Emergency Department Discharge Teaching Interventions: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Emergency department discharge education is intended to provide patients with information to self-manage their condition or injury, identify potential complications, and follow-up or referral. However, most patients cannot recall the discharge information provided, leading to adverse clinical outcomes, return visits, and higher costs. A scoping review was undertaken to explore discharge education interventions that have been studied in the emergency department setting and outcomes that have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the databases PubMed/Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Education Resources Information Center, with search terms focused on emergency nursing and patient discharge education interventions.

RESULTS

Of the publications identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was variation among studies on the conditions/injuries and populations of focus for the intervention. The interventions were categorized by learning styles, including auditory (n=10), kinesthetic (n=1), visual (n=15), reading/writing (n=1), and multimodal (n=7). Outcomes evaluated included those that were patient-specific (education, self-management, clinical, and adherence) and metrics of the health system and public health.

DISCUSSION

Multimodal discharge education that addresses various learning styles and levels of health literacy improved patient education, self-management, and clinical outcomes. Additional support and reminders improved patient adherence. Identified gaps included limited kinesthetic interventions and culturally tailored education. Translational science for advancing sustainable interventions in clinical practice is needed to enhance the emergency department discharge process and patient, system, and public health outcomes.

Psychological Constructs From the Fear Avoidance Model and Beyond as Predictors for Persisting Symptoms After Concussion: An Integrative Review

OBJECTIVES

To identify the range of evidence for relationships between psychological factors using the Fear Avoidance Model (FAM) as a guiding framework and relevant clinical outcomes in adult patients with persisting symptoms after concussion (PSaC), develop a comprehensive understanding of psychological factors that have been identified as predictors of clinical outcomes for PSaC, and contribute to the theoretical framework of the FAM for PSaC.

DATA SOURCES

Six databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, SportDiscus, and Web of Science) were searched by a librarian for empirical and theoretical publications and experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. The literature search was not limited by publication date restrictions. Gray literature, with the exception of doctoral dissertations, was excluded.

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies in the English language consisting of human participants aged ≥18 years. Articles must have included both outcomes pertaining to PSaC (≥3mo after injury) and psychological constructs.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data from the resulting studies using a standardized data extraction form designed for this review. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This review found numerous psychological constructs, some directly linked to the FAM, that have potential prognostic relationships with PSaC. However, research remains limited and some psychological factors central to FAM were only identified in a small number of studies (catastrophizing, cogniphobia, and avoidance), whereas other psychological factors were studied more extensively (anxiety and depression).

CONCLUSIONS

There is the need for additional evidence, and this integrative review provides an adaptation of the FAM for PSaC to be used as a guiding preliminary framework for future research. Future research should aim to include psychological factors proposed in this modified FAM to fully understand PSaC.

Validation of the Keele STarT MSK Tool for Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain in United States-based Outpatient Physical Therapy Settings

The STarT MSK tool was developed to enable risk stratification of patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain conditions and help identify individuals who may require more targeted interventions or closer monitoring in primary care settings, however, its validity in U.S.-based outpatient physical therapy settings has not been investigated. The 10-item Keele STarT MSK risk stratification tool was tested for construct (convergent and discriminant) and predictive validity using a multicenter, prospective cohort study design. Participants (n = 141) receiving physical therapy for MSK pain of the back, neck, shoulder, hip, knee, or multisite regions completed intake questionnaires including the Keele STarT MSK tool, Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI), Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review-of-Systems and Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag tools. Pain intensity, pain interference, and health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 8-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-8) physical [PCS] and mental [MCS] component summary scores) were measured at 2- and 6-month follow-up. Participants were classified as STarT MSK tool low (44%), medium (39%), and high (17%) risk. Follow-up rates were 70.2% (2 months) and 49.6% (6 months). For convergent validity, fair relationships were observed between the STarT MSK tool and FCI and SF-8 MCS (r = .35-.37) while moderate-to-good relationships (r = .51-.72) were observed for 7 other clinical measures. For discriminant validity, STarT MSK tool risk-dependent relationships were observed for Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review-of-Systems, Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag, pain interference, and SF-8 PCS (low < medium < high; P < .01) and FCI, pain intensity, and SF-8 MCS (low  Collapse

Key Words

• Risk stratification
• musculoskeletal pain
• physical therapy
• prognosis
• screening

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Virtual Rehabilitation and COVID-19: Varied Adoption and Satisfaction Among Patients and Providers Participating in a Multi-Site Survey Study

The COVID-19 pandemic compelled rapid healthcare adaptations including increased use of telehealth (TH) and virtual care (VC) to provide rehabilitation services. This multi-site cross-sectional survey study examined rehabilitation patients' and providers' experiences with service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of TH/VC. Patients and providers who received or provided rehabilitation services were recruited from 1 of 3 large, post-acute rehabilitation systems located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants rated personal satisfaction with rehabilitation services received or rendered during the pandemic and willingness to use TH/VC in the future. Questions also addressed accessibility, ease of use, and perceived barriers to TH/VC use. The adoption and personal satisfaction of TH/VC for rehabilitation care varied between patients and providers. Patients reported higher levels of satisfaction compared to providers (P < .001). Patients who did not use TH/VC had higher satisfaction than those who did (P < .05). Patients were less willing than providers to use TH/VC (P < .001). Those who used TH/VC prior to the pandemic were more willing to use post-pandemic (P < .001). Patients reported TH/VC was useful in increasing health services accessibility yet were neutral as to the ability of TH/VC to improve outcomes. Patients and providers agreed that TH/VC was easy to learn and use. Medical providers found TH/VC more useful than therapy providers. Participants who used TH/VC during the pandemic are more willing to use the service again in the future. Understanding patient and provider preferences and perspectives is key to the continued use of TH/VC in rehabilitation care.

Effect of Risk-Stratified Care on Disability Among Adults With Low Back Pain Treated in the Military Health System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Tailored treatments for low back pain (LBP) based on stratifying risk for poor prognosis have emerged as a promising approach to improve quality of care, but they have not been validated in trials at the level of individual randomization in US health systems.

