Search

Additional file 1.

Supplemental material, Supplemental for Activity-Based Therapy in a Community Setting for Independence, Mobility, and Sitting Balance for People With Spinal Cord Injuries by Camila Quel de Oliveira, James W Middleton, Kathryn Refshauge and Glen M Davis in Journal of Central Nervous System Disease

Objective: To systematically review the relationship between lumbar proprioception and low back pain (LBP). Data Sources: Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus) and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from inception to March-April 2014. Study Selection: Studies compared lumbar proprioception in patients with LBP with controls or prospectively evaluated the relationship between proprioception and LBP. Two reviewers independently screened articles and determined inclusion through consensus. Data Extraction: Data extraction and methodologic quality assessment were independently performed using standardized checklists

Objective: Chronic pain is a common problem that is associated with mood disorders such as depression. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) questionnaire is commonly used to help measure disordered mood. In this study, we used Rasch analysis to analyze the clinimetric properties of the DASS-21 in a chronic low back pain sample. Study Design and Setting: A Rasch analysis was conducted on data collected as a part of a randomized hospital-based placebo-controlled trial. DASS-21 questionnaires were completed by the 154 enrolled participants. Results: The DASS-21 subscales fit the Rasch model. No differential item functioning was detected for age, gender, pain severity, or disability. Reliability for individual use was supported for the depression subscale (Person Separation Index [PSI] = 0.86) but group use only for the anxiety (PSI = 0.74) and stress (PSI = 0.82) subscales. A DASS-21 aggregate score of “negative affect” lacked fit to the Rasch model (χ2 = 191.48, P < 0.001). Conclusion: This is the first study that used Rasch analysis to demonstrate that the DASS-21 subscales demonstrate adequate measurement properties for research involving groups with chronic pain. Only the DASS-21 depression subscale demonstrated adequate reliability for use with individuals with chronic pain. The use of a single DASS-21 aggregate score as a measure of “negative affect” was not supported.

Introduction Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) are a huge worldwide health and economic burden. The propensity towards developing into chronic, disabling conditions drives the rise in health and economic costs associated with treatment, productivity loss and compulsory third party insurance claims. Current treatments fail to address the well-documented heterogeneity of WAD and often result in poor outcomes. A novel approach is to evaluate whether the care provided according to the estimated risk of poor prognosis improves health outcomes while remaining cost-effective. Research questions (1) Does a guideline-based clinical pathway of care improve health outcomes after whiplash injury compared to usual care? (2) Does risk of recovery have a differential effect on health outcomes for the clinical pathway of care? (3) Is the clinical pathway of care intervention cost-effective? (4) What are the variations in professional practice between usual care and the clinical pathway of care? Design Multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial conducted over two Australian states: Queensland and New South Wales. Participants and setting 236 people with WAD (grade I-III, within 6 weeks of injury) and their primary healthcare providers. Intervention A clinical pathway of care, with care matched to the predicted risk of poor recovery. Participants at low risk of ongoing pain and disability (hence, predicted to fully recover) will receive up to three sessions of guideline-based advice and exercise with their primary healthcare provider. Participants at medium/high risk of developing ongoing pain and disability will be referred to a specialist (defined as a practitioner with expertise in whiplash) who will conduct a more in-depth physical and psychological assessment. As a result, the specialist will liaise with the original primary healthcare provider and determine one of three further pathways of care. Control Usual care provided by the primary healthcare provider that is based on clinical judgment. Measurements Primary (global rating of change and neck-related disability) and secondary (self-efficacy, pain intensity, general health and disability and psychological health) outcomes will be collected using validated scales. Direct (eg, professional care, transportation costs, time spent for care, co-payments) and indirect (eg, lost economic productivity) costs will be obtained through an electronic cost diary. Health and cost outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Professional practice outcomes will be evaluated through questionnaires completed by healthcare providers and their patients at 3 months. Procedure Potential participants (patients) will be identified through emergency departments, primary health clinics and advertisements. Eligible participants will complete baseline assessments and will be categorised into low or medium/high risk of poor recovery using a clinical prediction rule. After this assessment, participants will be randomly allocated to either a control group ( n =118) or intervention group ( n =118), stratified by risk subgroup and treatment site. The participants' nominated primary healthcare providers will be informed of their involvement in the trial. Consent will be obtained from the primary healthcare providers to participate and to obtain information about professional practice. Participants in the intervention group will additionally have access to an interactive website that provides information about whiplash and recovery relative to their risk category. Analysis Analysis will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Outcomes will be analysed independently through cross-sectional analyses using generalised linear models methods, with an appropriate link function, to test for an intervention effect, adjusted for the baseline values. The risk category will be tested for its association with treatment effect by adding risk group to the regression equation. Cost-effectiveness will be calculated using utility weights and the resulting measure will be cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved. Professional practice outcomes will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Discussion This research is significant as it will be the first study to address the heterogeneity of whiplash by implementing a clinical pathway of care that matches evidence-based interventions to projected risk of poor recovery. The results of this trial have the potential to change clinical practice for WAD, thereby maximising treatment effects, improving patient outcomes, reducing costs and maintaining the compulsory third party system.

