Search

Over the last decade, the content, delivery and media of pain education have been adjusted in line with scientific discovery in pain and educational sciences, and in line with consumer perspectives. This paper describes a decade-long process of exploring consumer perspectives on pain science education concepts to inform clinician-derived educational updates (undertaken by the authors). Data were collected as part of a quality audit via a series of online surveys in which consent (non-specific) was obtained from consumers for their data to be used in published research. Consumers who presented for care for a persistent pain condition and were treated with a pain science education informed approach were invited to provide anonymous feedback about their current health status and pain journey experience 6, 12 or 18 months after initial assessment. Two-hundred eighteen consumers reported improvement in health status at follow-up. Results of the surveys from three cohorts of consumers that reported improvement were used to generate iterative versions of ‘Key Learning Statements’. Early iteration of these Key Learning Statements was used to inform the development of Target Concepts and associated community-targeted pain education resources for use in public health and health professional workforce capacity building initiatives. Perspective This paper reflects an explicit interest in the insights of people who have been challenged by persistent pain and then recovered, to improve pain care. Identifying pain science concepts that consumers valued learning provided valuable information to inform resources for clinical interactions and community-targeted pain education campaigns. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background context : Low back pain is a major cause of morbidity and disability worldwide and is responsible for vast societal impact. Rates of surgical intervention for lumbar spine disorders continue to rise but poor outcomes remain common. Understanding how the social determinants of health (SDH) influence spinal surgical outcomes stands to inform appropriately tailored care practices and lead to better patient outcomes. Purpose : To determine the relationships between the SDH and pain, opioid use, disability and work absenteeism following lumbar spine surgery. Study design : Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Methods : We searched Embase, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Web of Science from inception to 21/4/2020. Studies eligible for inclusion involved participants receiving lumbar spine surgery and investigated the relationship between at least one SDH and post-surgical pain, opioid use, disability or work absenteeism. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies and used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to organise a narrative synthesis of findings. Results : Relevant data was extracted from twenty-three studies involving 30,987 adults from 12 countries. 107 relationships between the SDH and post-surgical outcomes were evaluated, 67 in multivariate analyses. Education was investigated in 23 analyses (14 studies): 70% revealed significant independent relationships between lower education and poorer outcomes. Socioeconomic status was investigated in nine analyses (four studies): 67% revealed independent relationships between lower socioeconomic status and poorer outcomes. Gender was investigated in 40 analyses (22 studies): indications that male versus female sex was associated with poorer outcomes were equivocal. Place of residence, race/ethnicity, and social capital were infrequently investigated. Conclusions : Low educational attainment and low income status are clear independent contributors to poorer outcomes following lumbar spine surgery. Occupational factors and work context are likely to be influential. Further research is critical to guide best-practice spinal surgery through a health equity lens. Study registration : PROSPERO registration number CRD42015015778

Cognitive flexibility can be thought of as the ability to effectively adapt one's cognitive and behavioural strategies in response to changing task or environmental demands. To substantiate the common inference that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility provide ‘different windows into the same room’, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility are related in healthy adults. Ten databases and relevant grey literature were searched from inception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to. Twenty-one articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. A multi-level random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship (0.05, 95% CI = −0.00 to 0.10). Random-effects meta-analyses raised the possibility that the Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Trail Making Test – part B (time) may be related (0.19, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.31). We conclude that the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility is not large enough to be considered convincing evidence for the two assessment approaches sharing construct validity. These results have clear implications for assessing and interpreting cognitive flexibility research and clinical practice Refereed/Peer-reviewed

usc Objective: Cognitive flexibility has been previously described as the ability to adjust cognitive and behavioral strategies in response to changing contextual demands. Cognitive flexibility is typically assessed via self-report questionnaires and performance on neuropsychological tests in research and clinical practice. A common assumption among researchers and clinicians is that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility assess the same or similar constructs, but the extent of the relationship between these two assessment approaches in clinical cohorts remains unknown. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical samples. Method: We searched 10 databases and relevant gray literature (e.g., other databases and pearling) from inception to October 2020 and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Eleven articles including 405 participants satisfied our eligibility criteria. Results: A multilevel random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility (0.01, 95% CI [−0.16 to 0.18]). Individual random-effects meta-analyses between 12 different tests pairs also found no relationship. Conclusion: Based on our results, it is clear that the two assessment approaches of cognitive flexibility provide independent information—they do not assess the same construct. These findings have important ramifications for future research and clinical practice—there is a need to reconsider what constructs self-report and neuropsychological tests of “cognitive flexibility” actually assess, and avoid the interchangeable use of these assessments in clinical samples. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Refereed/Peer-reviewed Developing a greater understanding of the social and environmental factors that are related to differential outcomes for individuals who experience persistent pain and disability is important for achieving health equity. In this study, we aimed to develop insights into the role of the social determinants of health (SDH) in care experiences and health status for socio-economically disadvantaged adults who experience persistent low back pain or persistent pain following spinal cord injury. Our objectives were to investigate 1) relationships between the SDH and health outcomes, 2) care experiences, and 3) perceived barriers and facilitators to optimal pain care. We conducted a mixed-methods convergent parallel study involving an online survey and semistructured interviews. We analyzed the data from each method separately and integrated the findings. One hundred sixty-four adults completed the survey and 17 adults completed the semistructured interviews. We found large or moderate-sized correlations between greater selfreported social isolation and poorer health outcomes. Experiencing a higher number of adverse SDH was moderately correlated with lower quality of life and was significantly correlated with all other outcomes. We generated 5 themes from the qualitative analysis: active strategies are important for well-being; low agency; facilitators of optimal care; barriers to optimal care; and health inequities, and derived meta-inferences that highlight the complex inter-relationships between the SDH and health outcomes in this cohort. The findings of our study can importantly inform endeavors to improve equity of pain care for adults with low back pain or spinal cord injury and persistent pain. Perspective: This study illustrates the complex interplay between adverse social determinants of health and poorer health status for adults with persistent pain and provides evidence to support the important role of social isolation. Developing an understanding of the life-contexts of those seeking care is a vital step towards addressing health inequities.

Introduction Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain. Methods We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated. Results We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1 = 0.92, Factor 2 = 0.91, Factor 3 = 0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1 = 0.71, Factor 2 = 0.73, Factor 3 = 0.79. Conclusion This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset.

