Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Changes in Cervical Motion Segment Interactions in Patients With Neck Pain: An Observational Study With Matched Asymptomatic Controls.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine (1) if maximal intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoMmax) and laxity interactions exist in the cervical spine during flexion, (2) if there are differences in IV-RoMmax or laxity parameters between baseline and follow-up in both patients with neck pain and asymptomatic controls, and (3) if there is an effect on IV-RoMmax/laxity relationships in patients with neck pain after spinal manipulative therapy. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with subacute or chronic neck pain and 33 asymptomatic controls were imaged during flexion and extension, pre and post a course of cervical chiropractic manipulation (patient group only), using a standardized quantitative fluoroscopy acquisition protocol. RESULTS: Significant correlations between IV-RoMs were found in both neck pain and neck pain-free populations at baseline and follow-up. Positive relationships were found between C2-C3 and C3-C4 and C4-C5 and C5-C6 IV-RoM in both populations. A negative correlation was found in the patient group at baseline between C1-C2 and C5-C6, but not at follow-up. Significant relationships were also found for segmental laxity, with a negative correlation found at C1-C2 and C5-C6 in the patient group only and at baseline only. CONCLUSION: Distinct relationships were found between both intraregional IV-RoM and laxity, many of which were present in both groups at baseline and follow-up, suggestive of normal kinematic behaviors. Changes in correlations unique to the patient group may be indicative of a change in regional kinematics resulting from the manipulation intervention. Spinal manipulative therapy may have a therapeutic effect by influencing cervical kinematics at the regional level.

Does cervical lordosis change after spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The association between cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) and neck pain is controversial. Further, it is unclear whether spinal manipulative therapy can change cervical lordosis. This study aimed to determine whether cervical lordosis changes after a course of spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Posterior tangents of C2 and C6 were drawn on the lateral cervical fluoroscopic images of 29 patients with subacute/chronic non-specific neck pain and 30 healthy volunteers matched for age and gender, recruited August 2011 to April 2013. The resultant angle was measured using 'Image J' digital geometric software. The intra-observer repeatability (measurement error and reliability) and intra-subject repeatability (minimum detectable change (MDC) over 4 weeks) were determined in healthy volunteers. A comparison of cervical lordosis was made between patients and healthy volunteers at baseline. Change in lordosis between baseline and 4-week follow-up was determined in patients receiving spinal manipulation. RESULTS: Intra-observer measurement error for cervical lordosis was acceptable (SEM 3.6°) and reliability was substantial ICC 0.98, 95 % CI 0.962-0991). The intra-subject MDC however, was large (13.5°). There was no significant difference between lordotic angles in patients and healthy volunteers (p = 0.16). The mean cervical lordotic increase over 4 weeks in patients was 2.1° (9.2) which was not significant (p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: This study found no difference in cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) between patients with mild non-specific neck pain and matched healthy volunteers. Furthermore, there was no significant change in cervical lordosis in patients after 4 weeks of cervical spinal manipulation.

Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation for nonspecific neck pain is thought to work in part by improving inter-vertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), but it is difficult to measure this or determine whether it is related to clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study undertook to determine whether cervical spine flexion and extension IV-RoM increases after a course of spinal manipulation, to explore relationships between any IV-RoM increases and clinical outcomes and to compare palpation with objective measurement in the detection of hypo-mobile segments. METHOD: Thirty patients with nonspecific neck pain and 30 healthy controls matched for age and gender received quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings to measure flexion and extension IV-RoM (C1-C6) at baseline and 4-week follow-up between September 2012-13. Patients received up to 12 neck manipulations and completed NRS, NDI and Euroqol 5D-5L at baseline, plus PGIC and satisfaction questionnaires at follow-up. IV-RoM accuracy, repeatability and hypo-mobility cut-offs were determined. Minimal detectable changes (MDC) over 4 weeks were calculated from controls. Patients and control IV-RoMs were compared at baseline as well as changes in patients over 4 weeks. Correlations between outcomes and the number of manipulations received and the agreement (Kappa) between palpated and QF-detected of hypo-mobile segments were calculated. RESULTS: QF had high accuracy (worst RMS error 0.5o) and repeatability (highest SEM 1.1o, lowest ICC 0.90) for IV-RoM measurement. Hypo-mobility cut offs ranged from 0.8o to 3.5o. No outcome was significantly correlated with increased IV-RoM above MDC and there was no significant difference between the number of hypo-mobile segments in patients and controls at baseline or significant increases in IV-RoMs in patients. However, there was a modest and significant correlation between the number of manipulations received and the number of levels and directions whose IV-RoM increased beyond MDC (Rho=0.39, p=0.043). There was also no agreement between palpation and QF in identifying hypo-mobile segments (Kappa 0.04-0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This study found no differences in cervical sagittal IV-RoM between patients with non-specific neck pain and matched controls. There was a modest dose-response relationship between the number of manipulations given and number of levels increasing IV-RoM - providing evidence that neck manipulation has a mechanical effect at segmental levels. However, patient-reported outcomes were not related to this.