Objective

To assess the clinical effectiveness of risk-stratified vs usual care on disability at 1 year among patients with LBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel-group randomized clinical trial enrolled adults (ages 18-50 years) seeking care for LBP with any duration in primary care clinics within the Military Health System from April 2017 to February 2020. Data analysis was conducted from January to December 2022.

Interventions

Risk-stratified care, in which participants received physiotherapy treatment tailored for their risk category (low, medium, or high), or usual care, in which care was determined by participants' general practitioners and may have included a referral to physiotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 1 year, with planned secondary outcomes of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) and Physical Function (PF) scores. Raw downstream health care utilization was also reported within each group.

Results

Analysis included 270 participants (99 [34.1%] female participants; mean [SD] age, 34.1 [8.5] years). Only 21 patients (7.2%) were classified as high risk. Neither group was superior on the RMDQ (least squares [LS] mean ratio of risk-stratified vs usual care: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26), the PROMIS PI (LS mean difference, -0.75 points; 95% CI -2.61 to 1.11 points), or the PROMIS PF (LS mean difference, 0.05 points; 95% CI, -1.66 to 1.76 points).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, using risk stratification to categorize and provide tailored treatment for patients with LBP did not result in better outcomes at 1 year compared with usual care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03127826.

The Psychologically Informed Practice Consultation Roadmap: A Clinical Implementation Strategy

Psychologically informed practice (PiP) includes a special focus on psychosocial obstacles to recovery, but research trials have revealed significant difficulties in implementing PiP outside of research environments. Qualitative studies have identified problems of both competence and confidence in tackling the psychosocial aspects of care, with a tendency to prefer dealing with the more mechanical aspects of care. In PiP, the distinction between assessment and management is not clear-cut. Analysis of the problem is part of the intervention, and guided self-management begins with the initial detective work by the patient, who is encouraged to develop successful and relevant behavior change. This requires a different style and focus of communication that some clinicians find difficult to enact. In this Perspective, the PiP Consultation Roadmap is offered as a guide for clinical implementation to establish a therapeutic relationship, develop patient-centered communication, and guide effective pain self-management. These strategies are illustrated through the metaphor of the patient learning to drive, with the therapist as a driving instructor and the patient as a student driver. For convenience, the Roadmap is depicted in 7 stages. Each stage represents aspects of the clinical consultation in a recommended order, although the Roadmap should be viewed as a general guide with a degree of flexibility to accommodate individual differences and optimize PiP interventions. It is anticipated that the experienced PiP clinician will find it progressively easier to implement the Roadmap as the building blocks and style of consultation become more familiar.

Psychologically Informed Practice: The Importance of Communication in Clinical Implementation

There has been increasing interest in the secondary prevention of chronic pain and pain-associated disability over the past 3 decades. In 2011, psychologically informed practice (PiP) was suggested as a framework for managing persistent and recurrent pain, and, since then, it has underpinned the development of stratified care linking risk identification (screening). Although PiP research trials have demonstrated clinical and economic advantage over usual care, pragmatic studies have been less successful, and qualitative studies have identified implementation difficulties in both system delivery and individual clinical management. Effort has been put into the development of screening tools, the development of training, and the assessment of outcomes; however, the nature of the consultation has remained relatively unexplored. In this Perspective, a review of the nature of clinical consultations and the clinician-patient relationship is followed by reflections on the nature of communication and the outcome of training courses. Consideration is given to the optimization of communication, including the use of standardized patient-reported measures and the role of the therapist in facilitating adaptive behavior change. Several challenges in implementing a PiP approach in day-to-day practice are then considered. Following brief consideration of the impact of recent developments in health care, the Perspective concludes with a brief introduction to the PiP Consultation Roadmap (the subject of a companion paper), the use of which is suggested as a way of structuring the consultation with the flexibility required for a patient-centered approach to guided self-management of chronic pain conditions.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP).

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP.

RESULTS

We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02647658.

Expectations affect pain sensitivity changes during massage

BACKGROUND

Pain-inducing massage produces comparable changes in pain sensitivity as a cold pressor task, suggesting shared neurophysiological mechanisms of conditioned pain modulation. Manual therapy and conditioned pain modulation are influenced by positive and negative expectations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of positive and negative expectations on pain-free and pain-inducing massage.

METHODS

56 healthy participants were randomly assigned to receive a positive or negative expectation instructional set followed by a pain-inducing or a pain-free massage. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was measured followed by each interval of massage. A repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for post-randomization differences in sex tested for massage x expectation set x PPT interaction effects, as well as two-way interaction effects.

RESULTS

A significant three-way interaction effect (p = 0.04) and time x expectation interaction effect was observed for individuals receiving pain inducing massage (p = 0.02). Individuals who received the positive expectation instructional set demonstrated significantly higher PPT at minutes 3 and 4 of massage compared to individuals who received the negative expectation instructional set.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations impact pain sensitivity changes produced during massage. Clinicians planning to provide pain-inducing massage should consider the role of expectations in modulating pain sensitivity changes.

Pain phenotyping and investigation of outcomes in physical therapy: An exploratory study in patients with low back pain

Phenotypes have been proposed as a method of characterizing subgroups based on biopsychosocial factors to identify responders to analgesic treatments. This study aimed to, first, confirm phenotypes in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy based on an a priori set of factors used to derive subgroups in other pain populations. Second, an exploratory analysis examined if phenotypes differentiated pain and disability outcomes at four weeks of physical therapy. Fifty-five participants completed psychological questionnaires and pressure pain threshold (PPT). Somatization, anxiety, and depression domains of the Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised, and PPT, were entered into a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis with Ward's method to identify phenotypes. Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed pain ratings and disability by phenotype at four weeks. Three clusters emerged: 1) high emotional distress and pain sensitivity (n = 10), 2) low emotional distress (n = 34), 3) low pain sensitivity (n = 11). As an exploratory study, clusters did not differentiate pain ratings or disability after four weeks of physical therapy (p's>0.05). However, trends were observed as magnitude of change for pain varied by phenotype. This supports the characterization of homogenous subgroups based on a protocol conducted in the clinical setting with varying effect sizes noted by phenotype for short-term changes in pain. As an exploratory study, future studies should aim to repeat this trial in a larger sample of patients.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Receiving Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain with a Nociplastic Pain Presentation: A Secondary Analysis

Introduction

Individuals with low back pain (LBP) may be classified based on mechanistic descriptors, such as a nociplastic pain presentation (NPP). The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the frequency and characteristics of patients with a NPP referred to physical therapy with LBP. Additionally, we characterized patients with LBP meeting the criteria for NPP by demographic, clinical, psychological, and pain sensitivity variables. Finally, we examined short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with a NPP compared to those without a NPP.

