Project description:Chiropractors commonly provide care to people with acute low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this survey was to determine how chiropractors intend to support and manage people with acute LBP and if this management is in accordance with two recommendations from an Australian evidence-based acute LBP guideline. The two recommendations were directed at minimising the use of plain x-ray and encouraging the patient to stay active.This is a cross sectional survey of chiropractors in Australia. This paper is part of the ALIGN study in which a targeted implementation strategy was developed to improve the management of acute LBP in a chiropractic setting. This implementation strategy was subsequently tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. In this survey phase of the ALIGN study we approached a random sample of 880 chiropractors in three States of Australia. The mailed questionnaire consisted of five patient vignettes designed to represent people who would typically present to chiropractors with acute LBP. Four vignettes represented people who, according to the guideline, would not require a plain lumbar x-ray, and one vignette represented a person with a suspected vertebral fracture. Respondents were asked, for each vignette, to indicate which investigation(s) they would order, and which intervention(s) they would recommend or undertake.Of the 880 chiropractors approached, 137 were deemed ineligible to participate, mostly because they were not currently practising, or mail was returned to sender. We received completed questionnaires from 274 chiropractors (response rate of 37%). Male chiropractors made up 66% of respondents, 75% practised in an urban location and their mean number of years in practice was 15. Across the four vignettes where an x-ray was not indicated 68% (95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 64%, 71%) of chiropractors responded that they would order or take an x-ray. In addition 51% (95%CI: 47%, 56%) indicated they would give advice to stay active when it was indicated. For the vignette where a fracture was suspected, 95% (95% CI: 91%, 97%) of chiropractors would order an x-ray.The intention of chiropractors surveyed in this study shows low adherence to two recommendations from an evidence-based guideline for acute LBP. Quality of care for these patients could be improved through effective implementation of evidence-based guidelines. Further research to find cost-effective methods to increase implementation is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundImaging is overused in the management of low back pain, resulting in overdiagnosis, increased healthcare utilisation, and increased costs. Few effective interventions to decrease inappropriate use have been developed and have typically not been developed using behaviour change theory. An intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain was developed using behavioural change theory, incorporating a novel low back pain management booklet to facilitate patient education and reassurance. The aim of this study was to assess the adoption and feasibility of use of the developed intervention within clinical practice and to determine appropriate implementation strategies to address identified barriers to use.MethodsFourteen general medical practitioners were recruited and trained to use the booklet with low back pain patients over a minimum 5-month period. Quantitative data on use of the booklet were collected and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on use of the booklet and training session were collected in general medical practitioner interviews and thematically analysed. Barriers to use were identified and mapped to suitable implementation strategies using the Behaviour Change Wheel.ResultsPractitioners used the booklet with 73 patients. The booklet was used with 63% of patients presenting with low back pain. Facilitators for using the booklet included patient's requesting imaging and lower practitioner confidence in managing low back pain. Barriers included accessible storage and remembering to use the booklet. Implementation strategies were identified to increase adoption and feasibility of use, including development of a digital version of the booklet.ConclusionsGeneral medical practitioners reported that the low back pain management booklet and training were useful for clinical practice, particularly with patients requesting imaging. Barriers to use were identified and implementation strategies to address these barriers will be incorporated into future effectiveness studies. This study forms one of a series of studies to thoroughly develop and test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain; a successful intervention would decrease healthcare costs and improve patient management.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of self-management in health promotion, as well as prevention and rehabilitation, is increasing through the use of mobile health (mHealth) apps. Such mHealth apps are also increasingly being used for self-management of low back pain (LBP), but their effectiveness has not been sufficiently explored.ObjectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the literature on self-management mHealth apps and their effects on the levels of pain and disability in people with LBP.MethodsWe applied the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) methodology, including a priori research questions. A literature search was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and PEDro) for studies published between January 1, 2015, and June 17, 2021. Interventional, cohort, or case series studies with an interventional period were included if the mHealth app included built-in self-management content, the app was used for self-management for people with LBP, and the study reported outcomes regarding pain and disability in people with LBP.ResultsIn total, 7 studies were selected for the review with overall 2307 persons with LBP, of whom 1328 (57.56%) were women. Among the studies (5/7, 71%) that reported the type of pain, 85% (390/459) of the participants were experiencing chronic LBP. A total of 5 different mHealth apps were identified, of which 4 contributed to a statistically significant reduction in LBP and clinically meaningful changes. Of the 7 studies, 4 (57%) used 4 different assessments for disability, of which 3 (75%) showed statistically significant improvements in the level of functional ability of participants in the experimental groups using an mHealth app with built-in self-management content for LBP.ConclusionsThis scoping review supports the conclusion that people with LBP may benefit from mHealth apps that provide self-management content. However, the generalizability of the findings is limited because of heterogeneity in the pain characterization of the included participants and the intervention durations. More high-quality studies with longer follow-up periods to investigate personalized mHealth approaches are recommended for LBP self-management.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a long-term health condition with an unpredictable pattern of symptomatic episodes, remission, and recurrence. Recently published systematic reviews suggest that exercise is the most effective intervention for preventing recurrences of LBP in persons that have recovered. Similar programs may also be effective in preventing flare-ups in persistent LBP. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of the Back to Living Well program (Physical activity + Education + Self-management) developed to prevent recurrence or flare-ups of LBP. The study evaluated feasibility in terms of recruitment rate, adherence, satisfaction with the exercise and education sessions, and the data collection procedures. We also aimed to evaluate barriers and facilitators to the engagement in the program.MethodsSeventeen participants with non-specific LBP recently discharged from care from physiotherapy, chiropractors or physician care (< 3 months) were referred to the study by health care providers or community advertisements between December 2018 and February 2019. Participants underwent a 12-week (1 session/week) individualized, group-based exercise in the community and 4 sessions (30 min each) of education. All participants completed an action plan weekly for 12 weeks and wore an activity monitor for 6 months. All participants responded to weekly pain measures and completed study questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, attrition rates and satisfaction. At the end of the intervention, participants completed an end-of-program survey.ResultsTwenty-nine participants were screened for eligibility; 20 were deemed eligible, while 17 were included over a 2-month period meeting our feasibility targets. In total, 16 completed follow-up study questionnaires at 3 months, and 15 completed the 6-month follow-up. Fourteen participants responded to weekly messages, while 3 participants reported not having a mobile device or Internet access. In total, 15 participants responded to our end-of-program survey. Average age was 54.9 (11.7); 9 were female (53%), and the mean duration of LBP was 62.9 (69.7) months. All satisfaction responses in relation to the exercise program, education program and data collection procedures reached our threshold of 70% out of 100%. Reported barriers to engagement in the program included fear of injury, lack of motivation and travel. Facilitators included proximity to home, low cost, flexible schedule and friendly location.ConclusionThe results show the program is feasible in terms of recruitment, low attrition, and patient satisfaction. Participants highlighted the excellent, relevant education program and the positive, personalized exercise. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention within a fully powered randomized controlled trial.Trial registrationNCT03328689.