Proportional lumbar spine inter-vertebral motion patterns: a comparison of patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain and healthy controls.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying biomechanical subgroups in chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) populations from inter-vertebral displacements has proven elusive. Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) has excellent repeatability and provides continuous standardised inter-vertebral kinematic data from fluoroscopic sequences allowing assessment of mid-range motion. The aim of this study was to determine whether proportional continuous IV rotational patterns were different in patients and controls. A secondary aim was to update the repeatability of QF measurement of range of motion (RoM) for inter-vertebral (IV) rotation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fluoroscopic sequences were recorded of passive, recumbent coronal and sagittal motion, which was controlled for range and velocity. Segments L2-5 in 40 primary care CNSLBP patients and 40 matched controls were compared. Patients also completed the von Korff Chronic Pain Grade and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire. Sequences were processed using automated image tracking algorithms to extract continuous inter-vertebral rotation data. These were converted to continuous proportional ranges of rotation (PR). The continuous proportional range variances were calculated for each direction and combined to produce a single variable representing their fluctuation (CPRV). Inter- and intra-rater repeatability were also calculated for the maximum IV-RoM measurements obtained during controlled trunk motion to provide an updated indication of the reliability and agreement of QF for measuring spine kinematics. RESULTS: CPRV was significantly higher in patients (0.011 vs. 0.008, Mann-Whitney two-sided p = 0.008), implying a mechanical subgroup. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis found its sensitivity and specificity to be 0.78 % (60-90) and 0.55 % (37-73), respectively (area under the curve 0.672). CPRV was not correlated with pain severity or disability. The repeatability of maximum inter-vertebral range was excellent, but range was only significantly greater in patients at L4-5 in right side bending (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The variation in proportional motion between lumbar vertebrae during passive recumbent trunk motion was greater in patients with CNSLBP than in matched healthy controls, indicating that biomechanical factors in passive structures play a part.

Back pain management in primary care: development and validity of the Patients' and Doctors' Expectations Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a common disorder, with the doctor being the first point of contact for help. Biopsychosocial management of back pain has been shown to be problematic. Meeting patients' expectations is alleged to play a vital role in concordance, adherence and satisfaction. A more potent aspect, however, could be a state of matched patient- doctor expectations with regard to the consultation process and outcome, but this aspect has not been fully investigated and there is currently no valid and specific measure of this dimension. AIM: To report on the development of a newly designed patient and doctor expectations questionnaire that measures the matching of their expectations with regard to the back pain consultation in primary care, and to establish the validity and internal consistency of the new tool. METHODS: A literature review was carried out and a draft 36-item questionnaire was developed. Thirty-eight subjects (7 researchers, 20 patients and 11 doctors) tested the questionnaire. Each subject gave feedback on the questionnaire design and was also asked to fill in a previously validated tool, the Patients' Intentions Questionnaire (PIQ), to establish the concurrent validity of the newly designed expectations questionnaire. Construct validity was established by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's alpha was computed to reflect the internal consistency of the instrument. FINDINGS: The results of the validity questionnaire showed that the questionnaire was perceived as simple, clear and easy to understand and appropriate to the intended aim. Spearman correlation coefficients between the Patients' Expectations Questionnaire and PIQ showed significant correlation ( r = 0.65), reflecting good concurrent validity, while Cronbach's alpha was 0.831, reflecting good internal consistency. CONCLUSION: The newly designed questionnaire showed good face, content and construct validity as well as good internal consistency, and thus can be used as a valid and reliable measure for back pain-specific expectations of the process and outcome of the consultation in primary care settings.

Met or matched expectations: what accounts for a successful back pain consultation in primary care?

BACKGROUND: Patients' as well as doctors' expectations might be key elements for improving the quality of health care; however, previous conceptual and theoretical frameworks related to expectations often overlook such complex and complementary relationship between patients' and doctors' expectations. The concept of 'matched patient-doctor expectations' is not properly investigated, and there is lack of literature exploring such aspect of the consultation. AIM: The paper presents a preliminary conceptual model for the relationship between patients' and doctors' expectations with specific reference to back pain management in primary care. METHODS: The methods employed in this study are integrative literature review, examination of previous theoretical frameworks, identification of conceptual issues in existing literature, and synthesis and development of a preliminary pragmatic conceptual framework. OUTCOME: A simple preliminary model explaining the formation of expectations in relation to specific antecedents and consequences was developed; the model incorporates several stages and filters (influencing factors, underlying reactions, judgement, formed reactions, outcome and significance) to explain the development and anticipated influence of expectations on the consultation outcome. CONCLUSION: The newly developed model takes into account several important dynamics that might be key elements for more successful back pain consultation in primary care, mainly the importance of matching patients' and doctors' expectations as well as the importance of addressing unmet expectations.

Measurement of intervertebral motion using quantitative fluoroscopy: report of an international forum and proposal for use in the assessment of degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine.

Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) is an emerging technology for measuring intervertebral motion patterns to investigate problem back pain and degenerative disc disease. This International Forum was a networking event of three research groups (UK, US, Hong Kong), over three days in San Francisco in August 2009. Its aim was to reach a consensus on how best to record, analyse, and communicate QF information for research and clinical purposes. The Forum recommended that images should be acquired during regular trunk motion that is controlled for velocity and range, in order to minimise externally imposed variability as well as to correlate intervertebral motion with trunk motion. This should be done in both the recumbent passive and weight bearing active patient configurations. The main recommended outputs from QF were the true ranges of intervertebral rotation and translation, neutral zone laxity and the consistency of shape of the motion patterns. The main clinical research priority should initially be to investigate the possibility of mechanical subgroups of patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain by comparing their intervertebral motion patterns with those of matched healthy controls.

Back pain outcomes in primary care following a practice improvement intervention:- a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the UK's costliest and least understood health problems, whose prevalence still seems to be increasing. Educational interventions for general practitioners on back pain appear to have had little impact on practice, but these did not include quality improvement learning, involve patients in the learning, record costs or document practice activities as well as patient outcomes. METHODS: We assessed the outcome of providing information about quality improvement techniques and evidence-based practice for back pain using the Clinical Value Compass. This included clinical outcomes (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), functional outcomes, costs of care and patient satisfaction. We provided workshops which used an action learning approach and collected before and after data on routine practice activity from practice electronic databases. In parallel, we studied outcomes in a separate cohort of patients with acute and sub-acute non-specific back pain recruited from the same practices over the same time period. Patient data were analysed as a prospective, split-cohort study with assessments at baseline and eight weeks following the first consultation. RESULTS: Data for 1014 patients were recorded in the practice database study, and 101 patients in the prospective cohort study. We found that practice activities, costs and patient outcomes changed little after the intervention. However, the intervention was associated with a small, but statistically significant reduction in disability in female patients. Additionally, baseline disability, downheartedness, self-rated health and leg pain had small but statistically significant effects (p < 0.05) on follow-up disability scores in some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: GP education for back pain that both includes health improvement methodologies and involves patients may yield additional benefits for some patients without large changes in patterns of practice activity. The effects in this study were small and limited and the reasons for them remain obscure. However, such is the impact of back pain and its frequency of consultation in general practice that this kind of improvement methodology deserves further consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN30420389.