Materials and Methods

Patients referred to physical therapy for LBP completed the Patient Self-report Survey for the Assessment of Fibromyalgia. Participants were categorized as "LBP with NPP" or "LBP without NPP" based on the threshold established in this measure. A rank sum test examined for differences in pain-related psychological factors and pressure-pain threshold between groups. Next, a Friedman test examined if LBP intensity and disability trajectories differed by groups at one and six months after initiation of physical therapy.

Results

22.2% of patients referred to physical therapy for LBP met the criteria for a NPP. Patients with a NPP reported significantly greater disability, pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and somatization compared to individuals without a NPP (p < 0.05). Pressure-pain threshold did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Individuals with LBP with a NPP demonstrated nonsignificant, small to medium reductions in pain and disability at one and six months. Individuals experiencing LBP without a NPP demonstrated significant reductions in pain and disability in the short- and long term.

Conclusion

Patients with LBP with a NPP displayed greater negative pain-related psychological factors but similar pain sensitivity compared to LBP without NPP.

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.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.

The healthcare buffet: preferences in the clinical decision-making process for patients with musculoskeletal pain

The preferences a person has for care are associated with outcomes for patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain conditions. These include preferences for differing levels of involvement in the decision-making process, preferences for the provider attributes, and preferences for particular interventions. In this paper, we discuss these various forms of preference, as well as how they influence clinical care within shared decision-making frameworks. We also present a conceptual framing for how patient preferences can be incorporated in clinical decision-making by orthopedic manual physical therapists. Finally, research implications for interpreting findings from clinical studies are discussed.

Patient- and Physical Therapist-Level Predictors of Patient-Reported Therapeutic Alliance: An Observational, Exploratory Study of Cohorts With Knee and Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient- and physical therapist-level predictors for therapeutic alliance at the end of an episode of physical therapy for knee or low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of observational cohort.

SETTING

Outpatient physical therapy clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients receiving physical therapy for knee (n=189) or LBP (n=252) and physical therapists (n=19). Candidate predictor variables included demographics, patient clinical characteristics, and physical therapist attitudes and beliefs (Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists) and confidence in providing patient-centered care (Self-Efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-reported therapeutic alliance was measured using the 12-item Work Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR).

RESULTS

Final linear mixed models indicated different patient- and physical therapist-level factor contributions in predicting final WAI-SR scores across cohorts with knee and LBP. Female sex was a consistent patient-level predictor for both knee (estimated β=1.57, P<.05) and LBP (β=1.42, P<.05), with age (β=-0.07, P<.01) and baseline function (β=0.06, P<.01) contributing to cohorts with knee and LBP, respectively. Physical therapist-level predictors included female sex (β=6.04, P<.05), Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists behavioral (β=0.65, P<.01), and Self-Efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (SEPCQ) Exploring Patient Perspective (β=-0.75, P<.01) subscale scores for LBP, with SEPCQ Sharing Information and Power subscale scores (β=0.56, P<.05) contributing to both cohorts with knee (β=0.56, P<.05) and LBP (β=0.74, P<.01). Random effects for patients nested within physical therapists were observed for both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide preliminary evidence for inconsistent relationships among patient- and physical therapist-level factors and therapeutic alliance across cohorts with knee and LBP.

Stratified care to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: The TARGET trial. A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with acute low back pain (LBP) first seek care from primary care physicians. Evidence is lacking for interventions to prevent transition to chronic LBP in this setting. We aimed to test if implementation of a risk-stratified approach to care would result in lower rates of chronic LBP and improved self-reported disability.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial using 77 primary care clinics in four health care systems across the United States. Practices were randomly assigned to a stratified approach to care (intervention) or usual care (control). Using the STarTBack screening tool, adults with acute LBP were screened low, medium, and high-risk. Patients screened as high-risk were eligible. The intervention included electronic best practice alerts triggering referrals for psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). PIPT education was targeted to community clinics geographically close to intervention primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were transition to chronic LBP and self-reported disability at six months. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02647658.

FINDINGS

Between May 2016 and June 2018, 1207 patients from 38 intervention and 1093 from 37 control practices were followed. In the intervention arm, around 50% of patients were referred for physical therapy (36% for PIPT) compared to 30% in the control. At 6 months, 47% of patients reported transition to chronic LBP in the intervention arm (38 practices, n = 658) versus 51% of patients in the control arm (35 practices, n = 635; OR=0.83 95% CI 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.18). No differences in disability were detected (difference -2·1, 95% CI -4.9-0.6; p = 0.12). Opioids and imaging were prescribed in 22%-25% and 23%-26% of initial visits, for intervention and control, respectively. Twelve-month LBP utilization was similar in the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

There were no differences detected in transition to chronic LBP among patients presenting with acute LBP using a stratified approach to care. Opioid and imaging prescribing rates were non-concordant with clinical guidelines.

FUNDING

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract # PCS-1402-10867.

A psychophysical study comparing massage to conditioned pain modulation: A single blind randomized controlled trial in healthy participants

INTRODUCTION

Pain-inducing massage results in greater pain inhibition than pain free massage, suggesting a mechanism dependent on conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain inducing massage produces similar magnitude of reduction in pain sensitivity as a cold pressor task and that baseline conditioned pain modulation efficiency predicts pain inducing massage related hypoalgesia.

METHODS

Sixty healthy participants were randomly assigned to receive either pain inducing massage to the neck, cold pressor task to the hand, or pain free massage to the neck. Participants also underwent pre and immediate post-intervention quantitative sensory testing. A repeated measures ANCOVA determined between group differences in pain sensitivity changes.

