divides musculoskeletal patients into three prognostic groups for risk-stratified care. It has shown good predictive and discriminative ability in development and validation samples.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to translate and validate the STarT MSK in a Hebrew version, among Israeli people living with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study, with nested prospective sub-sample. The STarT MSK was translated into Hebrew using published guidelines. A total of 153 adults (18+) who reported living with MSK pain were administered the STarT MSK. Clinical measures included for validity testing included the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS).

RESULTS

The STarT MSK was forward and backward translated, with minor changes to ensure cultural adaptation. The test-retest reliability of the STarT MSK total score was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.92). Internal consistency for the MSK scale was (α = 0.612). The Spearman's correlation coefficients between STarT MSK total score and the validation measures confirmed the hypotheses and were significant.

CONCLUSION

The Israeli translation and validation of the STarT MSK suggest that it is a valid and reliable instrument. The STarT MSK discriminated low-, medium- and high-risk groups.

Complex Lifestyle and Psychological Intervention in Knee Osteoarthritis: Scoping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) causes pain, disability and poor quality of life in the elderly. The primary aim was to identify and map out the current evidence for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on complex lifestyle and psychosocial interventions for knee OA. The secondary aim was to outline different components of complex lifestyle and psychosocial interventions. Our scoping review searched five databases from 2000 to 2021 where complex lifestyle or psychosocial interventions for patients with knee OA were compared to other interventions. Screening and data extraction were performed by two review authors independently and discrepancies resolved through consensus and in parallel with a third reviewer. A total of 38 articles were selected: 9 studied the effectiveness of psychological interventions; 11 were on self-management and lifestyle interventions; 18 looked at multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the substantial variation in knee OA interventions and the overall lack of quality in the current literature. Potential areas of future research, including identifying prognostic social factors, stratified care models, transdisciplinary care delivery and technology augmented interventions, have been identified. Further high-quality RCTs utilizing process evaluations and economic evaluation in accordance with the MRC guidelines are critical for the development of evidence-based knee OA programs globally.

Evaluation of the First Contact Physiotherapy (FCP) model of primary care: patient characteristics and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

First Contact Physiotherapy (FCP) is a primary care model where expert musculoskeletal (MSK) physiotherapists undertake the first patient consultation, to enhance MSK-patient care and free-up GP capacity. The authors report the quantitative findings from the FCP National Evaluation (Phase 3) which evaluated the FCP model against success criteria.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods 24-month service evaluation involving 40 FCP sites and 240 FCPs across England.

METHODS

An online platform collected patient-reported experience and outcomes following the FCP consultation and at 1, 2 and 3-months follow-up. These included the Keele STarT MSK Tool, pain intensity (0-10 NRS scale), Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ, range 0-56), and Friends-and-Family Test.

RESULTS

Over 13 months, 2825 patients were invited by email and 24% (n=680) completed their initial questionnaire. Their mean age was 56.2 (SD 14.9), 61% were female, ethnicity was 97% white, mean pain intensity was 6.1 (SD 2.13) and mean MSK-HQ score was 33.8 (SD 9.5). At 3-months follow-up (n=370) there was a 2.8 (CI 2.5 to 3.1) mean pain intensity reduction from baseline, a mean 7.1 (6.0 to 8.2) score improvement in MSK-HQ and 64% reporting overall improvement (much better/better) since seeing the FCP. One of the six success criteria was not met; 29% of those in employment reported receiving specific work advice from the FCP (target ≥75%).

CONCLUSION

Ahead of the planned scale-up of the FCP primary care model across the UK, this evaluation provides useful data on patients who access this service, their short-term clinical outcomes and whether key success criteria are being met.