The effectiveness of a posted information package on the beliefs and behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths, and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low Back Pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) randomized trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a printed information package on the low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs and reported behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, and musculoskeletal physiotherapists) across the United Kingdom. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A substantial proportion of musculoskeletal practitioners in United Kingdom does not follow current LBP guideline recommendations. METHODS: In total, 1758 practitioners were randomly allocated to either of the 2 study arms. One arm was posted a printed information package containing guideline recommendations for the management of LBP (n = 876) and the other received no intervention (n = 882). The primary outcome measure consisted of 3 "quality indicators" (activity, work, and bed-rest) relating to a vignette of a patient with LBP, in which responses were dichotomized into either "guideline-inconsistent" or "guideline-consistent." The secondary outcome was the practitioners' LBP-related beliefs, measured using the Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6 months. RESULTS: Follow-up at 6 months was 89%. The changes in reported behavior on the quality indicators were as follows: activity, odds ratio (OR) 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.61) and number needed to be treated (NNT), 19 (15-28); work, OR 1.35 (1.07-1.70) and NNT 19 (14-29); and bed-rest, OR 1.31 (0.97-1.76) and NNT 47 (33-103). The composite NNT for a change from guideline-inconsistent to guideline-consistent behavior on at least 1 of the 3 quality indicators was 10 (9-14). LBP-related beliefs were significantly improved in those who were sent the information package (P = 0.002), but only to a small degree (mean difference, 0.884 scale points; 95% confidence interval, 0.319-1.448). CONCLUSION: Printed educational material can shift LBP-related beliefs and reported behaviors of musculoskeletal practitioners, toward practice that is more in line with guideline recommendations.

Midlumbar lateral flexion stability measured in healthy volunteers by in vivo fluoroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective fluoroscopic and electromyographic study of coronal plane lumbar spine motion in healthy male volunteers. OBJECTIVES: Assess the intervertebral motion profiles in healthy volunteers for symmetry, regularity, and neutral zone laxity during passive recumbent lateral bending motion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous continuous in vivo motion studies of the lumbar spine have mainly been limited to active, weight-bearing, flexion-extension (sagittal plane) motion. No data are available for passive lateral bending or to indicate the motion profiles when muscle activity is minimized. METHODS: Thirty asymptomatic male volunteers underwent video-fluoroscopy of their lumbar spines during passive, recumbent lumbar lateral bending through 80 degrees using a motor-driven motion table. Approximately 120 consecutive images of segments L2-L5 were captured, and the position of each vertebra was tracked throughout the sequence using automated frame-to-frame registration. Reference intervals for intervertebral motion parameters were calculated. Surface electromyography recordings of erector spinae were obtained in a similar group of volunteers using the same protocol without fluoroscopy to determine to what extent the motion was completely passive. RESULTS: Correlations between intervertebral and lumbar motion were always positive in controls and asymmetry was less than 55% of intervertebral range. The upper reference interval for the slope of intervertebral rotation in the first 10 degrees of trunk motion did not exceed 0.46 for any level. Muscle electrical activity during the motion was very low. Examples from patient studies showed markedly different results. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that reference limits from asymptomatic data for coronal plane passive recumbent intervertebral motion may be a useful resource for investigating the relationship between symptoms of chronic (nonspecific) low back pain and biomechanics and in the clinical assessment of patients and interventions that target the passive holding elements of the spine. Data pooling from multiple studies would be necessary to establish a complete database.

Back pain management in primary care: patients' and doctors' expectations.

BACKGROUND: Expectations may be a key element for improving quality of health care, yet several barriers interfere with understanding and optimising expectations in back pain primary care. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature related to expectations, back pain patients' and doctors' expectations and sources of unmatched expectations. METHODS: Review of qualitative and quantitative studies investigating back pain management in primary care settings, and eliciting patients' and/or doctors' pre-visit or post-visit expectations. RESULTS: Reviewing the literature reveals that expectations are defined and conceptualised in various ways, with several terms used interchangeably, which suggests a lack of clear definition and conceptual framework. Patients have a wide range of specific expectations for care, which can be measured, and may play a vital role in their satisfaction: doctors also seem to have their own expectations. However, studies of such expectations are scarce and there is a lack of valid measurement tools to capture such aspects. DISCUSSION: Shortcomings in literature included the use of different meanings and definitions for expectations, which interfered with understanding the results of previous research. Previous studies focused on patients' general rather than condition-specific expectations; no study explored doctors' expectations or the congruency between patients' and doctors' back pain-specific expectations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for standardisation of definition in expectations research and a valid measurement tool that is condition specific. Understanding patients' and doctors' expectations may be a key factor for improving quality of care, in terms of both process and outcome.