RESULTS

Pain inducing massage used as a conditioning stimulus resulted in comparable experimental pain sensitivity changes as a cold pressor task (p > 0.05). Pain intensity during the intervention demonstrated a weak correlation (r = 0.20, p = 0.12) with changes in pain sensitivity at a remote site. Individuals with an efficient CPM at baseline who received the pain inducing massage displayed greater increases in pressure pain threshold compared to individuals with a less efficient CPM indicating the potential benefit of treatment stratification by mechanism.

CONCLUSION

Although pain inducing massage resulted in less self-reported pain than a cold pressor task, both resulted in similar magnitude of the CPM response, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms. Understanding mechanisms of interventions can move us closer to mechanistic based treatments for pain which is consistent with a personalized medicine approach to care.

Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care

IMPORTANCE

Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020.

EXPOSURES

SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with SBT stratum and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.

Adding Physical Impairment to Risk Stratification Improved Outcome Prediction in Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

Identifying subgroups of low back pain (LBP) has the potential to improve prediction of clinical outcomes. Risk stratification is one such strategy that identifies similar characteristics indicative of a common clinical outcome trajectory. The purpose of this study was to determine if an empirically derived subgrouping approach based on physical impairment measures improves information provided from the STarT Back Tool (SBT).

METHODS

At baseline in this secondary analysis of a cohort study, patients (N = 144) receiving physical therapy for LBP completed the SBT and tests (active lumbar flexion, extension, lateral bending, and passive straight-leg raise) from a validated physical impairment index. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 4 weeks and included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Exploratory hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis identified empirically derived subgroups based on physical impairment measures. Independent samples t testing and chi-square analysis were used to assess baseline subgroup differences in demographic and clinical measures. Spearman rho correlation coefficient was used to assess baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships, and a 3-way mixed-model ANOVA was used to assessed SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships with clinical outcomes at 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Two physical impairment-based subgroups emerged from cluster analysis: (1) low-risk impairment (n = 119, 81.5%), characterized by greater lumbar mobility; and (2) high-risk impairment (n = 25, 17.1%), characterized by less lumbar mobility. A weak, positive relationship was observed between baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroups (rs = .170). An impairment-by-SBT risk-by-time interaction effect was observed for Oswestry Disability Index scores but not for Numerical Pain Rating Scale scores at 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical impairment subgroups were not redundant with SBT risk categories and could improve prediction of 4-week LBP disability outcomes. Physical impairment subgroups did not improve the prediction of 4-week pain intensity scores.

IMPACT

Subgroups based on physical impairment and psychosocial risk could lead to better prediction of LBP disability outcomes and eventually allow for treatment options tailored to physical and psychosocial risk.

Comorbidity Subgroups Among Medicare Beneficiaries Seeking Health Care for Musculoskeletal Pain

BACKGROUND

Treatment of musculoskeletal pain in older adults may be more effective if it incorporates integrated management of comorbid health conditions. The purpose of this study was to define empirically derived comorbidity subgroups among Medicare beneficiaries with an index condition of osteoarthritis (OA) or low back pain (LBP) as a precursor to the development of comorbidity-specific pain treatment pathways.

METHODS

This study included Medicare beneficiaries participating in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) and seeking care for OA (n = 723) or LBP (n = 617) with data available for 3 years after entry into the survey. We identified 30 comorbidity diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnostic codes in claims data during beneficiaries' first year in the survey. Latent class analysis defined comorbidity subgroups, and posterior probabilities were used to assign subgroup classification. Self-reported disability was compared over three consecutive years for each subgroup.

RESULTS

We identified similar comorbidity subgroups for OA and LBP. The subgroups included (range of percent prevalence) low comorbidity (47.6%-54.4%), nonvascular (21.8%-28.6%), diabetes (12.2%-15.0%), renal disease with complicated hypertension (5.5%-5.8%), and complex cardiac disease/high comorbidity (3.3%-5.8%). OA and LBP subgroups with more complex comorbidity burden generally demonstrated higher disability over 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Five comorbidity subgroups were identified, with a large proportion of older adults classified into the subgroup defined by a low probability of most comorbidities. These findings provide direction for the development of pain treatment pathways that are tailored to address common comorbidity profiles among older adults.

Musculoskeletal pain stakeholder engagement and partnership development: determining patient-centered research priorities

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a global public health problem with increased societal burden. Increased attention has focused toward patient and other stakeholder perspectives when determining future MSK pain research priorities, however infrastructure and capacity building within the community are needed for individuals and organizations to participate in patient-centered outcomes research. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe our collaborative experiences with several MSK pain stakeholders and processes to identify a top priority research topic.

METHODS

Lunch meetings and formalized workshops were used to develop infrastructure for engaging patients and other stakeholders with early capacity building for partners to identify MSK pain research ideas based on their personal experiences. Additional capacity building and engagement through literature searching further prepared partners to contribute informed decisions about MSK pain research topics and subsequent selection of an important research question.

RESULTS

Several key deliverables (e.g., Governance Document, Communication Plan) were developed and completed over the course of this project to provide partnership structure. Other key deliverables included a list of preliminary comparative effectiveness research ideas (n = 8) and selection of shared decision making for MSK pain as the top priority research topic with patient partners identifying pain self-efficacy as an important outcome domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our patient partners provided the catalyst for identifying shared decision making as a high priority research topic based on a wide spectrum of stakeholder perspectives and unique experiences. Patient partners were primarily identified using a single rehabilitation health system and clinician partners were heavily weighted by physical therapists which may have introduced selection bias.

Factors associated with persistently high-cost health care utilization for musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain conditions incur high costs and produce significant personal and public health consequences, including disability and opioid-related mortality. Persistence of high-cost health care utilization for musculoskeletal pain may help identify system inefficiencies that could limit value of care. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with persistent high-cost utilization among individuals seeking health care for musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2008-2013) that included a non-institutionalized, population-based sample of individuals seeking health care for a musculoskeletal pain condition (n = 12,985). Expenditures associated with musculoskeletal pain conditions over two consecutive years were analyzed from prescribed medicine, office-based medical provider visits, outpatient department visits, emergency room visits, inpatient hospital stays, and home health visits. Persistent high-cost utilization was defined as being in the top 15th percentile for annual musculoskeletal pain-related expenditures over 2 consecutive years. We used multinomial regression to determine which modifiable and non-modifiable sociodemographic, health, and pain-related variables were associated with persistent high-cost utilization.