Individually tailored self-management app-based intervention (selfBACK) versus a self-management web-based intervention (e-Help) or usual care in people with low back and neck pain referred to secondary care: protocol for a multiarm randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common and costly conditions. Self-management is a key element in the care of persistent LBP and NP. Artificial intelligence can be used to support and tailor self-management interventions, but their effectiveness needs to be ascertained. The aims of this trial are (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of an individually tailored app-based self-management intervention (selfBACK) adjunct to usual care in people with LBP and/or NP in secondary care compared with usual care only, and (2) to compare the effectiveness of selfBACK with a web-based self-management intervention without individual tailoring (e-Help).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised, assessor-blind clinical trial with three parallel arms: (1) selfBACK app adjunct to usual care; (2) e-Help website adjunct to usual care and (3) usual care only. Patients referred to St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim (Norway) with LBP and/or NP and accepted for assessment/treatment at the multidisciplinary outpatient clinic for back or neck rehabilitation are invited to the study. Eligible and consenting participants are randomised to one of the three arms with equal allocation ratio. We aim to include 279 participants (93 in each arm). Outcome variables are assessed at baseline (before randomisation) and at 6-week, 3-month and 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome is musculoskeletal health measured by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire at 3 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation will document patients' and clinicians' experiences with the interventions. A health economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of both interventions' adjunct to usual care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Central Norway (Ref. 2019/64084). The results of the trial will be published in peer-review journals and presentations at national and international conferences relevant to this topic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04463043.

Shoulder Pain — Where Are We Now?

Purpose of Review

Shoulder pain is common and costly. For the past century, diagnosis and management has been based upon presumed patho-anatomical abnormalities. With the evolution of imaging techniques and new insight about the causes of musculoskeletal pain, this review evaluates the evidence that a patho-anatomical approach remains justified.

Recent Findings

Imaging modalities have developed considerably but, so far, have only proven value in evaluating full thickness rotator cuff tears prior to surgery. Correlation between imaging findings and symptoms is otherwise poor, with limited evidence of the value and impact of imaging for decision-making. Much of shoulder pain is chronic and few people have single-site musculoskeletal pain. Pain studies suggest that chronic shoulder pain is associated with both central and peripheral pain sensitisation. Moreover, functional MRI points to an effect of cognitive affective pain processing rather than nociception. Few of the established therapies, medical or surgical, that treat the presumed patho-anatomical cause have been shown to have lasting benefit.

Summary

Much of the evidence suggests that shoulder pain is more similar than different from mechanical low back pain. For most people with shoulder pain, the best approach might well be de-medicalisation, support to (self)manage pain, emphasis on retaining movement and identifying adverse beliefs and risk factors for disability and chronicity. Approaches like this are currently being evaluated and more research is desperately required.

Integrating clinician support with intervention design as part of a programme testing stratified care for musculoskeletal pain in general practice

Background

Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to early treatment options. The STarT-MSK programme developed and tested a new stratified primary care intervention for patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in general practice. Stratified care involves changing General Practitioners’ (GPs) behaviour, away from the current ‘stepped’ care approach to identifying early treatment options matched to patients’ risk of persistent pain. Changing healthcare practice is challenging, and to aid the successful delivery of stratified care, education and support for GPs was required. This paper details the iterative development of a clinician support package throughout the lifespan of the programme, to support GPs in delivering the stratified care intervention. We argue that clinician support is a crucial aspect of the intervention itself, which is often overlooked.

Methods

Qualitative research with patients and GPs identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of stratified care, which were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Identified domains were ‘translated’ into an educational paradigm, and an initial version of the support package developed. This was further refined following a feasibility and pilot RCT, and a finalised support package was developed for the main RCT.

Results

The clinician support package comprised face-to-face sessions combining adult-learning principles with behaviour change theory in a multimethod approach, which included group discussion, simulated consultations, patient vignettes and model consultation videos. Structured support for GPs was crucial to facilitate fidelity and, ultimately, a successful trial. Clinician support is a two-way process– the study team can learn from and adapt to specific local factors and issues not previously identified. The support from senior clinicians was required to ensure ‘buy in’. Monitoring of GP performance, provision of regular feedback and remedial support are important aspects of effective clinician support.

Conclusion

Designing effective clinician support from the onset of trial intervention design, in an evidence-based, theory-informed manner, is crucial to encourage active engagement and intervention fidelity within the trial, enabling the delivery of a robust and reliable proof-of-principle trial. We offer practical recommendations for future general practice interventions.

Validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy

Objective

To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy.

Methods

Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0–12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months.

