Measuring biopsychosocial risk for back pain disability in chiropractic patients using the STarT back screening tool: a cross-sectional survey

Fear-Avoidance Beliefs, Kinesiophobia, and Disability Risk Among Indians with Spine Pain

PURPOSE

To determine the burden of fear-avoidance beliefs (FAB), kinesiophobia, and risk of persistent disability among Indians with spine pain.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical data collected from 139 patients who attended a spine rehabilitation clinic for assessment and treatment of their spine pain were analyzed. Fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, and risk of persistent disability were measured using the Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the STarT Back Tool (SBT). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the effect of pain, disability, age, gender, BMI, lifestyle, pain duration, and pain location on FAB, TSK, and SBT scores.

RESULTS

A majority of patients had medium to high-risk FAB-physical activities (FAB-P) (50.5%) and SBT (54%) scores. The percentage of patients with medium or high-risk FAB-P (p = 0.03), FAB-work (FAB-W) (p = 0.03), and SBT (p = 0.03) scores were significantly higher in patients with pain score > 7, and the percentage of patients with medium or high-risk with FAB-P (p < 0.0001), TSK (p = 0.0003), and SBT (p < 0.0001) scores were significantly higher in patients with severe, crippled or bed-ridden disability. Disability was the only significant predictor for FAB-W, FAB-P, and SBT scores.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of fear-avoidance beliefs and risk of persistent disability was significant among Indians and should be taken into account while planning treatment for their spine pain.

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.

Osteopathic Models Integration Radar Plot: A Proposed Framework for Osteopathic Diagnostic Clinical Reasoning

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to propose a tool to assist with clinical reasoning to select and integrate different osteopathic models and evidence-based actions into clinical practice.

DISCUSSION

The authors adopted the guidelines for writing a commentary as a reporting framework for the present article. The proposed Osteopathic Models Integration Radar Plot has potential for integration into clinical practice and the educational environment. This framework may enable clinicians to manage complex clinical phenomena, such as musculoskeletal disorders related to allostatic load.

CONCLUSION

This proposed framework may be helpful to communicate the outcome of osteopathic evaluations to other healthcare professionals. This proposed model will need to be tested to determine feasibility.

Effectiveness of stratified treatment for back pain in Danish primary care: A randomized controlled trial

Background

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of stratified care demonstrated superior clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness for low back pain (LBP) patients in UK primary care. This is the first study in Europe, outside of the original UK study, to investigate the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of stratified care compared with current practice for patients with non‐specific LBP.

Methods

The study was a two‐armed RCT. Danish primary care patients with LBP were randomized to stratified care (n = 169) or current practice (n = 164). Primary outcomes at 3‐ and 12‐months' follow‐up were Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDMQ), patient‐reported global change and time off work. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, patient satisfaction, healthcare resource utilization and quality‐adjusted life years.

Results

Intention‐to‐treat analyses found no between‐group difference in RMDQ scores at 3 months (0.5, 95% CI −1.8 to 0.9) or 12 months (0.4, −2.1 to 1.3). No overall differences were found between the arms at 3 and 12 months with respect to time off work or secondary outcomes. Stratified care intervention resulted in significantly fewer treatment sessions (3.5 [SD 3.1] vs. 4.5 [3.5]) and significantly lower total healthcare costs (€) (13.4 [529] vs. 228 [830], p = .002). There was no difference in cost‐effectiveness (0.09, 0.05 to 0.13 vs. 0.10, 0.07–0.14, p = .70).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients with non‐specific LBP receiving stratified care and those receiving current practice. However, stratified care may reduce total healthcare costs if implemented in Danish primary care.

Significance

Stratified care for low back pain based on risk profile is recommended by recent evidence based clinical guidelines. This study is the first broad replication of the STarT Back Trial in Europe. Therefore, the study adds to the body of knowledge evaluating the effectiveness of stratified care for low back pain in primary care, and provides insight into the effects of stratification on clinical practice.

Suicide prevention, public health, and the chiropractic profession: a call to action

BACKGROUND

Suicide is a major public health concern that has wide-reaching implications on individuals, families, and society. Efforts to respond to a public health concern as a portal-of-entry provider can reduce morbidity and mortality of patients. The objective of this commentary is a call to action to initiate dialogue regarding suicide prevention and the role the chiropractic profession may play.

DISCUSSION

This public health burden requires doctors of chiropractic to realize current strengths and recognize contemporaneous deficiencies in clinical, research, and policy environments. With this better understanding, only then can the chiropractic profession strive to enhance knowledge and promote clinical acumen to target and mitigate suicide risk to better serve the public.

CONCLUSION

We implore the profession to transition from bystander to actively engaged in the culture of suicide prevention beholden to all aspects of the biopsychosocial healthcare model. The chiropractic profession's participation in suicide prevention improves the health and wellness of one's community while also impacting the broader public health arena.