Search

Introduction: Goal setting, led by the patient, is promising as an effective treatment for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP); however, little is known about current practice. The aims of the study were to explore (1) current goal setting practice in CLBP among physiotherapists; (2) perceived barriers to goal setting in CLBP; and (3) relationship between clinician’s attitudes and beliefs and goal setting practice. Method: A cross-sectional observational survey. Results: The majority of respondents used goal setting with the main aim of facilitating self-management. The greatest number of goals were set with 50% therapist/50% patient involvement. The most common perceived barriers to goal setting related to time constraints and lack of skill and confidence. A higher biomedical score for treatment orientation of the therapist was associated with a lower patient involvement score. Conclusion: Goal setting is common practice for CLBP and is perceived as a high priority. It is more often a collaboration between therapist and patient rather than patient-led with treatment orientation of the physiotherapist a predictor of patient involvement. Education of healthcare professionals needs to include better understanding of chronic pain to orient them away from a biomedical treatment approach, as well as to enhance skills in facilitating patient involvement in goal setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Pain education is a complex intervention developed to help clinicians manage low back pain. Although complex interventions are usually evaluated by their effects on outcomes, such as pain or disability, most do not directly target these outcomes; instead, they target intermediate factors that are presumed to be associated with the outcomes. The mechanisms underlying treatment effects, or the effect of an intervention on an intermediate factor and its subsequent effect on outcome, are rarely investigated in clinical trials. This leaves a gap in the evidence for understanding how treatments exert their effects on outcomes. Mediation analysis provides a method for identifying and quantifying the mechanisms that underlie interventions. Aim To determine whether the effect of pain education on pain and disability is mediated by changes in self-efficacy, catastrophisation and back pain beliefs. Design Causal mediation analysis of the PREVENT randomised controlled trial. Participants and setting Two hundred and two participants with acute low back pain from primary care clinics in the Sydney metropolitan area. Intervention Participants will be randomised to receive either ‘pain education’ (intervention group) or ‘sham education’ (control group). Measurements All outcome measures (including patient characteristics), primary outcome measures (pain and disability), and putative mediating variables (self-efficacy, catastrophisation and back pain beliefs) will be measured prior to randomisation. Putative mediators and primary outcome measures will be measured 1 week after the intervention, and primary outcome measures will be measured 3 months after the onset of low back pain. Analysis Causal mediation analysis under the potential outcomes framework will be used to test single and multiple mediator models. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the estimated mediation effects on the influence of violating sequential ignorability – a critical assumption for causal inference. Discussion and significance Mediation analysis of clinical trials can estimate how much the total effect of the treatment on the outcome is carried through an indirect path. Using mediation analysis to understand these mechanisms can generate evidence that can be used to tailor treatments and optimise treatment effects. In this study, the causal mediation effects of a pain education intervention for acute non-specific low back pain will be estimated. This knowledge is critical for further development and refinement of interventions for conditions such as low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Many patients with acute low back pain do not recover with basic first-line care (advice, reassurance, and simple analgesia, if necessary). It is unclear whether intensive patient education improves clinical outcomes for those patients already receiving first-line care., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive patient education for patients with acute low back pain., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients from general practices, physiotherapy clinics, and a research center in Sydney, Australia, between September 10, 2013, and December 2, 2015. Trial follow-up was completed in December 17, 2016. Primary care practitioners invited 618 patients presenting with acute low back pain to participate. Researchers excluded 416 potential participants. All of the 202 eligible participants had low back pain of fewer than 6 weeks' duration and a high risk of developing chronic low back pain according to Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain (PICKUP) Tool, a validated prognostic model. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either patient education or placebo patient education., Interventions: All participants received recommended first-line care for acute low back pain from their usual practitioner. Participants received additional 2 × 1-hour sessions of patient education (information on pain and biopsychosocial contributors plus self-management techniques, such as remaining active and pacing) or placebo patient education (active listening, without information or advice)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included disability (24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 1 week, and at 3, 6, and 12 months., Results: Of 202 participants randomized for the trial, the mean (SD) age of participants was 45 (14.5) years and 103 (51.0%) were female. Retention rates were greater than 90% at all time points. Intensive patient education was not more effective than placebo patient education at reducing pain intensity (3-month mean [SD] pain intensity: 2.1 [2.4] vs 2.4 [2.2]; mean difference at 3 months, -0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.3]). There was a small effect of intensive patient education on the secondary outcome of disability at 1 week (mean difference, -1.6 points on a 24-point scale [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1]) and 3 months (mean difference, -1.7 points, [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]) but not at 6 or 12 months., Conclusions and Relevance: Adding 2 hours of patient education to recommended first-line care for patients with acute low back pain did not improve pain outcomes. Clinical guideline recommendations to provide complex and intensive support to high-risk patients with acute low back pain may have been premature., Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trial Registration Number: 12612001180808.

Introduction: Around 40% of people presenting to primary care with an episode of acute low back pain develop chronic low back pain. In order to reduce the risk of developing chronic low back pain, effective secondary prevention strategies are needed. Early identification of at-risk patients allows clinicians to make informed decisions based on prognostic profile, and researchers to select appropriate participants for secondary prevention trials. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a prognostic screening tool that identifies patients with acute low back pain in primary care who are at risk of developing chronic low back pain. This paper describes the methods and analysis plan for the development and validation of the tool., Methods/analysis: The prognostic screening tool will be developed using methods recommended by the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) Group and reported using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. In the development stage, we will use data from 1248 patients recruited for a prospective cohort study of acute low back pain in primary care. We will construct 3 logistic regression models to predict chronic low back pain according to 3 definitions: any pain, high pain and disability at 3 months. In the validation stage, we will use data from a separate sample of 1643 patients with acute low back pain to assess the performance of each prognostic model. We will produce validation plots showing Nagelkerke R(2) and Brier score (overall performance), area under the curve statistic (discrimination) and the calibration slope and intercept (calibration)., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval from the University of Sydney Ethics Committee was obtained for both of the original studies that we plan to analyse using the methods outlined in this protocol (Henschke et al, ref 11-2002/3/3144; Williams et al, ref 11638)., (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.)