Shop-to-stop hypertension: A multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial protocol to improve screening and text message follow-up of adults with high blood pressure at health kiosks in hardware retail stores.

High blood pressure (BP) is the leading preventable risk factor for death, but only one in three patients achieve target BP control. A key contributor to this problem is poor population awareness of high BP, as the majority of patients are asymptomatic. The Shop-To-Stop Hypertension study is a multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial to identify, refer and follow adults in need of hypertension care, whilst raising population-wide awareness. In participants with high BP measured by SiSU Health Stations located in major hardware chain stores across New South Wales, Australia, we will determine whether text message-based nudges will encourage repeat BP checks and visits to their doctor. Based on pilot data, we anticipate 65,340 participants will be screened over 12 months, of which 18% will have high BP. Thirty hardware stores will be randomized (1:1) to: (i) Intervention: participants detected with high BP (≥140/≥90 mmHg) will receive text message-based nudges to return for a repeat SiSU Health Station BP check and to visit their general practitioner (GP) to check and manage their BP; (ii) Control: participants with high BP will not receive text messages. The primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of participants with high BP having a repeat BP check at hardware Health Stations in the intervention vs. control group at 12 months. This novel setting for screening utilises a novel 'citizen science' approach inviting the general public to perform their own BP screening at health kiosks and foster behavioral change. This will allow screening in a low-stress environment.

It's OK to Move! Effect of a Brief Video on Community Confidence in Activity Despite Back Pain: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the difference in confidence to become active despite low back pain in people who were exposed to one of 2 video interventions delivered on social media, compared to no intervention. DESIGN: A proof-of-concept, 3-group randomized controlled trial, in a 1:1:1 ratio. METHODS: Participants aged 18 years and over, with and without low back pain, were recruited via the social media channel Facebook, to view either a humorous video, a neutral video, or to no intervention. The videos were delivered online, explained evidence-based management for low back pain, and were designed to "go viral." The primary outcome was confidence in becoming active despite pain, measured using the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire (Item 10) (ranges from 0 [not at all confident] to 6 [completely confident]) immediately after watching the video. We aimed to capture the real-time impact and immediate reactions that contributed to the content's reach. RESULTS: Among 1933 randomized participants (mean [standard deviation] age: 58.9 [14.0] years, 1285 [75%] women), 1232 [70%] had low back pain and 88.8% completed the primary outcome. One thousand two hundred sixty-four participants were randomized to receive a video intervention, and 633 participants did not receive a video. On a 6-point scale, individuals exposed to either video (n = 1088) showed a mean confidence level 0.3 points higher (95% confidence interval: 0.1, 0.6) compared with no video (n = 630). CONCLUSION: Participants who viewed a brief video intervention reported a very small difference in confidence to become active despite low back pain, compared with no intervention. The difference may lack clinical relevance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(6):1-8. Epub 18 April 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12412.

Smartphone Applications to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supporting the use of apps for lifestyle behavior change and diabetes prevention in people at high risk of diabetes is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the acceptability and effectiveness of smartphone applications (apps) for the prevention of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsychInfo were searched from 2008 to 2023. Included studies involved adults at high risk of developing diabetes evaluating an app intervention with the aim of preventing type 2 diabetes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for weight loss, body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin, and waist circumference. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all studies, including qualitative studies exploring user perspectives. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (n=2,378) were included in this systematic review, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an average duration of 6 months, 10 quasi-experimental and 7 qualitative studies. Socially disadvantaged groups were poorly represented. Six RCTs were combined in meta-analyses. Apps were effective at promoting weight loss [mean difference (MD) -1.85; 95% CI -2.90 to -0.80] and decreasing BMI [MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.27], with no effect on glycated hemoglobin and waist circumference. No studies reported on diabetes incidence. Qualitative studies highlighted the need for app personalization. DISCUSSION: Smartphone apps have a promising effect on preventing type 2 diabetes by supporting weight loss. Future robust trials should include diverse populations in co-design and evaluation of apps and explore the role of artificial intelligence in further personalizing interventions for higher engagement and effectiveness.

Using hypnosis in clinical practice for the management of chronic pain: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Interventions used in chronic pain management do not routinely use clinical hypnosis (CH), despite evidence to suggest its effectiveness in improving pain outcomes. This study aimed to explore the beliefs and attitudes of clinicians' towards the implementation of CH in chronic pain management. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative analysis following online CH training. Clinicians working in three tertiary pain clinics, were recruited to participate in the online training program and invited to focus groups following completion of the training to explore beliefs and attitudes towards CH and the training program. RESULTS: We identified three themes regarding barriers and two themes regarding facilitators to implementation of CH. Barriers: (i) misconceptions about CH, (ii) reduced confidence in implementing CH, and (iii) concerns about integrating CH with current treatment frameworks. Facilitators: (i) change in knowledge and attitude following training and (ii) an openness to exploring the technique and skills. The online training program was evaluated as positive with two themes: (i) training structure and (ii) training credibility. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of CH requires the development of training programs that address existing misconceptions of CH, allow for knowledge and skills acquisition, and adapt to the contextual setting within which the intervention is implemented. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Training of clinicians in the process and skills required to deliver clinical hypnosis for chronic pain should be supported to facilitate its successful implementation into clinical settings.

Lifestyle changes and quality of life a year after attending Rapid Access Cardiology Clinics: an observational study.

We examined behavioural risk factors and quality of life (QoL) in women and men, younger and older adults 12 months after a Rapid Access Cardiology Clinic (RACC) visit. Routine clinical care data were collected in person from three Sydney hospitals between 2017 and 2018 and followed up by questionnaire at 365 days. 1491 completed the baseline survey, at 1 year, 1092 provided follow-up data on lifestyle changes, and 811 completed the EQ-5D-5L (QoL) survey. 666 (44.7%) were women, and 416 (27.9%) were older than 60 years of age. Almost 50% of participants reported improving physical activity and diet a year after their RACC visit. These changes were less likely in women and older participants.

Online information on chronic pain in 3 countries: an assessment of readability, credibility, and accuracy.

Objectives: To assess the readability, credibility, and accuracy of online information on chronic pain in Australia, Mexico, and Nepal. Methods: We assessed Google-based websites and government health websites about chronic pain for readability (using the Flesch Kincaid Readability Ease tool), credibility (using the Journal of American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmark criteria and Health on the Net Code [HONcode]), and accuracy (using 3 core concepts of pain science education: (1) pain does not mean my body is damaged; (2) thoughts, emotions, and experiences affect pain; and (3) I can retrain my overactive pain system). Results: We assessed 71 Google-based websites and 15 government websites. There were no significant between-country differences in chronic pain information retrieved through Google for readability, credibility, or accuracy. Based on readability scores, the websites were "fairly difficult to read," suitable for ages 15 to 17 years or grades 10 to 12 years. For credibility, less than 30% of all websites met the full JAMA criteria, and more than 60% were not HONcode certified. For accuracy, all 3 core concepts were present in less than 30% of websites. Moreover, we found that the Australian government websites have low readability but are credible, and the majority provided all 3 core concepts in pain science education. A single Mexican government website had low readability without any core concepts but was credible. Conclusion: The readability, credibility, and accuracy of online information on chronic pain should be improved internationally to support facilitating better management of chronic pain.

Mechanisms of education and graded sensorimotor retraining in people with chronic low back pain: a mediation analysis.

ABSTRACT: An improved understanding of the biopsychosocial influences that contribute to and maintain pain has promoted the development of new efficacious treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP). This study aimed to investigate the mechanisms of a new treatment-education and graded sensorimotor retraining-on pain and disability. We conducted a preplanned causal mediation analysis of a randomized clinical trial which allocated 276 participants with CLBP to 12 weekly clinical sessions of education and graded sensorimotor retraining (n = 138) or a sham and attention control (n = 138). Outcomes were pain intensity and disability, both assessed at 18 weeks. Hypothesized mediators included tactile acuity, motor coordination, back self-perception, beliefs about the consequences of back pain, kinesiophobia, pain self-efficacy, and pain catastrophizing, all assessed at the end of treatment (12 weeks). Four of 7 mechanisms (57%) mediated the intervention effect on pain; the largest mediated effects were for beliefs about back pain consequences (-0.96 [-1.47 to -0.64]), pain catastrophizing (-0.49 [-0.61 to -0.24]), and pain self-efficacy (-0.37 [-0.66 to -0.22]). Five of 7 mechanisms (71%) mediated the intervention effect on disability; the largest mediated effects were for beliefs about back pain consequences (-1.66 [-2.62 to -0.87]), pain catastrophizing (-1.06 [-1.79 to -0.53]), and pain self-efficacy (-0.84 [-1.89 to -0.45]). When all 7 mechanisms were considered simultaneously, the joint mediation effect explained most of the intervention effect for both pain and disability. Optimizing interventions to target beliefs about the consequences of back pain, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy is likely to lead to improved outcomes for people with CLBP.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. MAIN RESULTS: Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Does poor sleep quality lead to increased low back pain the following day?

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the relationship between sleep quality and next-day pain intensity for people with low back pain and investigated whether there was any evidence that this relationship was causal. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an observational study that investigated sleep quality in people with low back pain. People with low back pain were recruited from primary care and the community. Sleep quality was measured with subjective (self-report) and objective (polysomnography (PSG)) measures. PSG analysis classifies sleep into stages, of which slow-wave sleep (SWS) is thought to have a key role in maintaining or increasing pain intensity. We drew directed acyclic graphs to identify possible confounders of the relationship between both measures of sleep quality, and pain intensity. We constructed two linear regression models to explore the effect of subjective and objective sleep quality on next-day pain intensity before and after confounder adjustment. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants were included in the study. For participants with low back pain, self-reported better quality sleep ß=-0.38 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.13), or spending a greater proportion of time in SWS ß=-0.12 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.02) was associated with lower next day pain intensity. After confounder adjustment, the effect reduced and was no longer significant for either self-reported ß=-0.18 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.10), or SWS ß=-0.08 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Sleep quality, whether measured by self-report or proportion of time in SWS, was associated with next day pain intensity for people with low back pain. However, this relationship is likely to be confounded and therefore not likely to be causal.

Hypertension therapy using fixed-dose polypills that contain at least three medications.

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy may provide a solution to treatment gaps by overcoming reasons for therapeutic inertia. To synthesise and report on available evidence on standard or low-dose combination medicines that combine at least three antihypertensive medicines. A literature search was conducted via Scopus, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane clinical trials database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised clinical trials that included adults (>18 years) and examined the impact of at least three antihypertensive medications on blood pressure (BP). A total of 18 trials (n=14 307) were identified that examined combinations of three or four antihypertensive medicines. Ten trials investigated the effect of a standard dose triple combination polypill, four the effect of a low-dose triple and four the effect of a low-dose quadruple combination polypill. The mean difference (MD) in systolic BP ranged from -10.6 to -41.4 for the standard dose triple combination polypill in comparison with 2.1 to -34.5 for dual combination; -9.8 to -20.6 for a low-dose combination polypill in comparison with a MD of -0.9 to -5.2 for placebo; -9.0 to -29.3 for a low-dose combination polypill compared with -2.0 to -20.6 for monotherapy or usual care. All trials reported similar rates of adverse events. Ten studies reported medication adherence, six reported >95% adherence. Triple and quadruple combination antihypertensive medications are effective. Studies of low-dose triple and quadruple combinations involving treatment naïve populations suggest initiating such combinations are safe and effective as first-line therapy for stage 2 hypertension (BP >140/90 mm Hg).

The Foundations for Chronic Low Back Pain Management may Start in Early Life. Exploring the Role of Caregiver Parental Leave on Future Low Back Pain in the Offspring.

Chronic low back pain is difficult to treat and despite increased spending on health services, clinical outcomes for people with low back pain have not improved. Innovative, large scale initiatives seem necessary to stem the cost of low back pain. Psychological health contributes to the development and persistence of chronic low back pain and psychological interventions are important in the management of low back pain. Given the contribution of psychological health to low back pain development and management, it raises the question; can we support psychological health in later life by bolstering emotional development in early life, and reduce the burden of this common condition? Positive early life experiences, including those induced by extended paid parental leave, could bolster emotional development and support the psychological health necessary to manage low back pain in later life. We present the current state of evidence demonstrating the potential value of increasing support for parent-child relationships in early life to reduce the burden of low back pain in future generations. The current evidence is limited to cross-sectional associations, but strong preclinical data clearly shows the potential negative impacts of maternal separation on rodent pup health that compels consideration in human populations. PERSPECTIVE: The benefits stemming from enhanced child development include stable emotional foundations, possibly improving psychological health and low back pain management in the future. This perspective raises questions for future studies - within the context of low back pain, what ingredients bolster stable psychological health? And are these ingredients influenced by parental leave?

Person-centred education and advice for people with low back pain: Making the best of what we know.

BACKGROUND: The first-line treatment consistently recommended for people with low back pain is patient education and advice. Regardless of the duration of low back pain, clinicians should provide education on the benign nature of low back pain, reassurance about the absence of a serious medical condition, and advice to remain active. There is little guidance on how best to provide this care. OBJECTIVE: This Masterclass will draw on recent evidence to explore how physical therapy clinicians could deliver person-centred education and advice to people with low back pain to refine their clinical consultation. DISCUSSION: First, we highlight the potential value of providing validation to acknowledge the distressing experience and consequences of low back pain. Second, we describe a tool to open channels of communication to provide education and advice in a patient-centred and efficient way. Clinicians could consider using the Attitude toward Education and advice for Low back pain Questionnaire to gain an insight into patient attitudes toward education and advice at the outset of a clinical encounter. Finally, we provide options for tailoring patient education and advice to promote self-management of low back pain based on patient attitudes. We present evidence that a positive attitude toward messages about causes rather than messages about physical activity predicts intention to self-manage low back pain. We combine this evidence to suggest a pathway for clinicians to provide education and advice to people with low back pain within the time constraints of a clinical consultation.

"My Back is Fit for Movement": A Qualitative Study Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain.

A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and maladaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial's active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain.

Development of a booster intervention for graded sensorimotor retraining (RESOLVE) in people with persistent low back pain: A nested, randomised, feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain contributes to an increasing global health burden exacerbated by unsustained improvements from current treatments. There is a need to develop, and test interventions to maintain initial improvements from low back pain treatments. One option is to implement a booster intervention. This study aimed to develop and test the feasibility of implementing a booster intervention delivered remotely to supplement the benefits from a complex intervention for chronic low back pain. METHOD: This study was nested in the RESOLVE trial. The booster intervention was developed by an expert group, including a clinical psychologist, exercise physiologist and physiotherapists, and based on a motivational interviewing framework. We developed a conversational flow chart to support the clinician to guide participants towards achieving their pre-specified personal goals and future low back pain self-management. Participants with chronic low back pain who were aged over 18 years and fluent in English were recruited. The booster intervention was delivered in one session, remotely, by telephone. The intervention was considered feasible if: participants were able to be contacted or <3 contacts were necessary to arrange the booster session; there were sufficient willing participants (<15% of sample unwilling to participate); and participants and research clinicians reported a perceived benefit of >7/10. RESULTS: Fifty participants with chronic non-specific low back pain were recruited to test the feasibility of implementing the booster intervention. Less than three contact attempts were necessary to arrange the booster session, only one participant declined to participate. Participants perceived the session to be beneficial; on a 0 to 10 scale of perceived benefit, the average score recorded was 8.3 (SD 2.0). Clinicians also reported a moderate perceived benefit to the participant; the average score recorded by clinicians was 6.3 (SD 1.6). CONCLUSION: We developed a step by step, simple booster intervention that was perceived to be beneficial to participants with chronic low back pain. The booster can feasibly be delivered remotely following a complex intervention.

Effect of Graded Sensorimotor Retraining on Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point. Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

It's safe to move! A protocol for a randomised controlled trial investigating the effect of a video designed to increase people's confidence becoming more active despite back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Social media provide promising contemporary platforms for sharing public health information with a broad audience. Before implementation, testing social media campaigns that are intended to engage audiences and initiate behaviour change is necessary. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of a public health campaign to increase people's confidence in becoming more active despite low back pain in comparison with no intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an online randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups and one control group in a 1:1:1 allocation. People over 18 years of age and fluent in English will be recruited via social media advertising. We developed a social media-based public health campaign to support recommendations for managing low back pain. The interventions are two videos. Participants in the control group will be asked questions about low back pain but will not view either video intervention. The primary outcome will be item 10 of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, which asks participants to rate how confident they would feel to gradually become more active despite pain ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to 6 (completely confident). This outcome will be measured immediately in all participant groups. We will compare group mean of the three arms of the trial using univariate analyses of variance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We obtained ethical approval from our institutions Human Research Ethics Committee before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000466741).

Development and measurement properties of the AxEL (attitude toward education and advice for low-back-pain) questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain. METHODS: We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated. RESULTS: We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1 = 0.92, Factor 2 = 0.91, Factor 3 = 0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1 = 0.71, Factor 2 = 0.73, Factor 3 = 0.79. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset.

Targeting neurotrophic factors for low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. METHODS: We searched published and trial registry reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. RESULTS: Nine studies (3370 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) may reduce pain at 4 weeks (mean difference [MD] -6.75, 95% CI: -8.61, -4.90) and 12 weeks (MD -6.16, 95% CI: -8.38, -3.94), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at 4 weeks (MD -1.40, 95% CI: -8.26, 5.46), at 12 weeks (MD -2.91, 95% CI: -13.69, 7.67) and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.78, 6.00). CONCLUSION: Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects compared to those observed in commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions.