Search

In psychological health treatment studies it has been shown that differences between therapists account for some of the non-specific effect of treatment but this phenomenon has not so far systematically been investigated in musculoskeletal disorders. In this study we evaluated and compared the size and potential influence of the 'practitioner effect' (or 'therapist effect') in three randomised treatment trials of low back pain and neck pain patients in primary care. We calculated the proportion of variance in outcomes attributable to differences across practitioners, i.e. the practitioner-variance partition coefficient (p-vpc). As measures of outcome, we focused on self-reported disability as the primary outcome, but we also investigated assessed psychological outcomes. The p-vpc for the disability measures ranged from 2.6% to 7.1% across trials and time points (post treatment and follow up). Estimates differed between treatment subgroups within trials; being highest in treatment subgroups assigned to psychosocial-based interventions. A 'practitioner effect' does exist and is more pronounced in treatments involving greater psychosocial emphasis. This has implications for both practice and research in this clinical area. It highlights the importance of patient-practitioner interactions, and the need to address practitioner effects in designing and analysing outcome studies in low back pain and neck pain in primary care., (Copyright © 2010 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Clinicians require brief, practical tools to help identify low back pain (LBP) subgroups requiring early, targeted secondary prevention. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was recently validated to subgroup LBP patients into early treatment pathways., Aim: To test the SBT's concurrent validity against an existing, popular LBP subgrouping tool, the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ), and to compare the clinical characteristics of subgroups identified by each tool., Methods: Two hundred and forty-four consecutive 'non-specific' LBP consulters at 8 UK GP practices aged 18-59years were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included the OMPSQ and SBT, disability, fear, catastrophising, pain intensity, episode duration and demographics. Instruments were compared using Spearman's correlations, tests for subgroup agreement and discriminant analysis of subgroup characteristics according to reference standards., Results: Completed SBT (9-items) and OMPSQ (24-items) data was available for 130/244 patients (53%). The correlation of SBT and OMPSQ scores was 'excellent (rs=0.80). Subgroup characteristics were similar across the low, medium and high subgroups, but, the proportions allocated to 'low', 'medium' and 'high' risk groups were different, with fewer patients in the SBT's high risk group. Both instruments similarly discriminated for reference standards such as disability, catastrophising, fear, comorbid pain and time off work. The OMPSQ was better at discriminating pain intensity, while the SBT was better for discriminating bothersomeness of back pain and referred leg pain., Conclusions: The SBT baseline psychometrics performed similarly to the OMPSQ, but the SBT is shorter and easier to score and is an appropriate alternative for identifying high risk LBP patients in primary care.

Objective: To develop a consensus plan for research and practice to encourage routine clinician screening of occupational factors associated with long-term back disability., Methods: A 3-day conference workshop including 21 leading researchers and clinicians (the "Decade of the Flags Working Group") was held to review the scientific evidence concerning clinical, occupational, and policy factors in back disability and the development of feasible assessment and intervention strategies., Results: The Working Group identified seven workplace variables to include in early screening by clinicians: physical job demands, ability to modify work, job stress, workplace social support or dysfunction, job satisfaction, expectation for resuming work, and fear of re-injury. Five evaluation criteria for screening methods were established: reliability, predictive performance, feasibility, acceptability, and congruence with plausible interventions. An optimal screening method might include a stepped combination of questionnaire, interview, and worksite visit. Future research directions include improving available assessment methods, adopting simpler and more uniform conceptual frameworks, and tying screening results to plausible interventions., Discussion: There is a clear indication that occupational factors influence back disability, but to expand clinician practices in this area will require that patient screening methods show greater conceptual clarity, feasibility, and linkages to viable options for intervention.

Background: The cost of low back pain (LBP) to employers is high, with an estimated pound 9090 million lost in the United Kingdom in 1998. Economic analysis of LBP has focused on work absence among the employed. There is little research characterising individuals who report reduced duties or who are not in employment because of LBP., Aims: To compare the health related characteristics of primary care LBP consulters reporting usual employment, reduced duties, sick leave and non-employment as a result of LBP., Methods: Prospective cohort study recruiting LBP consulters aged 30-59 years of age from five general practices in North Staffordshire., Results: Nine hundred and thirty-five participants completed the baseline phase, 65% were in employment and 35% were not in employment. Of the employed participants over 1 in 10 (11%) were undertaking reduced duties and almost one-fifth were reporting sick leave (22%). Furthermore, 37% of non-employed consulters reported that LBP was the reason for non-employment. Significant differences at baseline in socioeconomic status, self-rated health, anxiety, depression and disability were found between those undertaking their usual job, those on reduced duties and those on sickness absence due to LBP, with those participants further removed from the work force reporting worse health across all measures. Significant differences were also found in self-rated health between those not working due to LBP and those not working for other reasons, with participants not working due to LBP reporting worse self-rated health. At follow-up, work status was found to be relatively stable., Conclusion: These findings indicate that the economic impact of LBP may be higher than previously estimated when data on reduced duties is combined with work absence. The additional impact of unemployment due to LBP should also be included in future assessments of the impact of LBP on the workforce.

Unlabelled: This study aimed to examine short-term and mid-term course of health, biopsychosocial functional ability, and coping performance of patients with fibromyalgia (FM) or chronic back pain (BP) after participation in a standardized 4-week inpatient, interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program. In a prospective cohort study, assessments were made by using a set of standardized, well-tested self-rating instruments and other parameters before and after the intervention up to the 6-month follow-up with standardized effect sizes (ES) and comparison to population norms. The effects of improvements in health and coping domains on pain reduction were examined by linear regression modeling. The health of the 65 FM and the 60 BP patients at baseline was far worse than expected from the norms. Improvements included ES up to 1.09 for pain, physical role performance, and mental/affective health dimensions and 0.50 in coping at discharge from the clinic. At the 6-month follow-up, all effects were consistently lower but still up to ES = 0.75. Improvements of FM and BP were equal at discharge but slightly better for the FM's mood scales at the 6-month follow-up. Physical and social function, mood, and coping were significantly associated with pain reduction., Perspective: Inpatient, structured interdisciplinary rehabilitation covering elements of cognitive and operant behavioral therapy, graded activity exercise, and adapted drug therapy revealed moderate to large short-term and mid-term improvements in physical and mental health and in the major coping dimensions as captured by comprehensive and specific assessment.