Project description:Background: In April 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a clinical practice guideline for low back pain (LBP) recommending nonpharmacologic treatments as first-line therapy for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. Objective: To assess primary care provider (PCP)-reported initial treatment recommendations for LBP following guideline release. Design: Cross-sectional structured interviews. Participants: Convenience sample of 72 PCPs from 3 community-based outpatient clinics in high- or low-income neighborhoods. Approach: PCPs were interviewed about their familiarity with the ACP guideline, and how they initially manage patients with acute/subacute and chronic LBP. Treatment responses were coded as patient education, nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic, or medical specialty referral. PCPs were also asked about their comfort referring patients to nonpharmacologic treatment providers, and about barriers to referring. Responses were assessed using content analysis. Differences in responses were assessed using descriptive statistics. Key results: Interviews were completed between December 2017 and March 2018. Of 72 participating PCPs (50% male; mean years of practice = 13.8), over three-fourths indicated being familiar with the ACP guideline (76%-87% at 3 clinics). For acute LBP, PCPs typically provided advice to stay active (81%) and pharmacologic management (97%; primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). For chronic LBP, PCPs were more likely to recommend nonpharmacologic treatments than for acute LBP (85% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). The most common nonpharmacologic treatments recommended for chronic LBP were physical therapy (78%), chiropractic care (21%), massage therapy (18%), and acupuncture (17%) (each compared with 0% for acute LBP, all p < 0.001). The cost of nonpharmacologic treatments was perceived as a barrier. However, PCPs working in low-income neighborhood clinics were as likely to recommend nonpharmacologic approaches as those from a high-income neighborhood clinic. Conclusions: While most PCPs indicated they were familiar with the ACP guideline for LBP, nonpharmacologic treatments were not recommended for patients with acute symptoms. Further dissemination and implementation of the ACP guideline are needed.

Project description:IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ≤4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.Prospero registration numberCRD42018094412.

Project description:IntroductionSelf-reported levels of disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP) have not improved in the last decade. A broader perspective and a more comprehensive management framework may improve disability outcomes. We recently developed and validated the Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model, which aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the applicability of the PDDM model to a LBP population and the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic trial, as well as to explore clinicians' perceived acceptability of the PDDM model's use in clinical settings.MethodsThis study was an one-arm prospective feasibility trial. Participants included physiotherapists working with a population suffering from LBP and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP that sought a new referral and deemed fit for rehabilitation from private and public clinical settings. Clinicians participated in a one-day workshop on the integration of the PDDM model into their clinical practice, and were asked to report various LBP-related outcomes via self-reported questionnaires (i.e., impact of pain on physical function, nervous system dysfunctions, cognitive-emotional factors, work disabilities) at baseline and at six-week follow-up. Physiotherapists' acceptability of the use of the PDDM model and appreciation of the training were assessed via semi-structured phone interviews. Analyses focused on a description of the model's applicability to a LBP population, feasibility outcomes and acceptability measures.ResultsApplicablity of the PDDM model was confirmed since it successfully established the profile of patients according to the elements of each categories, and each of the 5 domains of the model was represented among the study sample. Trial was deemed feasible contingent upon few modifications as our predefined success criteria for the feasibility outcomes were met but feasibility issues pertaining to data collection were highlighted. Twenty-four (24) clinicians and 61 patients were recruited within the study's timeframe. Patient's attrition rate (29%) and clinicians' compliance to the study protocol were adequate. Clinicians' perceived acceptability of the use of the model in clinical settings and their appreciation of the training and online resources were both positive. Recommendations to improve the model's integration in clinical practice, content of the workshop and feasibility of data collection methods were identified for future studies. A positive effect for all patients' reported outcome measures were also observed. All outcome measures except for the PainDetect questionnaire showed a statistically significant reduction post-intervention (p<0.05).ConclusionThese findings provide preliminary evidence of the potential of the PDDM model to optimize LBP management as well as conducting a future larger-scale pragmatic trial to determine its effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicaltrial.gov: NCT03949179.

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Dataset Information

Acute low back pain: diagnosis and management.

Publications

Acute low back pain: diagnosis and management.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets