Search

Background: Back pain is the number one condition contributing to years lived with disability worldwide, and one of the most common reasons for seeking primary care. Research on this condition in the ageing population is sparse. Further, the heterogeneity of patients with back pain complicates the management in clinical care. It is possible that subgrouping people with similar characteristics would improve management. This paper aimed to identify latent classes based on demographics, pain characteristics, psychosocial behavior, and beliefs and attitudes about back pain, among older patients seeking primary care with a new episode of back pain, and to examine if there were differences regarding the classes' first point-of-contact. Methods: The study was part of the international BACE (Back complaints in elders) consortium and included 435 patients aged ≥ 55 years seeking primary care (general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors) in Norway from April 2015 to March 2020. A latent class analysis was performed to identify latent classes. The classes were described in terms of baseline characteristics and first point-of-contact in primary care. Results: Four latent classes were identified. The mean age was similar across groups, as were high expectations towards improvement. Class 1 (n = 169, 39%), the "positive" class, had more positive attitudes and beliefs, less pain catastrophizing and shorter duration of current pain episode. Class 2 (n = 31, 7%), the "fearful" class, exhibited the most fear avoidance behavior, and had higher mean pain intensity. Class 3 (n = 33, 8%), the "distressed" class, had the highest scores on depression, disability, and catastrophizing. Finally, class 4 (n = 202, 46%), the "hopeful" class, showed the highest expectations for recovery, although having high pain intensity. The identified four classes showed high internal homogeneity, sufficient between-group heterogeneity and were considered clinically meaningful. The distribution of first point-of-contact was similar across classes, except for the positive class where significantly more patients visited chiropractors compared to general practitioners and physiotherapists. Conclusions: The identified classes may contribute to targeting clinical management of these patients. Longitudinal research on these latent classes is needed to explore whether the latent classes have prognostic value. Validation studies are needed to evaluate external validity. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04261309. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The identification of clinically relevant subgroups of low back pain (LBP) is considered the number one LBP research priority in primary care. One subgroup of LBP patients are those with back related leg pain. Leg pain frequently accompanies LBP and is associated with increased levels of disability and higher health costs than simple low back pain. Distinguishing between different types of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is important for clinical management and research applications, but there is currently no clear agreement on how to define and identify LBLP due to nerve root involvement. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise papers that classify or subgroup populations with LBLP, and summarise how leg pain due to nerve root involvement is described and diagnosed in the various systems.Methods: The search strategy involved nine electronic databases including Medline and Embase, reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Selected papers were appraised independently by two reviewers using a standardised scoring tool.Results: Of 13,358 initial potential eligible citations, 50 relevant papers were identified that reported on 22 classification systems. Papers were grouped according to purpose and criteria of the classification systems. Five themes emerged: (i) clinical features (ii) pathoanatomy (iii) treatment-based approach (iv) screening tools and prediction rules and (v) pain mechanisms. Three of the twenty two systems focused specifically on LBLP populations. Systems that scored highest following quality appraisal were ones where authors generally included statistical methods to develop their classifications, and supporting work had been published on the systems' validity, reliability and generalisability. There was lack of consistency in how LBLP due to nerve root involvement was described and diagnosed within the systems.Conclusion: Numerous classification systems exist that include patients with leg pain, a minority of them focus specifically on distinguishing between different presentations of leg pain. Further work is needed to identify clinically meaningful subgroups of LBLP patients, ideally based on large primary care cohort populations and using recommended methods for classification system development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage, where physiotherapists diagnose and determine management plans, aims to enhance effectiveness and provide the best care. However, scientific evidence for the effectiveness of this model of care remains limited, and there are few studies reporting on patients' perceptions of the care provided. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceived quality of care in a physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage in primary care, compared with standard practice.Methods: In a randomised controlled trial, patients of working age referred for orthopaedic consultation at a primary healthcare clinic in Sweden received either physiotherapist-led triage (n = 102) or standard practice (orthopaedic surgeon assessment) (n = 101). Neither subjects nor clinicians were blinded. The questionnaire Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) was used to evaluate perceived quality of care focusing on the caregivers' medical-technical competence and identity-orientated approach. Also, to what extent patients' expectations were met, and their intention to follow advice was evaluated.Results: For this study, 163 patients (80 %) were analysed (physiotherapist-led triage (n = 83), standard practice (n = 80)). Participants perceived significantly higher quality of care with the triage than with the standard practice in regards to receiving best possible examination and treatment (medical-technical competence) (p < 0.001). This was also found in regards to receiving information about examination and treatment (p < 0.001), results (p < 0.001), and self-care (p < 0.001), the caregiver's understanding (p < 0.001), respect (p < 0.001) and commitment (p < 0.001) as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making (p = 0.01) (identity-orientated approach). Participants in the physiotherapist-led triage group reported to a significantly higher extent that their expectations of the treatment were met (p < 0.001), as well as the intent to follow the advice and instructions received (p = 0.019).Conclusions: This paper reports on patients' perceptions of quality of care in a physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice. Patients in both groups reported that they perceived good quality of care, with the patients in the physiotherapist-led triage reporting significantly higher perceived quality of care than those in the standard practice group. This model of care seems to meet patients' expectations and result in a greater intention to follow advice and instructions for self-management. Our findings are in line with existing literature that this model of care provides an opportunity to shape patient-centered care that can improve access and offer care on the most appropriate level, with maintained good quality of care.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials NCT02265172 . Registered 10 June 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain is common and associated with a considerable burden to patients and society. There is uncertainty regarding the relative benefit of paracetamol and diclofenac and regarding the additional effect of pain medication compared with advice only in patients with acute low back pain. This trial will assess the effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. Furthermore, this trial will assess the additional effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo compared with advice only for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks., Methods: The PACE Plus trial is a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care, with a follow-up of 12 weeks. Patients with acute low back pain aged 18-60 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients are randomized into four groups: 1) Advice only (usual care conforming with the clinical guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners); 2) Advice and paracetamol; 3) Advice and diclofenac; 4) Advice and placebo. The primary outcome is low back pain intensity measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10). Secondary outcomes include compliance to treatment, disability, perceived recovery, costs, adverse reactions, satisfaction, sleep quality, co-interventions and adequacy of blinding. Between group differences for low back pain intensity will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. An economic evaluation will be performed using a cost-effectiveness analysis with low back pain intensity and a cost-utility analysis with quality of life. Explorative analyses will be performed to assess effect modification by predefined variables. Ethical approval has been granted. Trial results will be released to an appropriate peer-viewed journal., Discussion: This paper presents the design of the PACE Plus trial: a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care that will assess the effectiveness of advice only, paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089 , registered September 14th, 2016., Protocol: Version 4, June 2016.

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's Osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines recommended that future research should consider the benefits of combination therapies in people with OA across multiple joint sites. However, the clinical effectiveness of such approaches to OA management is unknown. This systematic review therefore aimed to identify the clinical and cost effectiveness of multidisciplinary approaches targeting multiple joint sites for OA in primary care.Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Computerised bibliographic databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, BNI, HBE, HMIC, AMED, Web of Science and Cochrane). Studies were included if they met the following criteria; a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a primary care population with OA across at least two different peripheral joint sites (multiple joint sites), and interventions undertaken by at least two different health disciplines (multidisciplinary). The Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool and PEDro were used for quality assessment of eligible studies. Clinical and cost effectiveness was determined by extracting and examining self-reported outcomes for pain, function, quality of life (QoL) and health care utilisation. The date range for the search was from database inception until August 2015.Results: The search identified 1148 individual titles of which four were included in the review. A narrative review was conducted due to the heterogeneity of the included trials. Each of the four trials used either educational or exercise interventions facilitated by a range of different health disciplines. Moderate clinical benefits on pain, function and QoL were reported across the studies. The beneficial effects of exercise generally decreased over time within all studies. Two studies were able to show a reduction in healthcare utilisation due to a reduction in visits to a physiotherapist or a reduction in x-rays and orthopaedic referrals. The intervention that showed the most promise used educational interventions delivered by GPs with reinforcement by practice nurses.Conclusions: There are currently very few studies that target multidisciplinary approaches suitable for OA across multiple joint sites, in primary care. A more consistent approach to outcome measurement in future studies of this nature should be considered to allow for better comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the reorganization of health services to cater to the needs of individuals affected by the virus. Objective: This study aimed to examine the association between musculoskeletal pain during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the utilization of health services among adults in southern Brazil. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with individuals aged 18 years and older, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between December 2020 and March 2021. Questionnaires were electronically collected using tablets through the REDCap platform via phone calls. The health service utilization outcomes assessed included Primary Health Care, general practitioners, private emergency care, and specialized services. The exposure variable was the presence of musculoskeletal pain during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection in different regions, such as cervical, upper limbs, thoracic, lumbar, and lower limbs. Poisson regression analysis was employed to assess the relationship between health service utilization during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection and musculoskeletal pain during and after the infection with SARS-CoV-2 among adults in southern Brazil. Data were analyzed using the Stata 16.1 statistical package. Results: A total of 2,919 individuals were interviewed. Overall, individuals with musculoskeletal pain were found to utilize health services approximately 15 percentage points higher when compared to those without musculoskeletal pain. In adjusted analysis, individuals who reported musculoskeletal pain during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection were up to twice as likely to use health services. Among them, the emergency care unit was the most frequently used service, particularly in those with pain in the lower limbs (RP=2.19, 95% CI 1.66-2.87) and thoracic region (RP=2.04, 95% CI 1.47-2.84). Notably, the highest magnitudes of association were observed with emergency care units, specialist doctors, and specialized services, especially neurologists, who were two to three times more likely to be sought, followed by pulmonologists. Conclusion: Health service utilization was significantly associated with musculoskeletal pain during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection. All regions, except for the cervical region, showed a correlation with the use of Primary Health Care. The thoracic region featured an association with pulmonologists and emergency room utilization. Additionally, health services like emergency care units, specialist doctors, and specialized services, including cardiologists and neurologists, were commonly utilized across all regions in southern Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As with fibromyalgia, several musculoskeletal disorders are characterized by chronic pain, raising a clinical question – do the instruments used to assess fibromyalgia symptoms according to ACR criteria (ACR criteria) generate similar scores in other chronic musculoskeletal pain? Objective: To compare the symptoms among fibromyalgia and other chronic musculoskeletal pain. Additionally, we also compared the most researched outcomes in fibromyalgia (i.e., present pain at rest and after movement; fatigue; pain severity and impact; function, global impact, and fibromyalgia symptom). Methods: A cross-sectional study. Participants over 18 years old were included if they presented report of chronic musculoskeletal pain (≥ 3 months) and after that, they were divided into two groups (fibromyalgia and chronic pain). They answered the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQ-R), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain and fatigue, WPI, and SSS. Results: A total of 166 participants were included in this study into two independent groups (chronic pain, n = 83; fibromyalgia, n = 83). We observed significant differences (p < 0.05) and large effect sizes (Cohen's d, ≥ 0.7) in clinical outcomes comparisons between groups (i.e., widespread pain; symptom severity; present pain at rest and after movement; fatigue; pain severity and impact; function, global impact, and fibromyalgia symptoms). Conclusion: Fibromyalgia patients (2016 ACR criteria) compared to other chronic musculoskeletal pain patients have higher levels of pain (at rest or after movement) and fatigue, greater impairment in both functionality and global impact, and worse symptoms. Therefore, the WPI and SSS instruments should be used exclusively to assess fibromyalgia symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is characterised by pain related to the muscles or the joints with a duration of three months or more and is associated with high symptomatic burden in patients in primary health care. CMP is commonly associated with impaired mental health, which may affect the rehabilitation process. The primary aim of this study was to compare symptoms of anxiety, depression, fatigue, and insomnia in patients in primary health care with and without CMP. The secondary aim was to assess difference in mental health symptoms related to number of pain sites and pain intensity. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Trondheim, Norway. All patients aged 21–58 from randomly selected general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate. Participants were classified into two groups according to presence of CMP. Symptoms of anxiety, depression, fatigue, and insomnia were assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), respectively, using an online survey system. Results: From the patient lists of six GPs, we included 969 patients. Mean age 46 years (SD: 10.1), and 517 reported CMP. CMP patients reported higher mean symptom score for anxiety (5.4 vs 3.7), depression (3.4 vs 2.0), fatigue (14.2 vs 11.2), and insomnia (8.1 vs 4.4), all p < 0.01 compared to no-CMP patients. Symptoms of impaired mental health increased with increasing number of pain sites and pain intensity (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Primary health care patients with CMP reported significantly more symptoms of anxiety, depression, fatigue, and insomnia than patients without CMP. The higher number of pain sites and pain intensity, the more mental health symptoms, especially of anxiety. Primary health care personnel have to address mental health issues when treating patients with CMP. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02020772, 25/12/2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend that people with back pain be given information and education about their back pain, advice to remain active and at work, and exercises to improve mobility and physical activity. Guidelines, however, rarely describe how this is best delivered. The aim of this paper is to present the development, theories, and underlying evidence for 'GLA:D Back' - a group education and exercise program that translates guideline recommendations into a clinician-delivered program for the promotion of self-management in people with persistent/recurrent back pain.Methods: GLA:D Back, which included a rationale and objectives for the program, theory and evidence for the interventions, and program materials, was developed using an iterative process. The content of patient education and exercise programs tested in randomised trials was extracted and a multidisciplinary team of expert researchers and clinicians prioritised common elements hypothesised to improve back pain beliefs and management skills. The program was tested on eight people with persistent back pain in a university clinic and 152 patients from nine primary care physiotherapy and chiropractic clinics. Following feedback from the clinicians and patients involved, the working version of the program was created.Results: Educational components included pain mechanisms, pain modulation, active coping strategies, imaging, physical activity, and exercise that emphasised a balance between the sum of demands and the individual's capacity. These were operationalised in PowerPoint presentations with supporting text to aid clinicians in delivering two one-hour patient education lectures. The exercise program included 16 supervised one-hour sessions over 8 weeks, each comprising a warm-up section and eight types of exercises for general flexibility and strengthening of six different muscle groups at four levels of difficulty. The aims of the exercises were to improve overall back fitness and, at the same time, encourage patients to explore variations in movement by incorporating education content into the exercise sessions.Conclusion: From current best evidence about prognostic factors in back pain and effective treatments for back pain, research and clinical experts developed a ready-to-use structured program - GLA:D® Back - to support self-management for people with persistent/recurrent back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Sweden, core treatment for osteoarthritis is offered through a Supported Osteoarthritis Self-Management Programme (SOASP), combining education and exercise to provide patients with coping strategies in self-managing the disease. The aim was to study enablement and empowerment among patients with osteoarthritis in the hip and/or knee participating in a SOASP. An additional aim was to study the relation between the Swedish version of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) and the Swedish Rheumatic Disease Empowerment Scale (SWE-RES-23).Methods: Patients with osteoarthritis participating in a SOASP in primary health care were recruited consecutively from 2016 to 2018. The PEI (score range 0-12) was used to measure enablement and the SWE-RES-23 (score range 1-5) to measure empowerment. The instruments were answered before (SWE-RES-23) and after the SOASP (PEI, SWE-RES-23). A patient partner was incorporated in the study. Descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon's signed rank test, effect size (r), and the Spearman's rho (rs) were used in the analysis.Results: In total, 143 patients were included in the study, 111 (78%) were women (mean age 66, SD 9.3 years). At baseline the reported median value for the SWE-RES-23 (n = 142) was 3.6 (IQR 3.3-4.0). After the educational part of the SOASP, the reported median value was 6 (IQR 3-6.5) for the PEI (n = 109) and 3.8 (IQR 3.6-4.1) for the SWE-RES-23 (n = 108). At three months follow-up (n = 116), the reported median value was 6 (IQR 4-7) for the PEI and 3.9 (IQR 3.6-4.2) for the SWE-RES-23. The SWE-RES-23 score increased between baseline and three months (p ≤ 0.000). The analysis showed a positive correlation between PEI and SWE-RES-23 after the educational part of the SOASP (rs = 0.493, p < 0.00, n = 108) and at follow-up at three months (rs = 0.507, p < 0.00, n = 116).Conclusions: Patients reported moderate to high enablement and empowerment and an increase in empowerment after participating in a SOASP, which might indicate that the SOASP is useful to enable and empower patients at least in the short term. Since our results showed that the PEI and the SWE-RES-23 are only partly related both instruments can be of use in evaluating interventions such as the SOASP.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02974036 . First registration 28/11/2016, retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the most common reported musculoskeletal disorder, with large prevalence numbers and high costs. Focus on early identification of patients at risk of developing chronic LBP has increased. The Keele Start Back Tool (SBT) is a questionnaire aiming at screening prognostic indicators in LBP patients, categorizing patients into risk-groups and guide treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the Norwegian version of the SBT with regard to reliability of the SBT-scoring and the screening ability in LBP patients in primary care physiotherapy.Methods: LBP patients answered a package of questionnaires twice, with 1-3 days in between, containing SBT, Hannover functional ability questionnaire, pain intensity questions and demographics. The relative and absolute reliability of SBT was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the smallest detectable change respectively. Independent sample t-tests were used for group comparisons.Results: Fifty-two patients with LBP. Mean age (SD) was 45 (12) years and 62% were female. The ICC (95% CI) for SBT total score and psychosocial subscore was 0.89 (0.82, 0.94) and 0.82 (0.70, 0.90) respectively. None of the participants were allocated to the high risk group. The medium risk group reported significantly more pain last week and more activity limitations than the low risk group at both test and retest (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.003), whereas no significant difference between the groups was found on pain now (0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.16).Conclusions: The Norwegian version of the SBT was reliable and the screening ability was good as the subgrouping of patients into risk-groups reflected the severity of their back problems. The SBT may be an applicable and useful tool in physiotherapy practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No studies of Health Coach Interventions for knee OA sufferers that include patients' perspectives have been published. The study assesses current clinical practice and primary care professionals' advice from the patients' perspective, in order to obtain a participative design for a complex intervention based on coaching psychology. Moreover, wants to analyse the experiences, perceptions, cognitive evaluation, values, emotions, beliefs and coping strategies of patients with knee osteoarthritis, and secondly the impact of these factors in the Self-management of this condition.Methods: It is an interpretative qualitative study. The study included patients with diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) from 4 primary health care centres in Barcelona. A theoretical sampling based on a prior definition of participants' characteristics was carried out. Ten semi-structured interviews with knee OA patients were carried out. A content thematic analysis was performed following a mixed-strategy text codification in Lazarus framework and in emerging codes from the data.Results: The results are structured in two blocks: Experiences and perceptions of informants and Experiences of knee osteoarthritis according to the Lazarus model. Regarding experiences and perceptions of informants: Some participants reported that the information was mostly provided by health professionals. Informants know which food they should eat to lose weight and the benefits of weight loss. Moreover, participants explained that they like walking but that sometimes it is difficult to put into practice. Regarding experiences of knee osteoarthritis according Lazarus model: Cognitive evaluation is influenced by cognitive distortions such as obligation, guilt, dramatization and catastrophism.Values: Family is the value most associated with wellbeing. Helping others is another recurring value. Emotions: Most participants explain that they feel anxiety, irritability or sadness. Beliefs: To some, physiotherapy helps them feel less pain. However, others explain that it is of no use to them. Participants are aware of the association overweight- pain. Coping strategies: The strategies for coping with emotions aim to reduce psychological distress (anxiety, sadness, anger) and some are more active than others.Conclusions: The study highlights that patients with knee osteoarthritis require a person-centered approach that provides them with strategies to overcome the psychological distress caused by this condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Musculoskeletal pain is common in adults, with the hand being frequently affected. Healthcare services have the potential to be of benefit to adults with hand pain and problems, through promotion and facilitation of self-management.Methods: This paper explores existing self-management in a UK population of community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over using data from surveys and a nested clinical cohort study. Self-management of hand problems was considered in three ways: self-directed treatment approaches used, adaptation behaviours adopted and choice to consult with a healthcare professional.Results: The treatment approaches most commonly used were 'exercise/movement' (n = 151, 69 %) and 'resting' the hands (n = 139, 69 %). The use of adaptation behaviour was widespread: 217 (99 %) people reported using one or more adaptation behaviours. Under half of survey respondents who reported hand pain (n = 783, 43 %) had consulted a healthcare professional about their problem during the last year: the lowest rate of consultation was for occupational therapy (n = 60, 3 %).Conclusions: Self-directed treatment and adaptation behaviours were widespread in adults aged 50 years and over with hand problems, but consultation with a healthcare professional was low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite numerous options for treating back pain and the increasing healthcare resources devoted to this problem, the prevalence and impact of back pain-related disability has not improved. It is now recognized that psychosocial factors, as well as physical factors, are important predictors of poor outcomes for back pain. A promising new approach that matches treatments to the physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery, the STarT Back risk stratification approach, improved patients' physical function while reducing costs of care in the United Kingdom (UK). This trial evaluates implementation of this strategy in a United States (US) healthcare setting.Methods: Six large primary care clinics in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State were block-randomized, three to receive an intensive quality improvement intervention for back pain and three to serve as controls for secular trends. The intervention included 6 one-hour training sessions for physicians, 5 days of training for physical therapists, individualized and group coaching of clinicians, and integration of the STarT Back tool into the electronic health record. This prognostic tool uses 9 questions to categorize patients at low, medium or high risk of persistent disabling pain with recommendations about evidence-based treatment options appropriate for each subgroup. Patients at least 18 years of age, receiving primary care for non-specific low back pain, were invited to provide data 1-3 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 months and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. The primary outcomes are back-related physical function and pain severity. Using an intention to treat approach, intervention effects on patient outcomes will be estimated by comparing mean changes at the 2 and 6 month follow-up between the pre- and post-implementation periods. The inclusion of control clinics permits adjustment for secular trends. Differences in change scores by intervention group and time period will be estimated using linear mixed models with random effects. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization and adherence to clinical guidelines.Discussion: This trial will provide the first randomized trial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of implementing risk stratification with matched treatment options for low back pain in a United States health care delivery system.Trial Registration: NCT02286141. Registered November 5, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend a combination of physical, pharmacological and psychological treatments for chronic widespread pain, but published accounts of treatment acceptability are lacking.Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 44) nested within a randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of prescribed exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and combined exercise and CBT to treatment as usual for adults with chronic widespread pain.Results: Three main themes emerged from the data: i) the illness context (how people experience chronic pain and associated health services); ii) the identity context (how people react to their symptoms and accommodate these within themselves) and iii) the intervention context (the extent and manner by which the trial interventions models aligned with these responses). Referral to a prescribed exercise programme resonated most closely with participants' tendency to attribute pain to a structural or mechanical defect. Psychological therapy brought with it connotations of social judgement, deviance and stigma. Experience of psychological therapy often exceeded expectation. Participants who engaged in cognitive reflection and behavioural adaptation reported an upward identity shift independent of increased physical exercise behaviour.Conclusions: A logical rationale for a health intervention is in itself insufficient to ensure uptake and participation. Potential differences in treatment meaning emphasise the importance of acknowledging different phases of illness acceptance and of providing the most appropriate treatment option for the stage of reconciliation. Health service providers must not only understand people's own perceptions of chronic widespread pain but also the broader spheres of influence in which this pain is experienced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reassurance from physicians is commonly recommended in guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP), but the process of reassurance and its impact on patients is poorly researched. We aimed to develop a valid and reliable measure of the process of reassurance during LBP consultations.Methods: Items representing the data-gathering stage of the consultation and affective and cognitive reassurance were generated from literature on physician-patient communication and piloted with expert researchers and physicians, a Patient and Public Involvement group, and LBP patients to form a questionnaire. Patients presenting for LBP at 43 General Practice surgeries were sent the questionnaire. The questionnaire was analysed with Rasch modelling, using two samples from the same population of recent LBP consultations: the first (n = 157, follow-up n = 84) for exploratory analysis and the second (n = 162, follow-up n = 74) for confirmatory testing. Responses to the questionnaire were compared with responses to satisfaction and enablement scales to assess the external validity of the items, and participants completed the questionnaire again one-week later to assess test-retest reliability.Results: The questionnaire was separated into four subscales: data-gathering, relationship-building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance, each containing three items. All subscales showed good validity within the Rasch models, and good reliability based on person- and item-separations and test-retest reliability. All four subscales were significantly positively correlated with satisfaction and enablement for both samples. The final version of the questionnaire is presented here.Conclusions: Overall, the measure has demonstrated a good level of validity and generally acceptable reliability. This is the first measure to focus specifically on reassurance for LBP in primary care settings, and will enable researchers to further understanding of what is reassuring within the context of low back pain consultations, and how outcomes are affected by different types of reassurance. Additionally, the measure may provide a useful training and audit tool for physicians. The new measure requires testing in prospective cohorts, and would benefit from further validation against ethnographic observation of consultations in real time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimal management for adhesive shoulder capsulitis (frozen shoulder) is currently unclear. We intended to explore whether treatment by intra-articular injections with corticosteroid and distension is more effective than treating with corticosteroids alone or treatment-as-usual in a primary care setting in Norway.Methods: In this prospective randomised intention to treat parallel study, 106 patients were block randomised to three groups; 36 (analysed 35) receiving steroid injection and Lidocaine (IS), 34 receiving steroid and additional saline as distension (ISD) and 