Objective: Chronic pain is a common problem that is associated with mood disorders such as depression. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) questionnaire is commonly used to help measure disordered mood. In this study, we used Rasch analysis to analyze the clinimetric properties of the DASS-21 in a chronic low back pain sample. Study Design and Setting: A Rasch analysis was conducted on data collected as a part of a randomized hospital-based placebo controlled trial. DASS-21 questionnaires were completed by the 154 enrolled participants. Results: The DASS-21 subscales fit the Rasch model. No differential item functioning was detected for age, gender, pain severity, or disability. Reliability for individual use was supported for the depression subscale (Person Separation Index [PSI]50.86) but group use only for the anxiety (PSI50.74) and stress (PSI50.82) subscales. A DASS-21 aggregate score of ‘‘negative affect’’ lacked fit to the Rasch model (c25191.48, P!0.001). Conclusion: This is the first study that used Rasch analysis to demonstrate that the DASS-21 subscales demonstrate adequate measurement properties for research involving groups with chronic pain. Only the DASS-21 depression subscale demonstrated adequate reliability for use with individuals with chronic pain. The use of a single DASS-21 aggregate score as a measure of ‘‘negative affect’’ was not supported. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Study Design. Inception cohort study. Objective. To provide the first reliable estimate of the 1-year incidence of recurrence in subjects recently recovered from acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and to determine factors predictive of recurrence in 1 year. Summary of Background Data. Previous studies provide potentially flawed estimates of recurrence of LBP because they do not restrict the cohort to those who have recovered and are therefore eligible for a recurrence. Methods. We identified 1334 consecutive patients who presented to primary care with acute LBP; of these 353 subjects recovered before 6 weeks and entered the current study. The primary outcome measure was recurrence of LBP in the next year. Specifically, an episode of recurrence was defined in 2 ways: recall of recurrence at the 12-month follow-up and report of pain at the 3- or 12-month follow-up. Risk factors for recurrence were assessed at baseline. Pain intensity was assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months and recurrence at 12 months. Factors that could plausibly affect recurrence were chosen a priori and evaluated using a multivariable regression analysis. Results. Recurrence of LBP was found to be much less common than previous estimates suggest, ranging from 24% (95% CI = 20%–28%) using “12-month recall” definition of recurrence, to 33% (95% CI = 28%–38%) using “pain at follow-up” definition of recurrence. However, only 1 factor, previous episode(s) of LBP, was consistently predictive of recurrence within the next 12 months (odds ratio = 1.8–2.0, P = 0.00–0.05). Conclusion. This study challenges the assumption that the majority of subjects will have a recurrence of LBP in a 1-year period. After the resolution of an episode of acute LBP, about 25% of subjects will have a recurrence in the next year. It is difficult to predict who will have a recurrence within the next year.

Members of the Manipulative Physiotherapists Association of Australia (now Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Australia) were surveyed to determine their use of cervical manipulation, compliance with and attitudes to the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Protocol for Pre-manipulative Testing of the Cervical Spine, and the incidence of adverse effects from cervical manipulation. The questionnaire was mailed to 740 members and returned by 480 members (65%). Cervical manipulation (84.5%) and passive mobilization (99.8%) were used by a high percentage of respondents. Most were familiar with the protocol with 63% supporting its continued endorsement. Adverse effects were reported at a rate of one per 1000 years of practice (or 0.003/week). The most common effects were symptoms potentially related to VBI (94.4% responses), with no reported major complications. Only 37.1% of respondents always informed the patient about potential dangers of cervical manipulation and consent was sought on every occasion by 33% of respondents. The results suggest that the use and interpretation of the protocol are variable among members of MPA. The risk of adverse effects from manipulative (musculoskeletal) physiotherapy practice, including cervical manipulation, appears to be very low. Recommendations for revision of the protocol were made on the basis of results of the survey and treatment diary, in addition to a review of the literature related to testing for vertebro-basilar insufficiency, adverse incidents related to cervical mobilizing and manipulative technique, differentiating features of VBI related dizziness and vertigo related to benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and current issues surrounding informed consent. Finally, a summary of the content of the new Clinical Guidelines for Pre-Manipulative Testing of the Cervical Spine (APA, 2000) is provided.

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Of those patients who present to primary care with acute LBP, 40% continue to report symptoms 3 months later and develop chronic LBP. Although it is possible to identify these patients early, effective interventions to improve their outcomes are not available. This double-blind (participant/outcome assessor) randomised controlled trial will investigate the efficacy of a brief educational approach to prevent chronic LBP in ‘at-risk’ individuals. Methods/analysis: Participants will be recruited from primary care practices in the Sydney metropolitan area. To be eligible for inclusion participants will be aged 18– 75 years, with acute LBP (