Search

Objectives: To identify, appraise, and synthesize common themes from quality indicator (QI) sets designed for the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in primary and community care contexts., Data Sources: A systematic search was performed on six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, Web of Sciences Core Collection, The Cochrane Library, and The Health Management Information Consortium), public repositories, and the websites of organizations involved in the reporting of MSK QIs., Study Selection: Potential QI sources were screened for relevance using an a priori criteria. After the screening of 1493 titles, abstracts, 71 articles were reviewed independently by two authors, of which 25 met our criteria and were therefore included within the review., Data Extraction: The development of the QI sets was appraised using the AIRE instrument. Key characteristics of QI sets were extracted and tabulated. Nine out of 25 QI sets had "high" developmental methodology quality. A total of 410 QIs were identified from 25 QI sets., Data Synthesis: A narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify common themes among QIs. Themes were mapped against improvement drivers mentioned in recent British primary/community MSK care policy directives. Finally, "Draft Indicators" were synthesized from common themes identified. Eleven overarching themes were synthesized: policy and governance; optimizing access and provision of care; staffing and spending; optimizing assessment and diagnosis; optimizing patient education and self-management; pharmacology and injection guideline adherence; optimizing personalized care; optimizing imaging, investigations, and referral; public health management relevant to MSK conditions; optimizing patient experience; and optimizing patient outcomes., Conclusions: This review has identified common themes among QIs that focus on optimizing assessment, investigations, and treatment decisions for the primary/community care of MSK conditions. This work represents a valuable resource to commissioners, service managers, and clinicians internationally who resource, monitor, manage, assess, and rehabilitate individuals with MSK conditions., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack)., Methods: Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486., Findings: Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference -0·5 [97·5% CI -1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (-0·6 [-1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care., Interpretation: The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LCR reports an educational grant from Pfizer held by their institute; consulting fees from the Musculoskeletal Association of Chartered Physiotherapists; and meeting support from Eurospine. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: At present there is no core outcome set (COS) for use in community and primary care Musculoskeletal (MSK) services across the UK. Services are therefore collecting different MSK outcomes and metrics in different ways and at different times. Standardising MSK data collection is essential in order for fair and impactful benchmarking to improve the quality of care delivered to the millions of patients presenting each year with MSK disorders., Objective: To gain consensus on a proposed set of metrics that could be used to develop a COS for use in routine practice in community and primary care MSK services in the UK and to make recommendations to inform a future national MSK audit., Methods: A consensus process involving researchers, healthcare professionals and patients. Previous research generated an initial list of proposed metrics. This proposal was then taken to wider stakeholder consensus via an online survey designed for both healthcare professionals and MSK service users., Results: 199 respondents completed the survey, 166 healthcare professionals and 33 service users (25/33 eligible to answer all items within the survey). Metrics that reached strong consensus were; age, pain site, comorbidities, duration of symptoms, work status, work absence, work absence duration. No Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) met strong consensus and all Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) other than timeliness/convenience met strong consensus criteria., Conclusion: 7 baseline factors and 9 PREM domains reached strong consensus. The MSK-HQ PROM was the highest rated outcome measure so was also recommended for inclusion in an MSK COS., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics., Objectives: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care., Design: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial., Setting: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK., Participants: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery., Interventions: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist., Results: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p  = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy., Conclusions: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration., Limitations: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results., Future Work: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Sue Jowett is (from 2016 to present) a member of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Clinical Trials Committee and reports personal fees as an independent advisor at the Pfizer (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) chronic pain advisory board meeting in November 2018, outside the submitted work. Kate M Dunn reports grants from the Wellcome Trust (London, UK), during the conduct of the study.

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations., Methods: The design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making., Results: GPs screened 3063 patients (intervention = 1591, control = 1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (intervention = 513, control = 724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (intervention = 231, control = 293). Recruitment took 28 weeks (target 12 weeks) with > 90% follow-up retention (target > 75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved "complete success"., Conclusions: A future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments., Trial Registration: Name of the registry: ISRCTN., Trial Registration Number: 15366334. Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

