Effects of Biopsychosocial Education on the Clinical Judgments of Medical Students and GP Trainees Regarding Future Risk of Disability in Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is a major health care burden and often results in workplace absenteeism. It is a priority for appropriate management of CLBP to get individuals back to work as early as possible. Interventions informed by the flags approach, which integrates cognitive and behavioral approaches via identification of biopsychosocial barriers to recovery, have resulted in reduced pain-related work absences and increased return to work for individuals with CLBP. However, research indicates that physicians' adherence to biopsychosocial guidelines is low. OBJECTIVE: The current study examined the effects of a flags approach-based educational intervention on clinical judgments of medical students and general practitioner (GP) trainees regarding the risk of future disability of CLBP patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (trial registration number: ISRCTN53670726). SETTING: University classroom. SUBJECTS: Medical students and GP trainees. METHODS: Using 40 fictional CLBP cases, differences in clinical judgment accuracy, weighting, and speed (experimental N = 32) were examined pre- and postintervention, as were flags approach knowledge, pain attitudes and beliefs, and empathy, in comparison with a no-intervention control group (control N = 31). RESULTS: Results revealed positive effects of the educational intervention on flags approach knowledge, pain-related attitudes and beliefs, and judgment weighting of psychologically based cues; results are discussed in light of existing theory and research. CONCLUSIONS: Short flags approach-based educational video interventions on clinical judgment-making regarding the risk of future disability of CLBP patients may provide opportunities to gain biopsychosocial knowledge, overcome associated attitude barriers, and facilitate development of clinical judgment-making more aligned with psychological cues.

Exploring barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

Background: Physical distancing measures (e.g., keeping a distance of two metres from others, avoiding crowded areas, and reducing the number of close physical contacts) continue to be among the most important preventative measures used to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19). Therefore, it is important to understand barriers and facilitators of physical distancing to help inform future public health campaigns. Methods: The current study aimed to qualitatively explore barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic using a qualitative interpretative design. Semi-structured one-to-one phone interviews were conducted with 25 participants aged 18+ years and living in the Republic of Ireland between September and October 2020. A purposive sampling strategy was used to maximise diversity in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Analysis resulted in the development of six main themes related to barriers and facilitators of physical distancing: (1) Maintaining and negotiating close relationships; (2) Public environments support or discourage physical distancing; (3) Habituation to threat; (4) Taking risks to maintain well-being; (5) Personal responsibility to control the "controllables"; and (6) Confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines. Conclusions: Our study found that physical distancing measures are judged to be more or less difficult based on a number of internal and external psychosocial factors, including maintaining and negotiating close relationships, habituation to threat, risk compensation, structure of public environments, personal responsibility, and confusion or uncertainty around government guidelines. Given the diversity in our sample, it is clear that the identified barriers and facilitators vary depending on context and life stage. Messaging that targets sub-groups of the population may benefit from considering the identified themes in this analysis.

Identifying and addressing psychosocial determinants of adherence to physical distancing guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic - project protocol.

Optimising public health physical distancing measures has been a critical part of the global response to the spread of COVID-19. Evidence collected during the current pandemic shows that the transmission rate of the virus is significantly reduced following implementation of intensive physical distancing measures. Adherence to these recommendations has been poorer than adherence to other key transmission reduction behaviours such as handwashing. There are a complex range of reasons that are likely to predict why people do not or only partially adhere to physical distancing recommendations. In the current project we aim to address the following research questions: (1) What are the psychosocial determinants of physical distancing for the general public and for key socio-demographic sub-groups (e.g., young adults, older adults, etc.)?; (2) Do current Government of Ireland COVID-19 physical distancing communications address the determinants of physical distancing?; and (3) How can communications be optimised and tailored to sub-groups to ensure maximum adherence to guidelines? These will be addressed by conducting three work packages (WPs). In WP1, we will work closely with the iCARE international study, which includes a large online survey of public responses to measures established to reduce and slow the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing. We will analyse Irish data, comparing it to data from other countries, to identify the key psychosocial determinants of physical distancing behaviour. This will be followed by a qualitative study to explore in depth the barriers and facilitators of physical distancing behaviour among the Irish public (WP2). In WP3, we will conduct a content analysis and evidence mapping of current government messaging around physical distancing, to ensure the findings from this research feed into the development of ongoing communication and future messaging about physical distancing.

Investigating the effectiveness of an online acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention versus a waiting list control condition on pain interference and quality of life in adults with chronic pain and multimorbidity: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity refers to the presence of two or more chronic health conditions within one person, where no one condition is primary. Research suggests that multimorbidity is highly correlated with chronic pain, which is pain lasting longer than 3 months. Psychotherapeutic interventions for people living with chronic illness have resulted in reduced symptom reporting and improved psychological well-being. There is a dearth of research, however, using online psychotherapy for people living with multimorbidity where chronic pain is a central condition. This study will compare the effectiveness of an online acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention with a waiting list control condition in terms of improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reducing levels of pain interference in people with chronic pain and at least one other condition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 192 adult participants with non-malignant pain that persists for at least 3 months and at least one other medically diagnosed condition will be randomised to one of two study conditions. The experimental group will undergo an eight-session internet-delivered ACT programme over an 8-week period. A waiting list group will be offered the ACT intervention after the 3-month follow-up period. HRQoL and pain interference will act as the primary outcomes. Data will be analysed using a linear mixed model and adjusted to account for demographic and clinical variables as necessary. A Study Within a Trial will be incorporated to examine the effect on recruitment and retention of showing participants an animated educational video. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Dissemination of results will be via peer reviewed journal articles and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22343024.

Effectiveness of a biopsychosocial e-learning intervention on the clinical judgements of medical students and GP trainees regarding future risk of disability in patients with chronic lower back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is a major healthcare problem with wide ranging effects. It is a priority for appropriate management of CLBP to get individuals back to work as early as possible. Interventions that identify biopsychosocial barriers to recovery have been observed to lead to successfully reduced pain-related work absences and increased return to work for individuals with CLBP. Modern conceptualisations of pain adopt a biopsychosocial approach, such as the flags approach. Biopsychosocial perspectives have been applied to judgements about future adjustment, recovery from pain and risk of long-term disability; and provide a helpful model for understanding the importance of contextual interactions between psychosocial and biological variables in the experience of pain. Medical students and general practitioner (GP) trainees are important groups to target with education about biopsychosocial conceptualisations of pain and related clinical implications. AIM: The current study will compare the effects of an e-learning intervention that focuses on a biopsychosocial model of pain, on the clinical judgements of medical students and trainees. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Medical student and GP trainee participants will be randomised to 1 of 2 study conditions: (1) a 20 min e-learning intervention focused on the fundamentals of the flags approach to clinical judgement-making regarding risk of future pain-related disability; compared with a (2) wait-list control group on judgement accuracy and weighting (ie, primary outcomes); flags approach knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards pain, judgement speed and empathy (ie, secondary outcomes). Participants will be assessed at preintervention and postintervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be performed in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the National University of Ireland Galway Research Ethics Committee. The results of the trial will be published according to the CONSORT statement and will be presented at conferences and reported in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN53670726; Pre-results.