Results

In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10–4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11–12.98) for the high-risk group.

Conclusion

The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (≥50) is recommended.

Management approach combining prognostic screening and targeted treatment for patients with low back pain compared with standard physiotherapy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Research evidence suggests that a stratified care management approach is better at improving clinical and economic outcomes for low back pain (LBP) patients compared with usual care in the short-term. However, it is uncertain if these health and economic benefits are sustainable in the longer term.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of stratified care compared with standard physiotherapy for LBP treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was undertaken of seven electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Pedro, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials and Web of Science with full text. No time limits were applied, but studies were limited to English language publications and those involving human participants. Two independent reviewers undertook study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study RESULTS: In total, 6,842 patients (18 years and above) were included in the 8 trials reviewed - 4 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the other 4 were non-RCTs. The pooled analysis of 3 studies (n = 2,460) demonstrated a strong evidence in favour of stratified care over standard care at improving overall pain (WMD [random] 0.46 [95% CI 0.21, 0.71]; P < 0.0003), with overall effect (Z = 3.6) and (RMDQ) scores (WMD [random] 0.71 [95% CI 0.05, 1.37]; P < 0.03), with overall effect (Z = 2.11) at 3, 4- and 6-months follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

This current review demonstrated that a stratified care approach provides substantial clinical, economic and health related cost benefits in the medium and high-risk subgroups compared with usual care. Further research is needed for longer-term benefits.

Disparities in Service and Clinical Outcomes in State-Wide Advanced Practice Physiotherapist-Led Services

This study explored variations in the primary service and clinical outcomes of a state-wide advanced practice physiotherapist-led service embedded in public medical specialist orthopaedic and neurosurgical outpatient services across Queensland, Australia. An audit of the service database over a six-year period was taken from 18 service facilities. The primary service and clinical outcomes were described. Variations in these outcomes between facilities were explored with a regression analysis adjusting for known patient- and service-related characteristics. The findings showed substantial positive impacts of the advanced practice model across all facilities, with 69.4% of patients discharged without a need for medical specialist review (primary service outcome), consistent with 68.9% of patients reporting clinically important improvements in their condition (primary clinical outcome). However, 15 facilities significantly varied from the state average for the primary service outcome (despite only three facilities varying in the primary clinical outcome). While this disparity in the primary service outcomes appears to be influenced by potentially modifiable differences in the service-related processes between facilities, these process differences only explained part of the variation. This study described the subsequent development of a new, more comprehensive set of service evaluation metrics to better inform future service planning.

Stratified care integrated with eHealth versus usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient's risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy.

METHODS

This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient's suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective.

DISCUSSION

The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register: NL8249 . Officially registered since 27 December 2019. Date of first enrollment: 30 September 2020. Study status: ongoing, data collection.

What General and Pain-associated Psychological Distress Phenotypes Exist Among Patients with Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis?

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress can negatively influence disability, quality of life, and treatment outcomes for individuals with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Clinical practice guidelines recommend a comprehensive disease management approach to OA that includes the identification, evaluation, and management of psychological distress. However, uncertainty around the best psychological screening and assessment methods, a poor understanding of the heterogeneity of psychological distress in those with OA, and lack of guidance on how to scale treatment have limited the growth of OA care models that effectively address individual psychological needs.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Across which general and pain-related psychological distress constructs do individuals seeking conservative care for hip or knee OA report higher scores than the general population of individuals seeking conservative care for musculoskeletal pain conditions? (2) What common psychological phenotypes exist among nonsurgical care-seeking individuals with hip or knee OA?

METHODS

The sample included participants from the Duke Joint Health Program (n = 1239), a comprehensive hip and knee OA care program, and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) cohort studies (n = 871) comprising individuals seeking conservative care for knee, shoulder, low back, or neck pain. At the initial evaluation, patients completed the OSPRO Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) Assessment Tool, which assesses 11 general and pain-related psychological distress constructs (depression, anxiety, fear of movement, self-efficacy for managing one's own pain). We used OSPRO-YF scores to compare levels of psychological distress between the cohorts. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to determine the magnitude of differences between the groups, with d = 0.20, d = 0.50, and d = 0.80 indicating small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. We used a latent class analysis to derive psychological distress phenotypes in people with OA based on the 11 OSPRO-YF psychological distress indicators. Psychological distress phenotypes are characterized by specific mood, belief, and behavioral factors that differentiate subgroups within a population. Phenotyping can help providers develop scalable treatment pathways that are better tailored to the common needs of patients.

