Search

Background and Objective: Recent systematic reviews show promising effects for multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (BPS) interventions in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Nowadays, BPS interventions have also been developed for primary care physiotherapy settings. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of primary care BPS interventions in improving functional disability, pain, and work status for patients with CLBP. Secondly, we aimed to provide an elaborated overview of BPS intervention designs, physiotherapist training programs, and process‐related factors (practical implementation). Methods: We searched in scientific databases and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care physiotherapist‐led BPS interventions in adults (≥18 years) with nonspecific CLBP (≥12 weeks) were included. Results: Our search resulted in 943 references; 7 RCTs were included (1,426 participants). Results show moderate‐quality evidence (3 trials; 991 participants) that a BPS intervention is more effective than education/advice for reducing disability and pain in the short, medium, and long term. Low‐quality evidence (4 trials; 435 participants) was found for no difference with physical activity treatments. Conclusions: BPS interventions seem more effective than education/advice and were found to be as effective as physical activity interventions in patients with CLBP. BPS interventions with a clear focus on psychosocial factors (understanding pain, unhelpful thoughts, coping styles, and goal setting) seem most promising. Sufficient delivery of BPS elements is expected when physiotherapists participate in training programs with extensive support prior and during delivery (manual, supervision, and informative resources). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims at inspiring young researchers in the field, which is achieved through keynote lectures and meet-the- expert sessions from pain experts in the field, but also endorses possibilities to start new collaborations with researchers as well as clinicians in order to close the gap between science and clinical practice.

Objective To describe the development and content of a clinical framework for mirror therapy ( MT) in patients with phantom limb pain ( PLP) following amputation. Methods Based on an a priori formulated theoretical model, 3 sources of data collection were used to develop the clinical framework. First, a review of the literature took place on important clinical aspects and the evidence on the effectiveness of MT in patients with phantom limb pain. In addition, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to analyze clinical experiences and preferences of physical and occupational therapists and patients suffering from PLP regarding the application of MT. All data were finally clustered into main and subcategories and were used to complement and refine the theoretical model. Results For every main category of the a priori formulated theoretical model, several subcategories emerged from the literature search, patient, and therapist interviews. Based on these categories, we developed a clinical flowchart that incorporates the main and subcategories in a logical way according to the phases in methodical intervention defined by the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy. In addition, we developed a comprehensive booklet that illustrates the individual steps of the clinical flowchart. Conclusions In this study, a structured clinical framework for the application of MT in patients with PLP was developed. This framework is currently being tested for its effectiveness in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]