Background: Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to appropriate early treatment options. The STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the feasibility of a future main trial and of delivering prognostic stratified primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain. The pilot RCT was conducted in 8 UK general practices (4 stratified care; 4 usual care) with 524 patients. GPs in stratified care practices were asked to use i) the Keele STarT MSK development tool for risk-stratification and ii) matched treatment options for patients at low-, medium- and high-risk of persistent pain. This paper reports on a nested qualitative study exploring the feasibility of delivering stratified care ahead of the main trial., Methods: 'Stimulated-recall' interviews were conducted with patients and GPs in the stratified care arm (n = 10 patients; 10 GPs), prompted by consultation recordings. Data were analysed thematically and mapped onto the COM-B behaviour change model; exploring the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation GPs and patients had to engage with stratified care., Results: Patients reported positive views that stratified care enabled a more 'structured' consultation, and felt tool items were useful in making GPs aware of patients' worries and concerns. However, the closed nature of the tool's items was seen as a barrier to opening up discussion. GPs identified difficulties integrating the tool within consultations (Opportunity), but found this easier as it became more familiar. Whilst both groups felt the tool had added value, they identified 'cumbersome' items which made it more difficult to use (Capability). Most GPs reported that the matched treatment options aided their clinical decision-making (Motivation), but identified some options that were not available to them (e.g. pain management clinics), and other options that were not included in the matched treatments but which were felt appropriate for some patients (e.g. consider imaging)., Conclusion: This nested qualitative study, using the COM-B model, identified amendments required for the main trial including changes to the Keele STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options, targeting the COM-B model constructs, and these have been implemented in the current main trial., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 15366334.

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain represents a considerable worldwide healthcare burden. This study aimed to gain consensus from practitioners who work with MSK pain patients, on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for subgroups of patients based on prognostic risk of persistent disabling pain. Agreement was sought on treatment options for the five most common MSK pain presentations: back, neck, knee, shoulder and multisite pain, across three risk subgroups: low, medium and high., Methods: Three consensus group meetings were conducted with multi-disciplinary groups of practitioners (n = 20) using Nominal Group Technique, a systematic approach to building consensus using structured in-person meetings of stakeholders which follows a distinct set of stages., Results: For all five pain presentations, "education and advice" and "simple oral and topical pain medications" were agreed to be appropriate for all subgroups. For patients at low risk, across all five pain presentations "review by primary care practitioner if not improving after 6 weeks" also reached consensus. Treatment options for those at medium risk differed slightly across pain-presentations, but all included: "consider referral to physiotherapy" and "consider referral to MSK-interface-clinic". Treatment options for patients at high risk also varied by pain presentation. Some of the same options were included as for patients at medium risk, and additional options included: "opioids"; "consider referral to expert patient programme" (across all pain presentations); and "consider referral for surgical opinion" (back, knee, neck, shoulder). "Consider referral to rheumatology" was agreed for patients at medium and high risk who have multisite pain., Conclusion: In addressing the current lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of different treatment options for MSK pain, this study generated consensus from practitioners on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for MSK patients stratified according to prognostic risk. These findings can help inform future clinical decision-making and also influenced the matched treatment options in a trial of stratified primary care for MSK pain patients.

Background: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England., Objective: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting., Design: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls., Participants: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later., Interventions: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training., Main Measures: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization., Key Results: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use., Conclusions: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use., Trial Registration: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Objectives: Reassurance is an essential part of treatment for low back pain (LBP), but evidence on effective methods to deliver reassurance remains scarce. The interaction between consultation-based reassurance and patients' psychological risk is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between consultation-based reassurance and clinical outcomes at follow-up, in people with and without psychological risk., Methods: We tested the associations between specific reassurance components (data gathering, relationship building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance), patients' psychological risk (the presence of depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, or fear-avoidance), and postconsultation outcomes including, satisfaction and enablement, disability, pain, and mood at 3-month follow-up., Results: Adjusted linear regression models using data from patients who had recently consulted for LBP in primary care (n=142 in 43 practices) indicated that all reassurance components were strongly associated with increased satisfaction, whereas generic reassurance was significantly associated with postconsultation enablement. Generic reassurance was also associated with lower pain at 3 months, whereas cognitive reassurance was associated with increased pain. A significant interaction was observed between generic reassurance and psychological risk for depression at 3 months: high rates of generic reassurance were associated with lower depression in low-risk patients, but with higher rates of depression for high-risk groups., Discussion: The findings support the hypothesis that different components of reassurance are associated with specific outcomes, and that psychological risk moderates this relationship for depression. Clinicians reassuring behaviors might therefore have the potential to improve outcomes in people with LBP, especially for patients with higher psychological risk profiles.

Background: Stratified primary care involves changing General Practitioners' (GPs) clinical behaviour in treating patients, away from the current stepped care approach to instead identifying early treatment options that are matched to patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. This article explores the perspectives of UK-based GPs and patients about a prognostic stratified care model being developed for patients with the five most common primary care musculoskeletal pain presentations. The focus was on views about acceptability, and anticipated barriers and facilitators to the use of stratified care in routine practice., Methods: Four focus groups and six semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 23), and three focus groups with patients (n = 20). Data were analysed thematically; and identified themes examined in relation to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which facilitates comprehensive identification of behaviour change determinants. A critical approach was taken in using the TDF, examining the nuanced interrelationships between theoretical domains., Results: Four key themes were identified: Acceptability of clinical decision-making guided by stratified care; impact on the therapeutic relationship; embedding a prognostic approach within a biomedical model; and practical issues in using stratified care. Whilst within each theme specific findings are reported, common across themes was the identified relationships between the theoretical domains of knowledge, skills, professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and goals. Through analysis of these identified relationships it was found that, for GPs and patients to perceive stratified care as being acceptable, it must be seen to enhance GPs' knowledge and skills, not undermine GPs' and patients' respective identities and be integrated within the environmental context of the consultation with minimal disruption., Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of taking into account the context of general practice when intervening to support GPs to make changes to their clinical behaviour. Findings will inform further stages of the research programme; specifically, the intervention format and content of support packages for GPs participating in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). This study also contributes to the theoretical debate on how best to encourage clinical behaviour change in general practice, and the possible role of the TDF in that process.