RESULTS

Patients with OA demonstrated higher levels of general and pain-related psychological distress across all psychological constructs except for trait anxiety (that is, anxiety level as a personal characteristic rather than as a response to a stressful situation, like surgery) with small-to-moderate effect sizes. Characteristics with the largest effect sizes in the OA and overall OSPRO cohort were (Cohen's d) general anxiety (-0.66, lower in the OA cohort), pain catastrophizing (the tendency to ruminate over, maginfiy, or feel helpless about a pain experience, 0.47), kinesiophobia (pain-related fear of movement, 0.46), pain self-efficacy (confidence in one's own ability to manage his or her pain, -0.46, lower in the OA cohort), and self-efficacy for rehabilitation (confidence in one's own ability to perform their rehabilitation treatments, -0.44, lower in the OA cohort). The latent class analysis yielded four phenotypes (% sample): high distress (52%, 647 of 1239), low distress (26%, 322 of 1239), low self-efficacy and acceptance (low confidence in managing and willingness to accept pain) (15%, 186 of 1239), and negative pain coping (exhibiting poor pain coping skills) (7%, 84 of 1239). The classification error rate was near zero (2%), and the median of posterior probabilities used to assign subgroup membership was 0.99 (interquartile range 0.98 to 1.00), both indicating excellent model performance. The high-distress group had the lowest mean age (61 ± 11 years) and highest levels of pain intensity (6 ± 2) and disability (HOOS JR: 50 ± 15; KOOS JR: 47 ± 15), whereas the low-distress group had the highest mean age (63 ± 10 years) and lowest levels of pain (4 ± 2) and disability (HOOS JR: 63 ± 15; KOOS JR: 60 ± 12). However, none of these differences met or exceeded anchor-based minimal clinically important difference thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

General and pain-related psychological distress are common among individuals seeking comprehensive care for hip or knee OA. Predominant existing OA care models that focus on biomedical interventions, such as corticosteroid injection or joint replacement that are designed to directly address underlying joint pathology and inflammation, may be inadequate to fully meet the care-related needs of many patients with OA due to their underlying psychological distress. We believe this because biomedical interventions do not often address psychological characteristics, which are known to influence OA-related pain and disability independent of joint pathology. Healthcare providers can develop new comprehensive hip and knee OA treatment pathways tailored to these phenotypes where services such as pain coping skills training, relaxation training, and psychological therapies are delivered to patients who exhibit phenotypes characterized by high distress or negative pain coping. Future studies should evaluate whether tailoring treatment to specific psychological phenotypes yields better clinical outcomes than nontailored treatments, or treatments that have a more biomedical focus.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Neck pain patterns and subgrouping based on weekly SMS-derived trajectories

BACKGROUND

Neck and low back pain represent dynamic conditions that change over time, often with an initial improvement after the onset of a new episode, followed by flare-ups or variations in intensity. Pain trajectories were previously defined based on longitudinal studies of temporal patterns and pain intensity of individuals with low back pain. In this study, we aimed to 1) investigate if the defined patterns and subgroups for low back pain were applicable to neck pain patients in chiropractic practice, 2) explore the robustness of the defined patterns, and 3) investigate if patients within the various patterns differ concerning characteristics and clinical findings.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study including 1208 neck pain patients from chiropractic practice. Patients responded to weekly SMS-questions about pain intensity and frequency over 43 weeks. We categorized individual responses into four main patterns based on number of days with pain and variations in pain intensity, and subdivided each into four subgroups based on pain intensity, resulting in 16 trajectory subgroups. We compared baseline characteristics and clinical findings between patterns and between Persistent fluctuating and Episodic subgroups.

