Change in psychosocial distress associated with pain and functional status outcomes in patients with lumbar impairments referred to physical therapy services

Understanding social determinants of health and physical therapy outcomes in patients with low back pain: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the number one cause of disability worldwide; however, it is not clear how social determinants of health (SDOH) impact care management and outcomes related to physical therapy (PT) services for patients with LBP.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this scoping review are to examine and assimilate the literature on how SDOH and PT care relate to non-specific LBP outcomes and identify gaps in the literature to target for future research.

METHODS

Data were extracted from eight electronic databases from January 2011 to February 2022. Reviewers independently screened all studies using the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. Data related to study design, type of PT, type of non-specific LBP, patient demographics, PT intervention, SDOH, and PT outcomes were extracted from the articles.

RESULTS

A total of 30,523 studies were screened, with 1961 articles undergoing full text review. Ultimately, 76 articles were identified for inclusion. Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined (88% and 78% respectively) followed by education level (18%). Approximately half of the studies that examined age, sex, and education level identified no effect on outcomes. The number of studies examining other factors was small and the types of outcomes evaluated were variable, which limited the ability to pool results.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined followed by education level. Other factors were evaluated less frequently, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Study design and heterogeneity of determinants and outcomes were barriers to examining the potential impact on patients with LBP.

Predictive performance of the STarT Back tool for poor outcomes in patients with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back Tool (SBT) is a brief multiple-construct risk prediction tool for patients with low back pain (LBP). Thus far, the predictive ability of this tool has been inconsistent. Therefore, we aim to conduct a literature review on the predictive ability of the SBT to determine the outcomes of patients with LBP. The results of this review should improve the ability of the SBT to predict poor outcomes in patients with LBP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Databases, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wanfang will be searched for studies on SBT and LBP from their inception until 31 March 2023. Longitudinal studies investigating the association between SBT subgroups and LBP outcomes, including pain, disability and quality of life, will be included. The identified studies will be independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. A standardised sheet will be used to extract data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by the χ2 test with Cochran's Q statistic and quantified by the I2 statistic. The results will be synthesised qualitatively and presented as pooled risk ratios or beta coefficients quantitatively. The results will also be presented using their 95% confidence limits. Publication bias will be assessed using the method proposed by Egger and by visual inspection of funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a secondary analysis of original studies that received ethics approval. Therefore, prior ethical approval is not required for this study. The findings will be submitted to relevant peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at profession-specific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022309189.

The association between self-efficacy on function and pain outcomes among patients with chronic low back pain managed using the McKenzie approach: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Self-efficacy is a determinant of function and pain outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain receiving physiotherapy. The McKenzie approach is an effective intervention for patients with back pain that may affect self-efficacy. Study aims were to determine if, among patients with back pain being managed by McKenzie-credentialed physiotherapists: intake self-efficacy is correlated with intake function and pain; intake self-efficacy is associated with changes in function and pain during treatment; self-efficacy improves during treatment; and improvements in self-efficacy during treatment are associated with improvements in function and pain at discharge.

METHODS

Two-hundred-eighty-two subjects with chronic low back pain seen by McKenzie-credentialed clinicians provided data on self-efficacy, function and pain at intake and discharge.

RESULTS

Self-efficacy was correlated with function and pain at intake; however, intake self-efficacy was not associated with function or pain outcomes. Self-efficacy increased during treatment. This increase was associated with improvements in function and pain at discharge.

CONCLUSION

While intake self-efficacy was associated with function and pain when initiating physiotherapy, it did not result in improved treatment outcomes. Specific interventions may be necessary to improve self-efficacy. The increases in self-efficacy observed during treatment were associated with improvements in function and pain outcomes at discharge.

Are within and/or between session improvements in pain and function prognostic of medium and long-term improvements in musculoskeletal problems? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Initial or between session improvements in pain and/or function are often considered to be predictive of ultimate outcomes in musculoskeletal problems.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term prognostic value of within and between session improvements to pain and function.

DESIGN

Systematic review of relevant literature.