Psychosocial factors and their predictive value in chiropractic patients with low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Being able to estimate the likelihood of poor recovery from episodes of back pain is important for care. Studies of psychosocial factors in inception cohorts in general practice and occupational populations have begun to make inroads to these problems. However, no studies have yet investigated this in chiropractic patients. METHODS: A prospective inception cohort study of patients presenting to a UK chiropractic practice for new episodes of non-specific low back pain (LBP) was conducted. Baseline questionnaires asked about age, gender, occupation, work status, duration of current episode, chronicity, aggravating features and bothersomeness using Deyo's 'Core Set'. Psychological factors (fear-avoidance beliefs, inevitability, anxiety/distress and coping, and co-morbidity were also assessed at baseline. Satisfaction with care, number of attendances and pain impact were determined at 6 weeks. Predictors of poor outcome were sought by the calculation of relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Most patients presented within 4 weeks of onset. Of 158 eligible and willing patients, 130 completed both baseline and 6-week follow-up questionnaires. Greatest improvements at 6 weeks were in interference with normal work (ES 1.12) and LBP bothersomeness (ES 1.37). Although most patients began with moderate-high back pain bothersomeness scores, few had high psychometric ones. Co-morbidity was a risk for high-moderate interference with normal work at 6 weeks (RR 2.37; 95% C.I. 1.15-4.74). An episode duration of >4 weeks was associated with moderate to high bothersomeness at 6 weeks (RR 2.07; 95% C.I. 1.19-3.38) and negative outlook (inevitability) with moderate to high interference with normal work (RR 2.56; 95% C.I. 1.08-5.08). CONCLUSION: Patients attending a private UK chiropractic clinic for new episodes of non-specific LBP exhibited few psychosocial predictors of poor outcome, unlike other patient populations that have been studied. Despite considerable bothersomeness at baseline, scores were low at follow-up. In this independent health sector back pain population, general health and duration of episode before consulting appeared more important to outcome than psychosocial factors.

An objective spinal motion imaging assessment (OSMIA): reliability, accuracy and exposure data.

BACKGROUND: Minimally-invasive measurement of continuous inter-vertebral motion in clinical settings is difficult to achieve. This paper describes the reliability, validity and radiation exposure levels in a new Objective Spinal Motion Imaging Assessment system (OSMIA) based on low-dose fluoroscopy and image processing. METHODS: Fluoroscopic sequences in coronal and sagittal planes were obtained from 2 calibration models using dry lumbar vertebrae, plus the lumbar spines of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. Calibration model 1 (mobile) was screened upright, in 7 inter-vertebral positions. The volunteers and calibration model 2 (fixed) were screened on a motorized table comprising 2 horizontal sections, one of which moved through 80 degrees. Model 2 was screened during motion 5 times and the L2-S1 levels of the volunteers twice. Images were digitised at 5fps. Inter-vertebral motion from model 1 was compared to its pre-settings to investigate accuracy. For volunteers and model 2, the first digitised image in each sequence was marked with templates. Vertebrae were tracked throughout the motion using automated frame-to-frame registration. For each frame, vertebral angles were subtracted giving inter-vertebral motion graphs. Volunteer data were acquired twice on the same day and analysed by two blinded observers. The root-mean-square (RMS) differences between paired data were used as the measure of reliability. RESULTS: RMS difference between reference and computed inter-vertebral angles in model 1 was 0.32 degrees for side-bending and 0.52 degrees for flexion-extension. For model 2, X-ray positioning contributed more to the variance of range measurement than did automated registration. For volunteer image sequences, RMS inter-observer variation in intervertebral motion range in the coronal plane was 1.86 degrees and intra-subject biological variation was between 2.75 degrees and 2.91 degrees. RMS inter-observer variation in the sagittal plane was 1.94 degrees. Radiation dosages in each view were below the levels recommended for a plain film. CONCLUSION: OSMIA can measure inter-vertebral angular motion patterns in routine clinical settings if modern image intensifier systems are used. It requires skillful radiography to achieve optimal positioning and dose limitation. Reliability in individual subjects can be judged from the variance of their averaged inter-vertebral angles and by observing automated image registration.

Mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary back pain guidelines? How can we achieve a common message in primary care?