RESULTS

All but two patients could be classified into one of the 16 subgroups, with 94% in the Persistent fluctuating or Episodic patterns. In the largest subgroup, "Mild Persistent fluctuating" (25%), mean (SD) pain intensity was 3.4 (0.6) and mean days with pain 130. Patients grouped as "Moderate Episodic" (24%) reported a mean pain intensity of 2.7 (0.6) and 39 days with pain. Eight of the 16 subgroups each contained less than 1% of the cohort. Patients in the Persistent fluctuating pattern scored higher than the other patterns in terms of reduced function and psychosocial factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The same subgroups seem to fit neck and low back pain patients, with pain that typically persists and varies in intensity or is episodic. Patients in a Persistent fluctuating pattern are more bothered by their pain than those in other patterns. The low back pain definitions can be used on patients with neck pain, but with the majority of patients classified into 8 subgroups, there seems to be a redundancy in the original model.

[On the move-Prevention of chronic pain with physical activity and movement]

BACKGROUND

Sufficient physical activity and exercise shows a variety of health-promoting positive effects. In the context of pain therapy, promotion of physical activity could be an important contribution to primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to investigate the relationship between physical activity and chronic pain, the preventive effect of physical activity on pain and the factors to successfully promote physical activity in people with chronic pain.

METHODS

For this narrative review databases of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were searched for reviews and studies with the keywords chronic pain, physical activity, movement, exercise and prevention.

RESULTS

A total of 10 reviews, 10 clinical studies and 4 surveys were included and summarized.

CONCLUSION

Although the evidence base on this topic is still insufficient, positive effects of physical activity on the prevention of chronic pain could be demonstrated. Interventions for people with chronic pain that sustainably increase physical activity should take into account individual resources, address barriers such as maladaptive beliefs, and create positive movement experiences.

Risk-stratified and stepped models of care for back pain and osteoarthritis: are we heading towards a common model?

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Substantial overlap between interventions and models of care for osteoarthritis and low back pain suggests potential for one common model, which may facilitate implementation.

The overall quality of care for musculoskeletal pain conditions is suboptimal, partly due to a considerable evidence-practice gap. In osteoarthritis and low back pain, structured models of care exist to help overcome that challenge. In osteoarthritis, focus is on stepped care models, where treatment decisions are guided by response to treatment, and increasingly comprehensive interventions are only offered to people with inadequate response to more simple care. In low back pain, the most widely known approach is based on risk stratification, where patients with higher predicted risk of poor outcome are offered more comprehensive care. For both conditions, the recommended interventions and models of care share many commonalities and there is no evidence that one model of care is more effective than the other. Limitations of existing models of care include a lack of integrated information on social factors, comorbid conditions, and previous treatment experience, and they do not support an interplay between health care, self-management, and community-based activities. Moving forwards, a common model across musculoskeletal conditions seems realistic, which points to an opportunity for reducing the complexity of implementation. We foresee this development will use big data sources and machine-learning methods to combine stepped and risk-stratified care and to integrate self-management support and patient-centred care to a greater extent in future models of care.

Validation of the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the responsiveness, and concurrent validity of the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) in UK primary care patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain presentations.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a primary care pilot randomised trial (STarT MSK) was performed. In 524 people consulting with back, neck, shoulder, knee, or multi-site pain, the following were recorded at 0/6 months: MSK-HQ, EQ-5D-5L, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ; back pain), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Knee Injury and Outcome Score (KOOS), Short-Form-12 (SF-12; multisite pain). At 6-months, patients self-rated their global change in MSK condition, from -5 ("very much worse") to +5 ("completely recovered"). Receiver operating characteristic curves evaluated abilities of 6-month changes in each patient reported outcome measure (PROM) to discriminate between patients improving/not improving on global change scores, with Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) calculated.

RESULTS

The MSK-HQ had a good ability to discriminate between MSK pain patients reporting global improvement vs. no improvement (area under the curve [AUC] 0.81; 95% CI 0.78, 0.85). Its discriminative ability was higher than the EQ-5D-5L (AUC 0.68; 95% CI 0.62, 0.73) and similar to site-specific PROMs. The MCID for the 6-month change in MSK-HQ was 5.5. The MSK-HQ had strong correlations with all PROMs, except SF-12 scores.