The social determinants of health (SDH) are known to differentially impact outcomes from many noncommunicable diseases; however, their potential role in low back pain (LBP) is poorly defined. This review endeavours to comprehensively inform the field of their relevance. Our research question was: "How do the broad range of SDH and chronic LBP (CLBP) relate?" The primary aim of this review was to synthesise evidence of relationships between SDH and the frequency or severity of CLBP. Secondary aims were to identify relationships between SDH and LBP-related disability, work absenteeism, and opioid prescription. We included studies involving adult participants that evaluated relationships between one or more of the SDH and CLBP frequency or LBP outcomes (beyond 3 months). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized the results narratively and applied PROGRESS to organise our findings. Database searches identified 7018 records. Forty-one studies were included, containing data from 2,161,617 adults from 17 countries. Twenty-four percent and 19% of the relationships included were classified as having a high risk of bias due to confounding and missing data, respectively. We reported 166 relationships representing the majority of the PROGRESS domains. An array of independent and interdependent relationships between the SDH and CLBP were identified with the strongest evidence for associations related to educational attainment and socioeconomic status. Our findings suggest that greater recognition of the contribution of SDH to disparities in LBP outcomes is warranted and this has the potential to usefully inform strategies to impact burden.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain affects about 80% of all adults, many of whom consult general practice. Providing management can be challenging, in part due to the scarcity of effective treatment methods. There is broad consensus in international clinical practice guidelines to provide patients with information about the nature of their pain and recommend them to stay active despite discomfort. Delivering this information is time-demanding and challenged by the limited available resources in general practice in many countries. Furthermore, general practice settings are highly variable in size and in their composition of clinical staff members - which presents difficulties, but also opportunities for developing alternative approaches to clinical management. Expanding the patient consultation time by involving clinical staff members (aside from the general practitioner) has been found feasible for other conditions. We propose that this approach is applied for non-specific low back pain. Consequently, we suggest the involvement of clinical staff members as part of a new strategy for managing low back pain in general practice. MAIN TEXT: Multifaceted implementation strategies have the potential to effectively enable change in the clinical management of patients with low back pain in general practice if they are based on theory and are tailored to stake holders. Inspired by the Medical Research Council's guidance for complex interventions and the ChiPP (Change in professional performance) statement, we suggest applying the following two policy categories: organizational change (environmental/social planning) and service provision. This will involve attention to environmental restructuring, modelling, enabling, education, training, persuasion, and incentivising of general practices, with an over-arching strategy of involving clinical staff members in the management of low back pain. CONCLUSION: This is a pre-clinical proposal of a multifaceted strategy to support the delivery of evidence-based treatment for patients with low back pain in general practice. As an original idea, we suggest it would be feasible to involve clinical staff members in the delivery of information and advice to patients, whilst the general practitioner remains responsible for diagnostic decision-making. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background: Low back pain is responsible for significant personal and societal burden, particularly when it becomes persistent. Despite international consensus regarding the judicious use of diagnostic spinal imaging, patients continue to be over-referred. Objective: The aim of this article is to highlight the critical need for primary care clinicians to engage in thoughtful use of imaging procedures, and to consider alternative or adjunct methods for providing reassurance, in order to avoid or mitigate the potential negative impact of 'anomalous' findings. Discussion: While imaging is frequently requested with the goal of reassuring patients, it can paradoxically have a negative impact on patient attitudes and beliefs and can influence pain behaviours. For improved patient outcomes we recommend contextualisation of radiological findings within age-related norms, use of reassuring and non‑threatening language when communicating results, and educating patients on non‑pathoanatomical contributors to pain. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background According to clinical guidelines, advice to stay active despite experiencing pain is recommended to patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, not all patients receive guideline-concordant information and advice, and some patients still believe that activity avoidance will help them recover. The purpose was to study whether guideline-concordant beliefs among patients and other explanatory variables were associated with recovery. The main aim was to investigate whether believing staying active despite having pain is associated with a better functional outcome. Methods This was a prospective cohort study involving adults with non-specific LBP referred from general practices to the Spine Centre at Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Denmark. Patients reported on their beliefs about the importance of finding the cause, the importance of diagnostic imaging, perceiving to have received advice to stay active, pain duration, pain intensity, and STarT Back Tool. Agreeing to: ‘An increase in pain is an indication that I should stop what I’m doing until the pain decreases’ adjusted for age, gender, and education level was the primary explanatory analysis. A 30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score after 52 weeks was the outcome. Results 816 patients were included and 596 (73.0%) agreed that pain is a warning signal to stop being active. Among patients not considering pain as a warning signal, 80 (43.2%) had a favourable functional improvement of ≥30% on the RMDQ compared to 201 (41.2%) among patients considering pain a warning signal. No difference was found between the two groups (adjusted P = 0.542 and unadjusted P = 0.629). However, STarT Back Tool high-risk patients had a less favourable functional outcome (adjusted P = 0.003 and unadjusted P = 0.002). Chronic pain was associated with less favourable functional outcome (adjusted P Conclusions Holding the single belief that pain is a warning signal to stop being active was not associated with functional outcome. However, patients characterised by having multiple psychological barriers (high-risk according to the STarT Back Tool) had a less favourable functional outcome. Trial registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03058315), 20 February 2017.

Degenerative changes commonly feature on spinal images and are often identified in the imaging reports of pain-free individuals. Many of these findings relate to “normal” age-related characteristics, however are frequently interpreted as implying abnormality and may adversely influence patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of adding epidemiological information to lumbar imaging reports in a general adult population. This study was an online, scenario-based, randomised experiment. Participants were presented with a “virtual patient” scenario via an online survey and then randomly allocated to either receive a standard imaging report or a standard report with additional epidemiological information. The primary outcome was a composite “back-related perceptions” (BRP) score. Data from 247 participants (72% female) were included in the analysis. There was a small effect of group on BRP [F(12,444) = 6.75, p = 0.010] with participants who received the additional epidemiological information demonstrating more positive perceptions. Including epidemiological information in spinal imaging reports positively impacted “virtual-patient” perceptions in an online scenario-based study. This finding suggests that implementing a simple imaging reporting strategy may be reassuring and should be further considered for its potential to positively impact patient outcomes. Further research is warranted in clinical populations.