METHOD

A search was made of multiple databases (Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane, Cinahl, and AMed) using relevant search terms. Titles, abstracts, and then full texts were filtered to find articles that met the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Searching, data extraction, and quality assessment, using GRADE, were done independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Only 13 articles met the criteria for inclusion. For the effect of pain location or pain intensity changes in the first treatment session on medium or long-term pain, disability, return-to-work, or global outcomes nine outcomes were available. Findings were mostly inconclusive (5) or negative (3). There was only one study evaluating between session improvements with ambiguous results. There were no studies evaluating the prognostic value of early improvements in function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence to support the concept that early changes in pain location or pain intensity offer a good longer-term prognosis on a variety of outcomes; and no evidence relating to early improvements in function. The idea that patients who appear to improve in the first treatment session will do well longer term is not supported by the literature.

The McKenzie Method and its association with psychosocial outcomes in low back pain: a systematic review

Study Design: Systematic Literature Review.Background: The McKenzie Method (MDT) is a comprehensive conservative approach commonly used for the management of low back pain (LBP); however, its association with psychosocial outcomes in this population is less clear.Objectives: Evaluate whether MDT has an association with psychosocial outcomes for individuals with LBP.Methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase and AMED. They were systematically searched from the date of inception to August 2019. Included studies had to have participants experiencing LBP who were over 18 years old, utilize MDT as an assessment or intervention, and report outcomes for at least one psychosocial variable. Three reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality of randomized control trials (RCT) using the PEDro scale and observational studies using the GRACE scale.Results: The initial search resulted in 181 articles to review. After screening abstracts, then full articles, a total of 16 studies were included, 5 of which were RCTs rated 5-8/10 on the PEDro scale. A qualitative review was performed and the studies' results were synthesized into five main findings: fear-avoidance beliefs, depression symptoms, pain self-efficacy, psychological distress, and return to work (RTW).Conclusions: There is evidence that MDT has an association with improving fear-avoidance beliefs, pain self-efficacy, depression, and psychological distress. These results should be interpreted with caution as further high-quality randomized control trials addressing this topic are necessary due to the varying methodological and statistical constructs of the included studies.

Cognitive behavioural interventions, and function and pain outcomes among patients with chronic neck pain managed with the McKenzie approach

OBJECTIVES

Graded activity and graded exposure in vivo are recommended cognitive behavioural approaches to improve function and pain outcomes for patients receiving physiotherapy for chronic nonspecific neck pain. The McKenzie method is a common treatment approach for patients with neck pain. The study objectives were to examine associations between interventions with graded activity and/or graded exposure, as determined by the treating physiotherapist, and function and pain outcomes for patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain managed by clinicians with credentials in the McKenzie approach.

METHOD

A cohort study was carried out, in which subjects (n = 366) with chronic nonspecific neck pain completed intake surveys (i.e., the Neck Functional Status Computerized Adaptive Test and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and questions related to their demographic, lifestyle and health status. Treatment with graded activity/graded exposure during the episode of care was recorded. Function and pain measures were repeated at discharge. Multivariable models examining associations between patients receiving versus not receiving graded activity/graded exposure, and pain and function outcomes were constructed, controlling for potential confounding effects.

RESULTS

Despite statistical significance, there were no clinically relevant differences between treatment versus no treatment with graded activity/graded exposure, and function or pain outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that patients being managed with McKenzie methods will attain clinically relevant improvements in function or pain outcomes when augmenting treatment with graded activity and/or graded exposure when the choice to intervene with these cognitive behavioural approaches is determined by the treating physiotherapist.

Directional preference, cognitive behavioural interventions, and outcomes among patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Graded activity and graded exposure are recommended cognitive behavioural approaches to improve function and pain outcomes for patients receiving physiotherapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Directional preference identified following the McKenzie method is also associated with favourable patient outcomes. Study objectives were to examine associations between graded activity and/or graded exposure, and directional preference or no directional preference combined with or without graded activity/graded exposure subgroups, and function and pain outcomes among patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain managed by clinicians credentialed in the McKenzie approach.

METHOD

Cohort study: Subjects (n = 801) with chronic nonspecific low back pain completed intake surveys, that is, the Lumbar Computer Adaptive Test measuring function and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale measuring pain, and questions addressing their demographic, lifestyle, and health status. Directional preference was determined at intake. Treatment with graded activity/graded exposure during the episode of care was recorded. Function and pain measures were repeated at discharge. Two models were developed controlling for potential confounding effects. The first model examined associations between patients receiving versus not receiving graded activity/graded exposure. The second model examined interaction effects between four combinations of directional preference and graded activity/graded exposure. Outcome measures were changes in function and pain during rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Regarding the first objective, there were no clinically relevant differences between treatment versus no treatment with graded activity/graded exposure, and functional outcomes. Regarding the second objective, patients in the no-directional preference group were more likely to see benefits from the addition of graded activity/graded exposure to their treatment groups than those with a directional preference.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians using McKenzie methods might attain improved patient functional outcomes when augmenting treatment with graded activity and/or graded exposure among patients who do not demonstrate directional preference.