RESULTS

Approximately 35% of direct costs for musculoskeletal pain were concentrated among the 4% defined as persistent high-cost utilizers. Non-modifiable variables associated with expenditure group classification included age, race, poverty level, geographic region, insurance status, diagnosis type and total number of musculoskeletal pain diagnoses. Modifiable variables associated with increased risk of high expenditure classification were higher number of missed work days, greater pain interference, and higher use of prescription medication for pain, while higher self-reported physical and mental health were associated with lower risk of high expenditure classification.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care delivery models that prospectively identify these potentially modifiable factors may improve the costs and value of care for individuals with musculoskeletal pain prone to risk for high-cost care episodes.

Study protocol for targeted interventions to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (TARGET Trial)

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and potentially disabling conditions for which people seek health care. Patients, providers, and payers agree that greater effort is needed to prevent acute LBP from transitioning to chronic LBP.

METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN

The TARGET (Targeted Interventions to Prevent Chronic Low Back Pain in High-Risk Patients) Trial is a primary care-based, multisite, cluster randomized, pragmatic trial comparing guideline-based care (GBC) to GBC + referral to Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy (PIPT) for patients presenting with acute LBP and identified as high risk for persistent disabling symptoms. Study sites include primary care clinics within each of five geographical regions in the United States, with clinics randomized to either GBC or GBC + PIPT. Acute LBP patients at all clinics are risk stratified (high, medium, low) using the STarT Back Tool. The primary outcomes are the presence of chronic LBP and LBP-related functional disability determined by the Oswestry Disability Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes are LBP-related processes of health care and utilization of services over 12 months, determined through electronic medical records. Study enrollment began in May 2016 and concluded in June 2018. The trial was powered to include at least 1860 high-risk patients in the randomized controlled trial cohort. A prospective observational cohort of approximately 6900 low and medium-risk acute LBP patients was enrolled concurrently.

DISCUSSION

The TARGET pragmatic trial aims to establish the effectiveness of the stratified approach to acute LBP intervention targeting high-risk patients with GBC and PIPT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02647658 Registered Jan. 6, 2016.

Targeted interventions to prevent transitioning from acute to chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: development and delivery of a pragmatic training course of psychologically informed physical therapy for the TARGET trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a public health concern because it is highly prevalent and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) is a secondary prevention approach that first aims to identify individuals at high risk for transitioning to chronicity and then provides tailored treatment to reduce that risk. Training models that are feasible to implement with acceptable training quality are needed to improve scalability for widespread implementation of PIPT. This manuscript describes the PIPT training program that was developed for training physical therapists providing PIPT in the TARGET trial.

Methods

The PIPT training program was developed, tested, and modified using an iterative process. Content development consisted of stakeholder engagement, beta testing, modification of training, and confirmation of final course objectives. Methods of delivery consisted of a website that included brief online educational modules followed by a live 8-h workshop that included video-based mock case scenarios and case-based role playing. Attitudes, beliefs, and confidence in implementing PIPT principles were assessed before and immediately after training to measure training quality and impact.

Results

Early stakeholder engagement and beta testing indicated the need for increased emphasis on experiential learning opportunities and patient-centered communication training. Booster training varied extensively across TARGET sites with involvement of ‘clinician champions’ providing brief follow-up sessions identified as best practice. Favorable post-training changes in physical therapist attitudes and beliefs toward biopsychosocial treatment orientation and increased confidence in implementing PIPT principles were observed.

Conclusions

PIPT training for provider participation in the TARGET trial was feasible to deliver. Course content was acceptable to physical therapists and resulted in improved beliefs and confidence in applying PIPT skills during clinical practice. Ongoing consultation and site-based continuing education were methods by which specific TARGET sites maintained or augmented PIPT skill training; however, implementing ongoing training was challenging in general. Due to the pragmatic nature of the TARGET trial, it was not possible to directly measure the effect of PIPT training on treatment fidelity, which was a limitation of our approach.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02647658. Registered on 6 January 2016.

Laser testing for upper extremity proprioceptive deficits following rotator cuff injury: two case reports

Background: Rotator cuff (RTC) dysfunction incidence ranges from 7% to 25% in the general population with a high recurrence rate. RTC musculature plays a significant role in dynamic stability of the glenohumeral joint with damage to these structures associated with proprioceptive impairments. Impaired proprioception has been linked to increased injury risk in other body regions; however, similar relationships with the upper extremity have not been extensively evaluated. The purpose of this case report is to present a preliminary, yet clinically feasible approach for using a laser for proprioceptive assessment and treatment in patients with RTC dysfunction. Case description: Patient 1 was a 21-year-old female with right shoulder pain from injury at work as a waitress where she lifted a heavy tray of plates. Patient 2 was a 48-year-old male with gradual and insidious onset of right shoulder pain during recreational baseball. Examination findings indicated contractile tissue involvement in both patients. Reaching and throwing tasks requiring accurate proprioceptive function were essential for return of each patient to their functional tasks. Laser proprioception testing was performed every 2 weeks with proprioceptive training provided as a supplement to other interventions. Outcomes: Over 4 weeks, improvements in objective laser proprioceptive test results were observed for both patients (Patient 1 = 6.0 cm; Patient 2 = 5.5 cm) in conjunction with active range-of-motion and self-report measures for pain intensity and function. Discussion: This case report describes a clinically feasible approach to testing and treating upper extremity proprioceptive deficits after RTC injury. Future research is required to establish reliability and validity of these methods.

Prediction of healthcare utilization following an episode of physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

In the United States, value-based purchasing has created the need for healthcare systems to prospectively identify patients at risk for high healthcare utilization beyond a physical therapy episode for musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of pain-related healthcare utilization subsequent to an index episode of physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

This study assessed data from the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) longitudinal cohort study that recruited individuals with a primary complaint of neck, low back, knee or shoulder pain in physical therapy (n = 440). Demographics, health-related information, review of systems, comorbidity and pain-related psychological distress measures were collected at baseline evaluation. Baseline to 4-week changes in pain intensity, disability, and pain-related psychological distress were measured as treatment response variables. At 6-months and 1-year after baseline evaluation, individuals reported use of opioids, injection, surgery, diagnostic tests or imaging, and emergency room visits for their pain condition over the follow-up period. Separate prediction models were developed for any subsequent care and service-specific utilization.

RESULTS

Subsequent pain-related healthcare utilization was reported by 43% (n = 106) of the study sample that completed the 12-month follow-up (n = 246). Baseline disability and 4-week change in pain intensity were important global predictors of subsequent healthcare utilization. Age, insurance status, comorbidity burden, baseline pain, and 4-week changes in pain intensity, disability and pain-related psychological distress predicted specific service utilization.

CONCLUSION

In those completing follow up measures, risk of additional pain-related healthcare utilization after physical therapy was best predicted by baseline characteristics and 4-week treatment response variables for pain intensity, disability and pain-related psychological distress. These findings suggest treatment monitoring of specific response variables could enhance identification of those at risk for future healthcare utilization in addition to baseline assessment. Further study is required to determine how specific characteristics of the clinical encounter influence future utilization.

Improving Physical Therapy Pain Care, Quality, and Cost Through Effectiveness-Implementation Research

The variability and delay in utilizing evidence in clinical practice are barriers to improving care, quality, and cost in health care, as charged by the "triple aim" framework. Scientific research provides an avenue not only to further the field of pain research, but also to study and change the patterns and processes that drive systemic and individual clinical practices. Implementation science is an emerging field that can be integrated with more traditional effectiveness research to accomplish a combination of aims within the same study. This type of concurrent study of effectiveness and implementation is known as a hybrid design and can be used to improve behavioral or operational practice patterns as well as to collect evidence of clinical effectiveness. Recently, the National Pain Strategy put forth recommendations to improve the care of patients with pain through research and practice. Hybrid designs align well with recent efforts that emphasize value-based, patient-centered health care evolving and described in the National Pain Strategy. The purposes of this perspective are to describe implementation science and hybrid studies and to put forth opportunities to utilize this research to advance the care of patients with pain in the United States.

Prediction of Persistent Musculoskeletal Pain at 12 Months: A Secondary Analysis of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) Validation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is a societal epidemic because it is highly prevalent and a leading contributor to disability; however, physical therapists are still challenged when predicting which patients are at high risk for persistent symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to identify patient characteristics predictive of persistent musculoskeletal pain 12 months following physical therapist care and to determine the influence of anatomical region.

DESIGN

The design included a secondary analysis of a cohort study.

METHODS

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, had a primary report of knee, shoulder, back, or neck pain, were receiving physical therapy, and were enrolled in the Orthopedic Physical Therapy Investigative Network (OPT-IN) Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) validation cohort study. Candidate predictor variables included demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and OSPRO Review of Systems (OSPRO-ROS) and OSPRO Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool scores. Persistent musculoskeletal pain was assessed by self-report responses to questions on the duration of pain and activity limitation. Logistic regression was used for completed cases to identify predictors of persistent pain at 12 months in full and parsimonious models.

RESULTS

Follow-up assessment at 12 months was performed for 63.4% of participants (279/440). Participants with persistent pain at 12 months (n = 101; 36.2%) had more comorbidities, higher numerical pain rating scale scores, and higher OSPRO-ROS and OSPRO-YF tool scores at baseline than those without persistent pain, and the findings were independent of anatomical region. The number of comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] range = 0.30-0.46), numerical pain rating scale scores (OR at baseline = 1.44-1.75; OR at 4 weeks = 1.37-1.39), and OSPRO-ROS (plus additional items) scores (OR = 1.33-1.54) were predictors in full and parsimonious models.

LIMITATIONS

Convenience sampling was used, with a follow-up rate at 12 months (63.4%) that was lower than anticipated, and an operational definition for chronic low back pain was applied to persistent musculoskeletal pain in other body regions.

CONCLUSIONS

The OSPRO-ROS tool may be used to improve the prediction of persistent musculoskeletal pain at 12 months in conjunction with comorbidities and pain intensity (baseline and 4 weeks). These are potentially important findings because persistent pain was not commonly evaluated in previous screening studies; however, it is a relevant outcome in an era of front-line nonpharmacological pain management.

The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) in patients with musculoskeletal pain conditions: a longitudinal validation cohort from the USA

PURPOSE

There is an increased need for determining which patients with musculoskeletal pain benefit from additional diagnostic testing or psychologically informed intervention. The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) cohort studies were designed to develop and validate standard assessment tools for review of systems and yellow flags. This cohort profile paper provides a description of and future plans for the validation cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n=440) with primary complaint of spine, shoulder or knee pain were recruited into the OSPRO validation cohort via a national Orthopaedic Physical Therapy-Investigative Network. Patients were followed up at 4 weeks, 6 months and 12 months for pain, functional status and quality of life outcomes. Healthcare utilisation outcomes were also collected at 6 and 12 months.

FINDINGS TO DATE

There are no longitudinal findings reported to date from the ongoing OSPRO validation cohort. The previously completed cross-sectional OSPRO development cohort yielded two assessment tools that were investigated in the validation cohort.

FUTURE PLANS

Follow-up data collection was completed in January 2017. Primary analyses will investigate how accurately the OSPRO review of systems and yellow flag tools predict 12-month pain, functional status, quality of life and healthcare utilisation outcomes. Planned secondary analyses include prediction of pain interference and/or development of chronic pain, investigation of treatment expectation on patient outcomes and analysis of patient satisfaction following an episode of physical therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The OSPRO validation cohort was not registered.

The influence of clinical equipoise and patient preferences on outcomes of conservative manual interventions for spinal pain: an experimental study

Background

Expected pain relief from treatment is associated with positive clinical outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Less studied is the influence on outcomes related to the preference of patients and providers for a specific treatment.