Purpose: To develop and test a standardised method of interpreting spinal imaging findings in a manner designed to reassure patients with low back pain and promote engagement in an active recovery. Methods: A five-phase development and testing process involved collaborative working party contributions, informal and formal appraisal of the intervention content by clinicians and consumers, a two-stage online evaluation of the take-home patient resource, and onsite testing. Results: A total of 12 health professionals and 77 consumers were included in formal evaluative processes at various stages of the development and testing process. Consumers assessed the revised iteration of the take-home resource to be clearer and easier to understand than the original version. We integrated all feedback and evaluation outcomes to develop the final intervention content, which was approved by experienced clinicians and considered safe. We devised a framework to guide delivery of the low-cost clinical intervention and a 10–15-min timeframe was demonstrated to be realistic. Conclusions:We have developed, modified, and tested a pragmatic framework for a brief, psychoeducational intervention. We have established face validity and acceptability from key stakeholders and engaged clinicians and are ready to proceed with a pilot feasibility trial. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Delivering efficient and effective healthcare is crucial for a condition as burdensome as low back pain (LBP). Stratified care strategies may be worthwhile, but rely on early and accurate patient screening using a valid and reliable instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of LBP screening instruments for determining risk of poor outcome in adults with LBP of less than 3 months duration.Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, Web of Science, SciVerse SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from June 2014 to March 2016. Prospective cohort studies involving patients with acute and subacute LBP were included. Studies administered a prognostic screening instrument at inception and reported outcomes at least 12 weeks after screening. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data using a standardised spreadsheet. We defined poor outcome for pain to be ≥ 3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale and poor outcome for disability to be scores of ≥ 30% disabled (on the study authors' chosen disability outcome measure).We identified 18 eligible studies investigating seven instruments. Five studies investigated the STarT Back Tool: performance for discriminating pain outcomes at follow-up was 'non-informative' (pooled AUC = 0.59 (0.55-0.63), n = 1153) and 'acceptable' for discriminating disability outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.74 (0.66-0.82), n = 821). Seven studies investigated the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: performance was 'poor' for discriminating pain outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.69 (0.62-0.76), n = 360), 'acceptable' for disability outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.75 (0.69-0.82), n = 512), and 'excellent' for absenteeism outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.83 (0.75-0.90), n = 243). Two studies investigated the Vermont Disability Prediction Questionnaire and four further instruments were investigated in single studies only.LBP screening instruments administered in primary care perform poorly at assigning higher risk scores to individuals who develop chronic pain than to those who do not. Risks of a poor disability outcome and prolonged absenteeism are likely to be estimated with greater accuracy. It is important that clinicians who use screening tools to obtain prognostic information consider the potential for misclassification of patient risk and its consequences for care decisions based on screening. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the outcomes on which we evaluated these screening instruments in some cases had a different threshold, outcome, and time period than those they were designed to predict.PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews registration number CRD42015015778 .

Prognostic screening in patients with low back pain (LBP) offers a practical approach to guiding clinical decisions. Whether screening is helpful in secondary care is unclear. This prospective cohort study in adults with LBP placed on outpatient clinic waiting lists, compared the performance of the short-form Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, the Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain Tool, and the STarT Back Tool. We assessed predictive validity for outcome at 4-month follow-up, by calculating estimates of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. We applied a decision curve analysis approach to describe the clinical value of screening in this setting via comparison with a 'treat-all' strategy. Complete data were available for 89% of enrolled participants (n = 195). Eighty-four percent reported 'poor outcome' at follow-up. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence interval) was .66 (.54-.78) for the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, .61 (.49-.73) for the Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain Tool, and .69 (.51-.80) for the STarT Back Tool. All instruments were miscalibrated and underestimated risk. The decision curve analysis indicated that, in this setting, prognostic screening does not add value over and above a treat-all approach. The potential for LBP patients to be misclassified using screening and the high incidence of nonrecovery indicate that care decisions should be made with the assumption that all patients are 'at risk.'. Perspective: This article presents a head-to-head comparison of 3 LBP screening instruments in a secondary care setting. Early patient screening is likely to hold little clinical value in this setting and care pathways that consider all patients at risk of a poor outcome are suggested to be most appropriate. Refereed/Peer-reviewed