Search

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 (<4 weeks' duration) preceded by at least a 1 month pain-free period and at-risk of developing chronic LBP. Potential participants with chronic spinal pain and those with suspected serious spinal pathology will be excluded. Eligible participants who agree to take part will be randomly allocated to receive 2x1 h sessions of pain biology education or 2x1 h sessions of sham education from a specially trained study physiotherapist. The study requires 101 participants per group to detect a 1-point difference in pain intensity 3 months after pain onset. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of chronic LBP, disability, pain intensity, depression, healthcare utilisation, pain attitudes and beliefs, global recovery and recurrence and are measured at 1 week post-intervention, and at 3, 6 and 12 months post LBP onset. Ethics/dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of New South Wales Human Ethics Committee in June 2013 (ref number HC12664). Outcomes will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conference meetings. Trial registration number: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx? ACTRN=12612001180808 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this perspective article, a number of conclusions and recommendations are offered based on the articles in this special issue of PTJ. In this special issue, a new approach to physical therapy, termed "psychologically informed practice," is offered as a "middle way" between narrowly focused standard physical therapist practice based on biomedical principles and the more cognitive-behavioral approaches developed originally for the treatment of mental illness. This new approach uses the "flags" framework, with psychologically informed practice requiring routine and specific consideration of "yellow flags" and "blue flags" (depending on clinical setting) for determining risk of poor outcome and identifying the potential for treatment modification- but with cognizance of the overall environment or context in which the clinician must operate. This context includes professional culture, health care policy, and insurance reimbursement (potential "black flags"). The primary goal of this approach is to prevent the development of unnecessary pain-associated activity limitations. The approach is based on the identification of normal psychological processes that affect the perception of pain and the response to it as an expected and normal part of the musculoskeletal pain experience and that are potentially modifiable. The potential for linking risk identification with targeted treatment has been discussed, this article focuses on the potential implications for training and implementation, drawing on experience in developing training programs in which the trainees have welcomed this new approach, viewing it as a helpful extension of their basic professional training. Indeed, this new approach can be viewed as evolutionary rather than revolutionary, in that it builds upon the established professional expertise of physical therapists, but incorporates systematic attention to the psychosocial factors that are associated with outcome of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is mounting evidence that occupational factors influence the extent of sickness absence following an episode of low back pain, but there have been limited efforts to integrate the identification and management of occupational factors into the routine practice of physical therapists. Systematic reviews suggest that a client's report of heavy physical demands, inability to modify job tasks, work stress, lack of organizational support, job dissatisfaction, poor expectations for resuming usual work, and fear of reinjury are indications of significant barriers to returning to work. Recommended strategies for evaluating and addressing occupational factors are explored with respect to the physical therapist's role in client assessment, development of activity and lifestyle recommendations, therapeutic exercise, communication with other providers, and summary reports. Primary recommendations include: (1) administration of self-report questionnaires to assess a client's perspective of physical job demands, (2) client-centered interviewing to highlight individual return-to- work concerns, (3) early discussions with clients about possible job modifications, and (4) incorporation of clients' workplace concerns in progress reports and summaries. These strategies may improve low back pain outcomes by encouraging effective communication with key stakeholders and by developing clients' ability to resolve obstacles to returning to work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Originally the term "yellow flags" was used to describe psychosocial prognostic factors for the development of disability following the onset of musculoskeletal pain. The identification of yellow flags through early screening was expected to prompt the application of intervention guidelines to achieve secondary prevention. In recent conceptualizations of yellow flags, it has been suggested that their range of applicability should be confined primarily to psychological risk factors to differentiate them from other risk factors, such as social and environmental variables. This article addresses 2 specific questions that arise from this development: (1) Can yellow flags influence outcomes in people with acute or subacute low back pain? and (2) Can yellow flags be targeted in interventions to produce better outcomes? Consistent evidence has been found to support the role of various psychological factors in prognosis, although questions remain about which factors are the most important, both individually and in combination, and how they affect outcomes. Published early interventions have reported mixed results, but, overall, the evidence suggests that targeting yellow flags, particularly when they are at high levels, does seem to lead to more consistently positive results than either ignoring them or providing omnibus interventions to people regardless of psychological risk factors. Psychological risk factors for poor prognosis can be identified clinically and addressed within interventions, but questions remain in relation to issues such as timing, necessary skills, content of treatments, and context. In addition, there is still a need to elucidate mechanisms of change and better integrate this understanding into the broader context of secondary prevention of chronic pain and disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Musculoskeletal complaints can impact on work in terms of productivity, sickness absence and long term incapacity for work. While employee attitudes and knowledge can drive absenteeism and presenteeism behaviour, managers also play an important role in influencing this via the quality of their relationships with employees and their role in implementing organisational policies and procedures. The aims of this study were to investigate the beliefs and attitudes of managers and employees with musculoskeletal pain about sickness absence, presenteeism, and return to work and to identify areas of consensus and conflict. Methods: 18 employees with musculoskeletal pain and 20 managers from two large public sector organisations in South Wales, UK, took part in individual face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed thematically using NVivo. Results: Employees' and managers' reports indicated that there was a strong culture of presenteeism in these organisations. Establishing the legitimacy of complaints was a salient theme for both managers and employees, although their views were in conflict. Employees reported feeling that contact with employers was intrusive when sickness absence was legitimate. Managers were supportive of those who they felt were 'genuinely' unwell, but also cited examples of people 'working the system' and not reporting absences appropriately. Conclusions: These issues require careful consideration of the rights and responsibilities of both employees and employers, where strategies for improving communication, trust, and creating an environment conducive to successful return to work need to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: 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 &y& Elsevier]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which aims to develop and validate a back pain screening tool relevant to primary care settings. The study assessed the psychometric properties of the tool including concurrent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and repeatability. Bothersomeness, catastrophizing, fear, anxiety and depression were identified as a psychosocial subscale. It was found that the tool demonstrated good reliability and validity and was acceptable to patients and clinicians.

Abstract: Background: The cost of low back pain (LBP) to employers is high, with an estimated £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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

As the experience of stigma and its psychological dimensions require careful measurement, the purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Feelings of Stigmatization Questionnaire (FSQ). A total of 170 participants with psoriasis and 124 with atopic dermatitis (AD) completed the FSQ. AD participants self-rated AD severity, while psoriasis severity was determined by a clinician. Confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor analytic (EFA) techniques were used to examine the factor structure of the FSQ. The FSQ total score was not related to age, age at onset, illness duration or psoriasis severity but it was negatively associated with AD severity ( r = −.25, p < .01). The original six-factor structure of the FSQ was not replicated in our sample. Using EFA, a fixed three-factor solution proved the most stable, with the dimensions of feeling flawed, anticipation of rejection and secrecy, and positive attitudes towards skin disease being identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: 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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Information processing biases relate to the manner in which people attend to particular types of information more readily than others. This bias, which is central to cognitive models of disorder, has not been explored in patients with psoriasis. The purpose of this study was to examine whether patients with psoriasis show an automatic attentional bias to classes o fin formation relative to controls. Sixty patients and 60 age- and sex-matched controls completed a computer-based attentional interference task (the modified Stroop task). Patients with psoriasis showed significant interference for disease-specific, self-referent, and others' behavior stimuli relative to controls. In terms of information processing biases, the relationship between subject status (psoriasis patient vs. control) and color-naming interference was significantly stronger than that between anxiety, depression and worry, and interference. Recall bias was limited to disease-specific stimuli only. The observed bias to threat is more appropriately accounted for by participant's status (i.e., psoriasis patient or control) than by psychological distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents letters to the editor concerning medical issues. Debate over withdrawing life sustaining treatment and euthanasia; Cannabinoids in pain management; Rehabilitation for chronic low back pain; Others.