Objectives

We sought to determine how provider and patient preferences for a manual therapy intervention influenced outcomes in individuals with acutely induced low back pain (LBP).

Participants and methods

Pain-free participants were randomly assigned to one of two manual therapies (joint biased [JB] or constant touch [CT]) 48 hours after completing an exercise protocol to induce LBP. Expectations for pain relief and preferences for treatment were collected at baseline, prior to randomization. Pain relief was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale. All study procedures were conducted in a private testing laboratory at the University of Florida campus.

Results

Sixty participants were included in this study. After controlling for preintervention pain intensity, the multivariate model included only preintervention pain (B=0.12, p=0.07) and provider preference (B=3.05, p<0.0001) and explained 35.8% of the variance in postintervention pain. When determining whether a participant met his or her expected pain relief, receiving an intervention from a provider with a strong preference for that intervention increased the odds of meeting a participant’s expected pain relief 68.3 times (p=0.013) compared to receiving any intervention from a provider with no preference. Receiving JB intervention from any provider increased the odds of meeting expected relief 29.7 times (p=0.023). The effect of a participant receiving an intervention they preferred was retained in the model but did not meet the criteria for a significant contribution.

Conclusion

Our primary findings were that participant and provider preferences for treatment positively influence pain outcomes in individuals with acutely induced LBP, and joint-biased interventions resulted in a greater chance of meeting participants’ expected outcomes. This is contrary to our hypothesis that the interaction of receiving an intervention for which a participant had a preference would result in the best outcome.

Identifying Treatment Effect Modifiers in the STarT Back Trial: A Secondary Analysis

Identification of patient characteristics influencing treatment outcomes is a top low back pain (LBP) research priority. Results from the STarT Back trial support the effectiveness of prognostic stratified care for LBP compared with current best care, however, patient characteristics associated with treatment response have not yet been explored. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify treatment effect modifiers within the STarT Back trial at 4-month follow-up (n = 688). Treatment response was dichotomized using back-specific physical disability measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (≥7). Candidate modifiers were identified using previous literature and evaluated using logistic regression with statistical interaction terms to provide preliminary evidence of treatment effect modification. Socioeconomic status (SES) was identified as an effect modifier for disability outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, P = .028). High SES patients receiving prognostic stratified care were 2.5 times less likely to have a poor outcome compared with low SES patients receiving best current care (OR = .40, P = .006). Education level (OR = 1.33, P = .109) and number of pain medications (OR = .64, P = .140) met our criteria for effect modification with weaker evidence (.20 > P ≥ .05). These findings provide preliminary evidence for SES, education, and number of pain medications as treatment effect modifiers of prognostic stratified care delivered in the STarT Back Trial.

PERSPECTIVE

This analysis provides preliminary exploratory findings about the characteristics of patients who might least likely benefit from targeted treatment using prognostic stratified care for LBP.

What effect can manual therapy have on a patient's pain experience?

Manual therapy (MT) is a passive, skilled movement applied by clinicians that directly or indirectly targets a variety of anatomical structures or systems, which is utilized with the intent to create beneficial changes in some aspect of the patient pain experience. Collectively, the process of MT is grounded on clinical reasoning to enhance patient management for musculoskeletal pain by influencing factors from a multidimensional perspective that have potential to positively impact clinical outcomes. The influence of biomechanical, neurophysiological, psychological and nonspecific patient factors as treatment mediators and/or moderators provides additional information related to the process and potential mechanisms by which MT may be effective. As healthcare delivery advances toward personalized approaches there is a crucial need to advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms associated with MT effectiveness.

Psychological predictors of recovery from low back pain: a prospective study

Background

Recovery from low back pain (LBP) is an important outcome for patients and clinicians. Psychological factors are known to impact the course of LBP but have not been extensively investigated for predicting recovery. The purposes of this study were to: 1) describe LBP recovery rates at 6 months following 4 weeks of physical therapy; 2) identify psychological factors predictive of 6 month recovery status; and 3) identify psychological factors that co-occur with 6 month recovery status.

Methods

This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of patients (n = 111) receiving outpatient physical therapy for LBP. Patients were administered the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT), individual psychological measures, a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at intake, 4-week, and 6-month assessments. LBP recovery was operationally defined based on meeting NPRS = 0/10 and RMDQ ≤ 2 criterion at 6-month follow-up assessment. Recovery groups were then compared for differences on all variables at intake and on individual psychological measures at 6-months. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) identified which descriptive variables were predictive of recovery status.

Results

The 6-month recovery rate was 14/111 (12.6%) for the combined NPRS and RMDQ criterion. Non-recovered patients were associated with SBT risk status (p = 0.004), higher intake pain intensity (p = .008) and higher depressive symptoms (p < .001) scores compared to recovered patients. The overall accuracy for intake classification using DFA was 87.2% with SBT risk status, pain intensity, and depressive symptoms all making unique contributions. At 6-months, non-recovered patients had higher fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms (p’s < .001) compared to recovered patients. The overall accuracy for 6-month classification using DFA was 86.4% with fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms all making unique contributions.

Conclusions

Our findings indicated that psychological risk status, depressive symptoms, and pain intensity were predictive of 6 month recovery status. Furthermore elevated fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms co-occurred with non-recovery at 6 months. Future studies should investigate whether stratified psychologically informed treatment options have the potential to improve recovery rates for those most at risk for non-recovery.

Subgrouping for patients with low back pain: a multidimensional approach incorporating cluster analysis and the STarT Back Screening Tool

Early screening for psychological distress has been suggested to improve patient management for individuals experiencing low back pain. This study compared 2 approaches to psychological screening (ie, multidimensional and unidimensional) so that preliminary recommendations on which approach may be appropriate for use in clinical settings other than primary care could be provided. Specifically, this study investigated aspects of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT): 1) discriminant validity by evaluating its relationship with unidimensional psychological measures and 2) construct validity by evaluating how SBT risk categories compared to empirically derived subgroups using unidimensional psychological and disability measures. Patients (N = 146) receiving physical therapy for LBP were administered the SBT and a battery of unidimensional psychological measures at initial evaluation. Clinical measures consisted of pain intensity and self-reported disability. Several SBT risk-dependent relationships (ie, SBT low < medium < high risk) were identified for unidimensional psychological measure scores, with depressive symptom scores associated with the strongest influence on SBT risk categorization. Empirically derived subgroups indicated that there was no evidence of distinctive patterns among psychological or disability measures other than high or low profiles; therefore, 2 groups may provide a clearer representation of the level of pain-associated psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and disability in this setting compared with 3 groups as suggested when using the SBT in primary care settings.