36 had treatment-as-usual (TAU). Intervention groups received four injections within 8 weeks, assessed on 1st visit, at the 4th and 8th week. Outcomes were Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and passive range of motion (PROM). Postal assessment was repeated after 1 year for SPADI. Patients in the IS and ISD groups were "blinded" for intervention received and the assessor was "blinded" to group allocation.Results: At baseline there were no differences between groups in outcome measures. There were no statistical significant differences between the intervention groups in SPADI, NPRS and PROM at baseline, at short-term (4-and 8 weeks) or long-term (12 months). There were statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) in change scores at short-term for SPADI when comparing the IS and TAU groups (-20.8; CI-28.9 to -12.7), and the ISD and TAU groups (-21.7; CI-29.4 to -14.0), respectively for NPRS (-2.0; CI-2.8 to -1.1 and -2.2; CI-3.0 to -1.4), and for PROM, but not at long-term for SPADI (p > 0.05). Effect size (ES) at 8 weeks was large between both injection groups and TAU (ES 1.2). At 12 months ES was reduced to 0.3 and 0.4 respectively. Transitory side effects as flushing and after-pain were reported by 14 % in intervention groups.Conclusion: This intention to treat RCT in primary care indicates that four injections with corticosteroid with or without distension, given with increasing intervals during 8 weeks, were better than treatment-as-usual in treatment of adhesive shoulder capsulitis. However, in the long run no difference was found between any of the groups, indicating that natural healing takes place independent of treatment or not.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ identifier: NCT01570985. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the world's leading cause of disability and yet poorly understood. Cross-national comparisons may motivate hypotheses about outcomes being condition-specific or related to cultural differences and can inform whether observations from one country may be generalised to another. This analysis of data from three cohort studies explored whether characteristics and outcomes differed between LBP patients visiting chiropractors in Sweden, Denmark and the UK.Methods: LBP patients completed a baseline questionnaire and were followed up after 3, 5, 12 and 26 weeks. Outcomes were LBP intensity (0-10 scales) and LBP frequency (0-7 days the previous week). Cohort differences were tested in mixed models accounting for repeated measures. It was investigated if any differences were explained by different baseline characteristics, and interaction terms between baseline factors and nations tested if strength of prognostic factors differed across countries.Results: The study sample consisted of 262, 947 and 453 patients from Sweden, Denmark and the UK respectively. Patient characteristics were largely similar across cohorts although some statistically significant differences were observed. The clinical course followed almost identical patterns across nations and small observed differences were not present after adjusting for baseline factors. The associations of LBP intensity and episode duration with outcome differed in strength between countries.Conclusions: Chiropractic patients with low back pain had similar characteristics and clinical course across three Northern European countries. It is unlikely that culture have substantially different impacts on the course of LBP in these countries and the results support knowledge transfer between the investigated countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current research emphasizes the high prevalence and costs of low back pain (LBP). The STarT Back Tool was designed to support primary care decision making for treatment by helping to determine the treatment prognosis of patients with non-specific low back pain. The German version is the STarT-G. The cross-cultural translation of the tool followed a structured and widely accepted process but to date it was only partially validated with a small sample. The aim of the study was to test the psychometric properties construct validity, discriminative ability, internal consistency and test-retest-reliability of the STarT-G and to compare them with values given for the original English version.Methods: A consecutive cohort study with a two-week retest was conducted among patients with non-specific LBP, aged 18 to 60 years, from primary care practices. Questionnaires were collected before the first consultation, and two weeks later by post, using the following reference standards: the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychometric properties examined included the tool's discriminative abilities, whether the psychosocial subscale was one factor, internal consistency, item redundancy, test-retest reliability and floor and ceiling effects.Results: There were 228 patients recruited with a mean age of 42.2 (SD 11.0) years, and 53 % were female. The areas under the curve (AUC) for discriminative ability ranged from 0.70 (STarT-G Subscale - Pain Catastrophizing Scale; CI95 0.63, 0.78) to 0.77 (STarT-G Total - Composite reference standard, CI95 0.60, 0.94). Factor loadings ranged from 0.49 to 0.74. Cronbach's alpha testing the internal consistency and redundancy for the total/subscale scores were α = 0.52/0.55 respectively. The STarT-G test-retest reliability Kappa values for the total/subscale scores were 0.67/0.68 respectively. No floor or ceiling effects were present.Conclusions: The STarT-G shows acceptable psychometric properties although not in exact agreement with the original English version. The items previously regarded as a psychosocial subscale may be better seen as an index of different individual psychosocial constructs. The relevance of using the tool at the point of consultation should be further examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with back pain radiating to the leg(s) report worse symptoms and poorer recovery than those with back pain alone. Robust evidence regarding their epidemiological profile is lacking from primary care, the setting where most of these patients will present and be managed. Our objective was to describe the characteristics of patients with back and leg pain, including sciatica, seeking treatment in primary care.Methods: Adults visiting their general practitioner with back and leg pain, of any duration and severity, were invited to participate. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments and received MRI scans. Characteristics of the sample are described, and differences between patients diagnosed with referred leg pain and those with sciatica are analysed.Results: Six hundred nine patients participated; 62.6 % were female, mean (SD) age 50.2 (13.9). 67.5 % reported pain below the knee, 60.7 % were in paid employment with 39.7 % reporting time off work. Mean disability (RMDQ) was 12.7 (5.7) and mean pain intensity was 5.6 (2.2) and 5.2 (2.4) for back and leg respectively. Mean sciatica bothersomeness index (SBI) was 14.9 (5.1). Three quarters (74.2 %) were clinically diagnosed as having sciatica. In the sciatica group, leg pain intensity, neuropathic pain, pain below the knee, leg pain worse than back pain, SBI and positive MRI findings were significantly higher as compared to patients with referred leg pain.Conclusions: This primary care cohort reported high levels of disability and pain. This is the first epidemiological study of unselected primary care patients seeking healthcare for back and leg pain. Follow-up of this cohort will investigate the prognostic value of their baseline characteristics. This new information will contribute to our understanding of the characteristics and clinical features of this population, and will underpin future research aimed at defining prognostic subgroups to enable better targeting of health care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is rising. While several risk factors have been associated with the development of knee OA, this information is not readily accessible to those at risk for osteoarthritis. Risk calculators have been developed for several prevalent chronic conditions but not for OA. Using published evidence on established risk factors, we developed an interactive, personalized knee OA risk calculator (OA Risk C) and conducted a pilot study to evaluate its acceptability and feasibility.Methods: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated, state-transition simulation of the natural history and management of OA, to generate data for OA Risk C. Risk estimates for calculator users were based on a set of demographic and clinical factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, obesity) and select risk factors (family history of knee OA, occupational exposure, and history of knee injury). OA Risk C presents personalized risk of knee OA in several ways to maximize understanding among a wide range of users. We conducted a study of 45 subjects in a primary care setting to establish the feasibility and acceptability of the OA risk calculator. Pilot study participants were asked several questions regarding ease of use, clarity of presentation, and clarity of the graphical representation of their risk. These questions used a five-level agreement scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.Results: OA Risk C depicts information about users' risk of symptomatic knee OA in 5 year intervals. Study participants estimated their lifetime risk at 38 %, while their actual lifetime risk, as estimated by OA Risk C, was 25 %. Eighty-four percent of pilot study participants reported that OA Risk C was easy to understand, and 89 % agreed that the graphs depicting their risk were clear and comprehensible.Conclusions: We have developed a personalized, computer-based OA risk calculator that is easy to use. OA Risk C may be utilized to estimate individuals' knee OA risk and to deliver educational and behavioral interventions focused on osteoarthritis risk reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care pharmacological management of new musculoskeletal conditions is not consistent, despite guidelines which recommend prescribing basic analgesics before higher potency medications such as opioids or non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The objective was to describe pharmacological management of new musculoskeletal conditions and determine patient characteristics associated with type of medication prescribed. Methods: The study was set within a UK general practice database, the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA). Patients aged 15 plus who had consulted for a musculoskeletal condition in 2006 but without a musculoskeletal consultation or analgesic prescription in the previous 12 months were identified from 12 general practices. Analgesic prescriptions within two weeks of first consultation were identified. The association of socio-demographic and clinical factors with receiving any analgesic prescription, and with strength of analgesic, were evaluated. Results: 3236 patients consulted for a new musculoskeletal problem. 42% received a prescribed pain medication at that time. Of these, 47% were prescribed an NSAID, 24% basic analgesics, 18% moderate strength analgesics, and 11% strong analgesics. Increasing age was associated with an analgesic prescription but reduced likelihood of a prescription of NSAIDs or strong analgesics. Those in less deprived areas were less likely than those in the most deprived areas to be prescribed analgesics (odds ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.55, 0.86). Those without comorbidity were more likely to be prescribed NSAIDs (relative risk ratios (RRR) compared to basic analgesics 1.89; 95% CI 0.96, 3.73). Prescribing of stronger analgesics was related to prior history of analgesic medication (for example, moderate analgesics RRR 1.88; 95% CI 1.11, 3.10). Conclusion: Over half of patients were not prescribed analgesia for a new episode of a musculoskeletal condition, but those that were often received NSAIDs. Analgesic choice appears multifactorial, but associations with age, comorbidity, and prior medication history suggest partial use of guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]