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.

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.

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition. The majority of patients experiencing LBP are managed in primary care, where first-line care recommendations consist of advice to self-manage and remain active. Internet interventions present a potential means of providing patients with tailored self-management advice and evidence-based support for increasing physical activity., Methods/analysis: This protocol describes a single-blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial of an internet intervention developed to support the self-management of LBP in primary care. Patients are being randomised to 1 of 3 groups receiving either usual primary care, usual primary care with the addition of an internet intervention or an internet intervention with physiotherapist telephone support. Patients are followed up at 3 months. Primary outcomes are the feasibility of (1) the trial design/methods, (2) the delivery of the internet intervention and (3) the provision of telephone support by physiotherapists. Secondary outcomes will include exploratory analysis of estimates and variation in clinical outcomes of pain and disability, in order to inform a future main trial., Ethics/dissemination: This feasibility trial has undergone ethical scrutiny and been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee, REC Reference 13/SC/0202. The feasibility findings will be disseminated to the research community through presentations at conferences and publication in peer review journals. Broader dissemination will come following a definitive trial., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 31034004., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Stratified care for back pain involves targeting treatment to subgroups of patients based on their key characteristics such as prognostic factors, likely response to treatment and underlying mechanisms. It aims to tailor therapeutic decisions in ways that maximise treatment benefit, reduce harm and increase health-care efficiency by offering the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. From being called the 'Holy Grail' of back pain research over a decade ago, stratified care is becoming the zeitgeist in research and clinical practice. In this chapter, we introduce and evaluate the quality and underpinning evidence for three examples of stratified care for back pain to highlight their general principles, research design issues and clinical practice implications. We include consideration of their merits for implementation in practice. We conclude with a set of remaining, key research questions., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The IMPaCT Back study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment for Back pain) is a quality improvement study which aims to investigate the effects of introducing and supporting a subgrouping for targeted treatment system for patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care. This paper details the subgrouping for targeted treatment system and the clinical training and mentoring programmes aimed at equipping clinicians to deliver it. THE SUBGROUPING AND TARGETED TREATMENT SYSTEM: This system differs from 'one-size fits all' usual practice as it suggests that first contact health care practitioners should systematically allocate LBP patients to one of the three subgroups according to key modifiable prognostic indicators for chronicity. Patients in each subgroup (those at low, medium or high risk of chronicity) are then managed according to a targeted treatment system of increasing complexity. THE SUBGROUPING TOOLS: Subgrouping tools help guide clinical decision-making about treatment and onward referral. Two subgrouping tools have been used in the IMPaCT Back study, a 9-item version used by participating physiotherapists and a 6-item version used by GPs. The targeted treatments. The targeted treatments include a minimal intervention delivered by GPs (for those patients at low risk of poor outcome) or referral to primary care physiotherapists who can apply physiotherapy approaches to addressing pain and disability (for those at medium risk) and additional cognitive-behavioural approaches to help address psychological and social obstacles to recovery (for those at high risk). THE TRAINING PACKAGES: Building on previous interventions for other pilot studies and randomized trials, we have developed and delivered clinical training and support programmes for GPs and physiotherapists., Discussion: This paper describes in detail the IMPaCT Back study's subgrouping for targeted treatment system and the training and mentoring packages aimed at equipping clinicians to deliver it, within the IMPaCT Back study., Study Registration: ISRCTN55174281.

Musculoskeletal problems are the most common cause of restriction in daily life in most countries. Most health care for musculoskeletal problems is provided in primary care settings, and back pain and joint problems together represent the largest workload of cases of chronic disease seen and managed there. This article reflects on aspects of the occurrence, natural history, prognosis, and management of common joint problems in primary care. Although the biomedical model has contributed to major advances, a model that embraces chronic pain management and its psychological and social components is needed. In particular, primary care is the ideal arena to achieve high-impact secondary prevention of pain and disability in people with osteoarthritis. Physical therapists are in a crucial position in primary care to provide support for self-management of this condition, especially for interventions related to exercise and behavioral change.