Search

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what concerns people with acute low back pain (LBP) and explore whether demographic and clinical factors were associated with having concerns about LBP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. METHODS: We included participants aged ≥18 years with acute LBP (LBP≤6 weeks). We collected demographic and clinical characteristics via an online survey and asked one open-ended question to elicit participants' concerns about their LBP. We investigated concerns about LBP using inductive content analysis. Using multivariable logistic regression, we explored associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and having concerns about LBP. RESULTS: We included 2025 participants, a majority of whom (n = 1200, 59.3%) reported having at least 1 concern about their LBP. There were 34 unique concerns, which mapped to 5 themes: causes of LBP (n = 393, 19.4%), future consequences of LBP (n = 390, 19.3%), psychosocial consequences of LBP (n = 287, 14.2%), physical consequences of LBP (n = 210, 10.4%), and health consequences of LBP (n = 84, 4.2%). Demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with having concerns about LBP: participants with university education, having previously received advice for LBP, with higher LBP intensity, interference, and higher anxiety symptoms were more likely to have concerns about their LBP. CONCLUSION: Most people with acute LBP had at least 1 concern about their LBP, more commonly centered around the causes of and the future consequences of LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence‐based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). Design: Semistructured interviews with think‐aloud user‐testing protocol. Participants: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. Outcome Measures: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). Methods: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user‐testing, which involved discussing user‐testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. Results: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user‐testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision‐making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question‐asking and help patients reflect on personal values. Conclusions: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user‐testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo‐controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate‐certainty to low‐certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate‐to‐severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]