CONCLUSION

In primary care patients with common MSK pain presentations, the MSK-HQ was as good as existing pain-site specific PROMs at identifying people reporting global improvements in their MSK condition, and was better than the EQ-5D-5L.

Computer-Based Stratified Primary Care for Musculoskeletal Consultations Compared With Usual Care: Study Protocol for the STarT MSK Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a major cause of pain and disability. We previously developed a prognostic tool (Start Back Tool) with demonstrated effectiveness in guiding primary care low back pain management by supporting decision making using matched treatments. A logical next step is to determine whether prognostic stratified care has benefits for a broader range of common MSK pain presentations.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to determine, in patients with 1 of the 5 most common MSK presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multisite pain), whether stratified care involving the use of the Keele Start MSK Tool to allocate individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, and matching these subgroups to recommended matched clinical management options, is clinical and cost-effective compared with usual nonstratified primary care.

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, two-arm parallel (stratified vs nonstratified care), cluster randomized controlled trial, with a health economic analysis and mixed methods process evaluation. The setting is UK primary care, involving 24 average-sized general practices randomized (stratified by practice size) in a 1:1 ratio (12 per arm) with blinding of trial statistician and outcome data collectors. Randomization units are general practices, and units of observation are adult MSK consulters without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records are tagged and individuals invited using a general practitioner (GP) point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention is supported by an EMR template (computer-based) housing the Keele Start MSK Tool (to stratify into prognostic subgroups) and the recommended matched treatment options. The primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis is pain intensity, measured monthly over 6 months. Secondary outcomes include physical function and quality of life, and an anonymized EMR audit to capture clinician decision making. The economic evaluation is focused on the estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life years and MSK pain-related health care costs. The process evaluation is exploring a range of potential factors influencing the intervention and understanding how it is perceived by patients and clinicians, with quantitative analyses focusing on a priori hypothesized intervention targets and qualitative approaches using focus groups and interviews. The target sample size is 1200 patients from 24 general practices, with >5000 MSK consultations available for anonymized medical record data comparisons.

RESULTS

Trial recruitment commenced on May 18, 2018, and ended on July 15, 2019, after a 14-month recruitment period in 24 GP practices. Follow-up and interview data collection was completed in February 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial is the first attempt, as far as we know, at testing a prognostic stratified care approach for primary care patients with MSK pain. The results of this trial should be available by the summer of 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15366334; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15366334.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/17939.

Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: qualitative findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to appropriate early treatment options. The STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the feasibility of a future main trial and of delivering prognostic stratified primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain. The pilot RCT was conducted in 8 UK general practices (4 stratified care; 4 usual care) with 524 patients. GPs in stratified care practices were asked to use i) the Keele STarT MSK development tool for risk-stratification and ii) matched treatment options for patients at low-, medium- and high-risk of persistent pain. This paper reports on a nested qualitative study exploring the feasibility of delivering stratified care ahead of the main trial.

METHODS

'Stimulated-recall' interviews were conducted with patients and GPs in the stratified care arm (n = 10 patients; 10 GPs), prompted by consultation recordings. Data were analysed thematically and mapped onto the COM-B behaviour change model; exploring the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation GPs and patients had to engage with stratified care.

RESULTS

Patients reported positive views that stratified care enabled a more 'structured' consultation, and felt tool items were useful in making GPs aware of patients' worries and concerns. However, the closed nature of the tool's items was seen as a barrier to opening up discussion. GPs identified difficulties integrating the tool within consultations (Opportunity), but found this easier as it became more familiar. Whilst both groups felt the tool had added value, they identified 'cumbersome' items which made it more difficult to use (Capability). Most GPs reported that the matched treatment options aided their clinical decision-making (Motivation), but identified some options that were not available to them (e.g. pain management clinics), and other options that were not included in the matched treatments but which were felt appropriate for some patients (e.g. consider imaging).

CONCLUSION

This nested qualitative study, using the COM-B model, identified amendments required for the main trial including changes to the Keele STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options, targeting the COM-B model constructs, and these have been implemented in the current main trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 15366334.