PERSPECTIVE

This study suggests that the SBT can replace administering several unidimensional psychological measures as a first-line screening measure for psychological distress. However, clinicians need to be aware of the potential for misclassification with SBT results when compared to unidimensional measures. This study also suggests that a modified SBT risk stratification scheme based on empirically derived subgroups could potentially assist in identifying elevated levels of pain-associated psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and disability in practice settings outside of primary care. Patients identified with elevated levels of pain-associated distress and maladaptive coping may be indicated for additional assessment using construct-specific questionnaires.

Recognition and management of BPPV for an elderly female patient referred for low back pain: a resident's case study

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is common among older adults and frequently misdiagnosed or unidentified. Undiagnosed BPPV has been associated with depression, falls and ADL limitations. This case study describes the diagnostic process and management of BPPV for a 65-year-old patient with a primary complaint of chronic low back pain (LBP) in an outpatient orthopedic physical therapy setting. Following routine screening performed on initial evaluation, the patient was educated about examination findings that indicated the potential for BPPV and given the option to proceed with further assessment or defer until LBP was under control. The patient attended 16 visits over the course of care and the complaint of vertigo, described as a true spinning sensation, was assessed further on the visit 5. Continued assessment confirmed BPPV and the canalith repositioning procedure was administered. Following positive response to this intervention, the maneuver was re-administered on visit 6. Complete resolution of symptoms was reported on visit 7 and for the remainder of physical therapy services over the following month. Physical therapists may play a vital role in reducing healthcare expenses associated with cost to arrive at the diagnosis of BPPV, as well as improving the quality of life and safety of the older adult population affected by BPPV.

Immediate reduction in temporal sensory summation after thoracic spinal manipulation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulative techniques (SMT) have shown clinical effectiveness in some patients with musculoskeletal pain.

PURPOSE

We performed the current experiment to test whether regional pain modulation is to be expected from thoracic SMT.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized experimental design performed in a university pain laboratory.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was experimental pain sensitivity in cervical and lumbar innervated area.

METHODS

Ninety healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive one of three interventions (SMT, exercise, or rest) to the upper thoracic spine. Participants completed questionnaires about pain-related affect and expectations regarding each of the interventions. We collected experimental pain sensitivity measures of cervical and lumbar innervated areas before and immediately after randomly assigned intervention. Mixed model analysis of covariance was used to test changes in measures of experimental pain sensitivity.

RESULTS

No interactions or intervention (group) effects were noted for pressure or A-delta-mediated thermal pain responses. Participants receiving SMT had greater reductions in temporal sensory summation (TSS).

CONCLUSIONS

This present study indicates thoracic SMT that reduces TSS in healthy subjects. These findings extend our previous work in healthy and clinical subjects by indicating change in the nocioceptive afferent system occurred caudal to the region of SMT application. However, the duration of reduction in TSS is unknown, and more work needs to be completed in clinical populations to confirm the relevance of these findings.

Pain catastrophizing predicts pain intensity during a neurodynamic test for the median nerve in healthy participants

Psychological factors within the Fear-Avoidance Model of Musculoskeletal Pain (FAM) predict clinical and experimental pain in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Clinicians routinely examine individuals with provocative testing procedures that evoke symptoms. The purpose of this study was to investigate which FAM factors were associated with evoked pain intensity, non-painful symptom intensity, and range of motion during an upper-limb neurodynamic test. Healthy participants (n = 62) completed psychological questionnaires for pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, kinesiophobia, and anxiety prior to neurodynamic testing. Pain intensity, non-painful sensation intensity, and elbow range of motion (ROM) were collected during testing and served as dependent variables in separate simultaneous regression models. All the psychological predictors in the model accounted for 18% of the variance in evoked pain intensity (p = .02), with only pain catastrophizing (beta = .442, p < .01) contributing uniquely to the model. Psychological predictors did not explain significant amounts of variance for the non-painful sensation intensity and ROM models. These findings suggest that pain catastrophizing contributed specifically to evoked pain intensity ratings during neurodynamic testing for healthy subjects. Although these findings cannot be directly translated to clinical practice, the influence of pain catastrophizing on evoked pain responses should be considered during neurodynamic testing.

Clinical prediction rules for physical therapy interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) involving physical therapy interventions have been published recently. The quality of the studies used to develop the CPRs was not previously considered, a fact that has potential implications for clinical applications and future research. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the quality of published CPRs developed for physical therapy interventions.

METHODS

Relevant databases were searched up to June 2008. Studies were included in this review if the explicit purpose was to develop a CPR for conditions commonly treated by physical therapists. Validated CPRs were excluded from this review. Study quality was independently determined by 3 reviewers using standard 18-item criteria for assessing the methodological quality of prognostic studies. Percentage of agreement was calculated for each criterion, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was determined for overall quality scores.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Percentage of agreement for individual criteria ranged from 90% to 100%, and the ICC for the overall quality score was .73 (95% confidence interval=.27-.92). Criteria commonly not met were adequate description of inclusion or exclusion criteria, inclusion of an inception cohort, adequate follow-up, masked assessments, sufficient sample sizes, and assessments of potential psychosocial factors. Quality scores for individual studies ranged from 48.2% to 74.0%.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Validation studies are rarely reported in the literature; therefore, CPRs derived from high-quality studies may have the best potential for use in clinical settings. Investigators planning future studies of physical therapy CPRs should consider including inception cohorts, using longer follow-up times, performing masked assessments, recruiting larger sample sizes, and incorporating psychological and psychosocial assessments.