Description of a workshop entitled "Sharing Guidelines for Low Back Pain Between Primary Health Care Providers: Toward a Common Message in Primary Care" that was held at the Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain in Primary Care in Canada in May 2002. Despite a considerable degree of acceptance of current evidence-based guidelines, in practice, primary health care providers still do not share a common message. The objective of the workshop was to describe the outcomes of a workshop on the sharing of guidelines in primary care. The Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care focused on relations between stakeholders in the primary care management of back pain. Participants in this workshop contributed to an open discussion on "how and why" evidence-based guidelines about back pain do or do not work in practice. Ways to minimise the factors that inhibit implementation were discussed in the light of whether guidelines are mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary. Examples of potential issues for debate were contained in introductory presentations. The prospects for improving implementation and reducing barriers, and the priorities for future research, were then considered by an international group of researchers. This paper summarises the conclusions of three researcher subgroups that focused on the sharing of guidelines under the headings of: (1) the content, (2) the development process, and (3) implementation. How to share the evidence and make it meaningful to practice stakeholders is the main challenge of guideline implementation. There is a need to consider the balance between the strength of evidence in multidisciplinary guidelines and the utility/feasibility of mono-disciplinary guidelines. The usefulness of both mono-disciplinary and multidisciplinary guidelines was agreed on. However, in order to achieve consistent messages, mono-disciplinary guidelines should have a multidisciplinary parent. In other words, guidelines should be developed and monitored by a multidisciplinary team, but may be transferred to practice by mono-disciplinary messengers. Despite general agreement that multi-faceted interventions are most effective for implementing guidelines, the feasibility of doing this in busy clinical settings is questioned. Research is needed from local implementation pilots and quality monitoring studies to understand how to develop and deliver the contextual understanding required. This relates to processes of care as well as outcomes, and to social factors and policymaking as well as health care interventions. We commend these considerations to all who are interested in the challenges of achieving better-integrated, evidence-based care for people with back pain.

Testing the effectiveness of an innovative information package on practitioner reported behaviour and beliefs: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low back pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) trial [ISRCTN77245761].

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem. Initiatives designed to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for LBP include printed evidence-based clinical guidelines. The three professional groups of chiropractic, osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy in the UK share common ground with their approaches to managing LBP and are amongst those targeted by LBP guidelines. Even so, many seem unaware that such guidelines exist. Furthermore, the behaviour of at least some of these practitioners differs from that recommended in these guidelines. Few randomised controlled trials evaluating printed information as an intervention to change practitioner behaviour have utilised a no-intervention control. All these trials have used a cluster design and most have methodological flaws. None specifically focus upon practitioner behaviour towards LBP patients. Studies that have investigated other strategies to change practitioner behaviour with LBP patients have produced conflicting results. Although numerous LBP guidelines have been developed worldwide, there is a paucity of data on whether their dissemination actually changes practitioner behaviour. Primarily because of its low unit cost, sending printed information to large numbers of practitioners is an attractive dissemination and implementation strategy. The effect size of such a strategy, at an individual practitioner level, is likely to be small. However, if large numbers of practitioners are targeted, this strategy might achieve meaningful changes at a population level. METHODS: The primary aim of this prospective, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is to test the short-term effectiveness (six-months following intervention) of a directly-posted information package on the reported clinical behaviour (primary outcome), attitudes and beliefs of UK chiropractors, osteopaths and musculoskeletal physiotherapists. We sought to randomly allocate a combined sample of 1,800 consenting practitioners to receive either the information package (intervention arm) or no information above that gained during normal practice (control arm). We collected questionnaire data at baseline and six-months post-intervention. The analysis of the primary outcome will assess between-arm differences of proportions of responses to questions on recommendations about activity, work and bed-rest, that fall within categories previously defined by an expert consensus exercise as either 'guideline-consistent' and 'guideline-inconsistent'.

Third Prize: Chiropractic and the national health care system: a basis for partnership in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Changes in United Kingdom (UK) health care policy and legislation have the potential to radically change care for patients with musculoskeletal conditions by widening access to manipulation services under its National Health Service (NHS). OBJECTIVE: To investigate chiropractors past and current provision of musculoskeletal services for NHS patients and optimal future arrangements. METHODS: One thousand forty-two UK chiropractors on professional registers were sent a 2-part questionnaire. The profession was divided into 2 groups and each group answered part of the questionnaire from either a practitioner or patient perspective. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent responded. Of these, 29% had previously provided services for NHS patients, and 18% were currently providing them, reporting moderate to high levels of satisfaction. Ninety-five percent were interested in future arrangements but on a part-time basis and in a way that most closely resembled private practice. CONCLUSION: The majority of UK chiropractors favor future partnership with the NHS. National health care reform and the statutory self-regulation of chiropractors have brought this closer to a more widespread reality. However, to prosper in this setting, the profession may benefit from a greater understanding of the competing priorities and constraints faced by NHS purchasers, who, for their part, should be prepared to implement policy based on evidence.