An international survey of the comprehensiveness of the McKenzie classification system and the proportions of classifications and directional preferences in patients with spinal pain

BACKGROUND

Classification of spinal pain has been a key goal identified in the research. However it is not clear if existing classification systems are comprehensive.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comprehensiveness and distribution of classifications within the McKenzie classification system (MDT), and the directional preference in consecutive patients with spine pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

METHODS

Clinicians with a Diploma in MDT provided data on patients that they had assessed, classified, managed, and then confirmed their classification at discharge. They provided data on the spinal area, the MDT classification, and the loading strategy used in management.

RESULTS

Fifty-four clinicians from at least 15 different countries provided data on 750 patients: lumbar 64.8%, cervical 29.6%, thoracic 5.6%. The distribution of classifications was as follows: Derangement 75.4%, OTHER 22.8%, Dysfunction 1.7%, Postural syndrome 0.1%. In Derangements 82.5% had a directional preference for extension, 12.9% for lateral forces, and 4.6% for flexion. Those patients classified as one of the OTHER subgroups were given specific classifications.

CONCLUSION

Derangement was the most common classification and extension was by far the most common directional preference. A substantial proportion were classified as OTHER subgroups, for whom management is less straightforward.

Centralization and directional preference: An updated systematic review with synthesis of previous evidence

BACKGROUND

Centralization and directional preference are common management and prognostic factors in spinal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To update the previous systematic review.

DESIGN

Systematic review to synthesis multiple aspects of centralization and directional preference.

METHOD

Contemporary search was made of multiple databases using relevant search terms. Abstracts and titles were filtered by two authors; relevant articles were independently reviewed by two authors for content, data extraction, and quality.

RESULTS

Forty-three additional relevant articles were found. The quality of the studies, using PEDro for randomized controlled trials, was moderate or high in six out of ten RCTs; moderate or high in six out of 12 cohort studies. Prevalence of centralization was 40%, the same as the previous review. Directional preference without Centralization was 26%; thus Centralization and directional preference combined was 66%, which was very similar to the previous review. Neither clinical response was recorded in about a third of patients. Centralization and directional preference were confirmed as key positive prognostic factors, certainly in patients with low back pain, but limited evidence for patients with neck pain. There was no evidence that these might be important treatment effect modifiers. One study evaluated reliability, and found generally poor levels, despite training.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralization and directional preference are worthwhile indicators of prognosis, and should be routinely examined for even in patients with chronic low back pain. But they do not occur in all patients with spinal problems, and there was no evidence that they were treatment effect modifiers.

McKenzie mechanical syndromes coincide with biopsychosocial influences, including central sensitization: a descriptive study of individuals with chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

Mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) aims to assess and classify patients into theoretically mutually exclusive subgroups, in order to direct treatment. However, the latest evidence for biopsychosocial influence-central sensitization (CS) and psychological distress-have not been assessed in conjunction with MDT.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Determine the percentage of patients categorized into the MDT subgroups; (2) characterize the biopsychosocial clinical profile (presence of CS and psychological distress); and (3) identify associations between pain, disability, and biopsychosocial influences among this cohort.

METHODS

Eighty four patients with chronic neck pain were recruited by 10 certified MDT therapists using a convenience (consecutive) sampling method. Patients were evaluated using MDT principles and also completed an online survey to measure CS (using the Central Sensitization Inventory [CSI]), pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia.

RESULTS

The proportions of the subgroups derangement (DER), dysfunction, postural and 'other' were 74.4, 2.4, 1.2, 20.7%, respectively. CS was observed in 62% of our sample (CSI score ≥ 40). CS was also observed in 64.7% of patients of the DER subgroup. Almost half of our sample (47.8%) demonstrated the co-occurrence of CS and DER, while 38% presented with DER syndrome, CS, and kinesiophobia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of our patients were classified as DER; they also presented with high levels of CS and/or psychological distress. This suggests that MDT mechanical subgroups, particularly DER, can present with co-occurring biopsychosocial influences. Without assessing CS and psychological distress, MDT therapists may miss crucial information. Further research is required to determine the optimal management of patients presenting with mechanical and non-mechanical drivers of pain.

Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Results From the Validation Cohort

Study Design Observational, prospective cohort. Background Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason to seek health care, and earlier nonpharmacological treatment and enhancement of personalized care options are 2 high-priority areas. Validating concise assessment tools is an important step toward establishing better care pathways. Objectives To determine the predictive validity of Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) tools for individuals with neck, low back, shoulder, or knee pain. Methods A convenience sample (n = 440) was gathered by Orthopaedic Physical Therapy-Investigator Network clinics (n = 9). Participants completed demographic, clinical, and comorbidity questionnaires and the OSPRO tools, and were followed for 12-month outcomes in pain intensity, region-specific disability, quality of life, and comorbidity change. Analyses predicted these 12-month outcomes with models that included the OSPRO review-of-systems (OSPRO-ROS) and yellow flag (OSPRO-YF) tools and planned covariates (accounting for comorbidities and established demographic and clinical factors). Results The 10-item OSPRO-YF tool (baseline and 4-week change score) consistently added to predictive models for 12-month pain intensity, region-specific disability, and quality of life. The 10-item OSPRO-ROS tool added to a predictive model for quality of life (mental summary score), and 13 additional items of the OSPRO-ROS+ tool added to prediction of 12-month comorbidity change. Other consistent predictors included age, race, income, previous episode of pain in same region, comorbidity number, and baseline measure for the outcome of interest. Conclusion The OSPRO-ROS and OSPRO-YF tools statistically improved prediction of multiple 12-month outcomes. The additional variance explained was small, and future research is necessary to determine whether these tools can be used as measurement adjuncts to improve management of musculoskeletal pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):460-475. Epub 7 Apr 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7811.

February 2017 Letter to the Editor-in-Chief

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: "Regarding the Complexity of Low Back Pain" with Authors' Response J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(2):126-129. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0201.

Effect of Adding McKenzie Syndrome, Centralization, Directional Preference, and Psychosocial Classification Variables to a Risk-Adjusted Model Predicting Functional Status Outcomes for Patients With Lumbar Impairments

Study Design Retrospective cohort. Background Patient-classification subgroupings may be important prognostic factors explaining outcomes. Objectives To determine effects of adding classification variables (McKenzie syndrome and pain patterns, including centralization and directional preference; Symptom Checklist Back Pain Prediction Model [SCL BPPM]; and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire subscales of work and physical activity) to a baseline risk-adjusted model predicting functional status (FS) outcomes. Methods Consecutive patients completed a battery of questionnaires that gathered information on 11 risk-adjustment variables. Physical therapists trained in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy methods classified each patient by McKenzie syndromes and pain pattern. Functional status was assessed at discharge by patient-reported outcomes. Only patients with complete data were included. Risk of selection bias was assessed. Prediction of discharge FS was assessed using linear stepwise regression models, allowing 13 variables to enter the model. Significant variables were retained in subsequent models. Model power (R(2)) and beta coefficients for model variables were estimated. Results Two thousand sixty-six patients with lumbar impairments were evaluated. Of those, 994 (48%), 10 (<1%), and 601 (29%) were excluded due to incomplete psychosocial data, McKenzie classification data, and missing FS at discharge, respectively. The final sample for analyses was 723 (35%). Overall R(2) for the baseline prediction FS model was 0.40. Adding classification variables to the baseline model did not result in significant increases in R(2). McKenzie syndrome or pain pattern explained 2.8% and 3.0% of the variance, respectively. When pain pattern and SCL BPPM were added simultaneously, overall model R(2) increased to 0.44. Although none of these increases in R(2) were significant, some classification variables were stronger predictors compared with some other variables included in the baseline model. Conclusion The small added prognostic capabilities identified when combining McKenzie or pain-pattern classifications with the SCL BPPM classification did not significantly improve prediction of FS outcomes in this study. Additional research is warranted to investigate the importance of classification variables compared with those used in the baseline model to maximize predictive power. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(9):726-741. Epub 31 Jul 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6266.

Physical therapists' level of McKenzie education, functional outcomes, and utilization in patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal, prospective, observational cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between McKenzie training, functional status (FS) at discharge, and number of physical therapy visits (utilization) in patients receiving physical therapy for low back pain.

BACKGROUND

The McKenzie method is commonly used in treating patients with low back pain.

METHODS

A McKenzie postgraduate educational program was initiated in a large outpatient physical therapy service. Functional status data were collected at intake and at discharge. Separate hierarchical linear mixed models were used to examine associations between physical therapists' McKenzie training level (none; Parts A, B, C, and D; and credentialed), FS score at discharge, and utilization, controlling for patient risk factors.

RESULTS

The final data set included 20 882 patients (mean ± SD age, 51 ± 16 years; 57% women) who completed FS surveys at both admission and discharge. Patients treated by physical therapists with any McKenzie training had better outcomes (additional 0.7 to 1.3 FS points; P<.05 to <.001) and fewer visits (0.6 to 0.9, P<.001) compared to patients treated by physical therapists with no training. For patients treated by therapists with no versus some McKenzie education, 65% versus 70% achieved at least the minimal clinically important improvement, respectively. There were no significant differences in outcomes or utilization by level of McKenzie training.

CONCLUSION

There was a slightly greater improvement of 0.7 to 1.3 points in FS at discharge in patients receiving physical therapy for low back pain by physical therapists who underwent McKenzie training. This difference was clinically important for an additional 5% of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important improvement when treated by therapists with some McKenzie training. Reduction in physical therapy utilization was 0.6 to 0.9 visits, with the fewest visits utilized by patients of physical therapists at the McKenzie Part D and credentialed levels. Together, these findings suggest improved cost-effectiveness at advanced McKenzie training levels. Ways to improve ongoing education and patient outcomes were proposed.

The STarT Back Screening Tool for prediction of 6-month clinical outcomes: relevance of change patterns in outpatient physical therapy settings

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES

To describe changes in STarT Back Tool (SBT) categorization following 4 weeks of outpatient physical therapy and to evaluate predictive capabilities of SBT categorization when administered at multiple time points.

BACKGROUND

Initial assessment information is commonly used to predict long-term outcomes but does not account for changes that occur following initiation of treatment. Changes in SBT categorization during the course of treatment have potential to provide additional prognostic information that could positively impact management of low back pain.

METHODS

Patients (n = 123) receiving nonstandardized physical therapy care for low back pain were administered the SBT at intake and 4 weeks later to evaluate SBT changes, which were described as improved (SBT categorization changed from medium to low, high to low, or high to medium risk), stable (SBT categorization remained low or medium risk), or worsened (SBT categorization changed from low to medium, low to high, medium to high, or remained high risk). Clinical outcomes consisted of pain intensity and self-reported disability. Relative contributions of SBT categorization (at intake and 4 weeks) and SBT change patterns as predictors of 6-month clinical outcomes were assessed using separate multiple-regression models, while controlling for other prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Most patients (81.8%) initially categorized as SBT high risk were categorized differently by the SBT at 4 weeks. Eleven percent of patients were described as worsened, based on SBT-category change patterns at 4 weeks. Prediction of 6-month disability scores was improved when considering intake, 4-week, or 4-week change for SBT categorization, with SBT high risk consistently providing unique contributions.

CONCLUSION

Repeated SBT assessment during the episode of physical therapy has potential to provide additional information for prediction of disability at 6 months. Future studies should investigate optimal management strategies for patients who have worsened SBT risk following physical therapy intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 2b.

Assessing the influence of treating therapist and patient prognostic factors on recovery from axial pain

BACKGROUND

Limited research exists regarding the influence of a treating physical therapist on patient recovery (deemed therapist effects). Recent randomized clinical trials data provide an indication of small therapist effects for manual therapy; however, the extent to which therapist effects exist in the average outpatient facility is not clear. Moreover, patient-related prognostic factors, like fear-avoidance or pain duration, are important to consider since these may also influence the extent of therapist effects.

OBJECTIVE

To assess therapist effects and the influence of patient prognostic factors on recovery from axial pain in an outpatient orthopedic physical therapy facility.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected from consecutive patients with musculoskeletal neck and low back pain. Patient outcomes included pain intensity (visual analog scale) and functional measure (CareConnections functional outcomes index) scores. Therapist effects estimates and the influence of intake fear-avoidance (fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire) and pain duration (days) were examined using multilevel linear or regression modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients (160 females; mean age 46.4±14.9 years) completed physical therapy and the required outcome measures. Five physical therapists (1-13 years of experience, mean 5.8 years) provided treatment. Therapists effects did not exist for discharge pain intensity or function after accounting for intake scores (P > 0.05). Further, therapist experience did not influence patient outcomes. Patient prognostic factors of fear-avoidance and pain duration did not influence therapists effects on the same patient outcome measures (P > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Preliminary findings suggest that there are no major differences in patient outcome based on either the individual therapist (therapist effect) or therapist experience in this type of PT setting. Established prognostic factors had no influence on therapist effects for this cohort. Future analyses should consider intrinsic therapist factors (beliefs, equipoise), specific treatment parameters (dosage, type), and other patient prognostic factors (psychological, age, expectation, satisfaction) to further elucidate the influence of therapist effects.

The STarT back screening tool and individual psychological measures: evaluation of prognostic capabilities for low back pain clinical outcomes in outpatient physical therapy settings

BACKGROUND

Psychologically informed practice emphasizes routine identification of modifiable psychological risk factors being highlighted.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test the predictive validity of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) in comparison with single-construct psychological measures for 6-month clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

This was an observational, prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Patients (n=146) receiving physical therapy for low back pain were administered the SBT and a battery of psychological measures (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity scale and work scale [FABQ-PA and FABQ-W, respectively], Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS], 11-item version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK-11], and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) at initial evaluation and 4 weeks later. Treatment was at the physical therapist's discretion. Clinical outcomes consisted of pain intensity and self-reported disability. Prediction of 6-month clinical outcomes was assessed for intake SBT and psychological measure scores using multiple regression models while controlling for other prognostic variables. In addition, the predictive capabilities of intake to 4-week changes in SBT and psychological measure scores for 6-month clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Intake pain intensity scores (β=.39 to .45) and disability scores (β=.47 to .60) were the strongest predictors in all final regression models, explaining 22% and 24% and 43% and 48% of the variance for the respective clinical outcome at 6 months. Neither SBT nor psychological measure scores improved prediction of 6-month pain intensity. The SBT overall scores (β=.22) and SBT psychosocial scores (β=.25) added to the prediction of disability at 6 months. Four-week changes in TSK-11 scores (β=-.18) were predictive of pain intensity at 6 months. Four-week changes in FABQ-PA scores (β=-.21), TSK-11 scores (β=-.20) and SBT overall scores (β=-.18) were predictive of disability at 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

Physical therapy treatment was not standardized or accounted for in the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prediction of clinical outcomes by psychology-based measures was dependent upon the clinical outcome domain of interest. Similar to studies from the primary care setting, initial screening with the SBT provided additional prognostic information for 6-month disability and changes in SBT overall scores may provide important clinical decision-making information for treatment monitoring.

Recovery from depressive symptoms over the course of physical therapy: a prospective cohort study of individuals with work-related orthopaedic injuries and symptoms of depression

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine the trajectory of depressive symptoms over the course of physical therapy, (2) to identify variables that best predict the resolution of depressive symptoms, and (3) to explore the relationship between recovery from depressive symptoms and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Twenty-five percent to 50% of patients referred to physical therapy for orthopaedic injuries suffer from symptoms of depression. Depressive symptoms have been identified as an influential risk factor for problematic response to physical therapy. Despite these findings, there is a dearth of research specifically exploring the trajectory and determinants of patients' depressive symptoms over the course of physical therapy, which has impeded the evidence-based management of patients with depressive symptoms.

METHODS

One hundred six patients with work-related musculoskeletal injuries and symptoms of depression received 7 weeks of physical therapy and were followed 1 year after treatment onset. Pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and other psychosocial factors were evaluated throughout treatment, and data were collected at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Depressive symptoms resolved in 40% of patients, and resolution was linked to pain and disability at 1-year follow-up. Persistence of depressive symptoms at treatment completion was predicted by elevated levels of depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing at pretreatment, and by lack of improvement in levels of depressive symptoms and pain self-efficacy at midtreatment.

CONCLUSION

For many patients, depressive symptoms resolve over the course of physical therapy, and resolution is associated with long-term improvements in pain and disability. These findings will help identify patients whose depressive symptoms are least likely to respond to physical therapy and may therefore warrant additional treatment.