Psychological Constructs From the Fear Avoidance Model and Beyond as Predictors for Persisting Symptoms After Concussion: An Integrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the range of evidence for relationships between psychological factors using the Fear Avoidance Model (FAM) as a guiding framework and relevant clinical outcomes in adult patients with persisting symptoms after concussion (PSaC), develop a comprehensive understanding of psychological factors that have been identified as predictors of clinical outcomes for PSaC, and contribute to the theoretical framework of the FAM for PSaC. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, SportDiscus, and Web of Science) were searched by a librarian for empirical and theoretical publications and experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. The literature search was not limited by publication date restrictions. Gray literature, with the exception of doctoral dissertations, was excluded. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies in the English language consisting of human participants aged ≥18 years. Articles must have included both outcomes pertaining to PSaC (≥3mo after injury) and psychological constructs. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data from the resulting studies using a standardized data extraction form designed for this review. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: This review found numerous psychological constructs, some directly linked to the FAM, that have potential prognostic relationships with PSaC. However, research remains limited and some psychological factors central to FAM were only identified in a small number of studies (catastrophizing, cogniphobia, and avoidance), whereas other psychological factors were studied more extensively (anxiety and depression). CONCLUSIONS: There is the need for additional evidence, and this integrative review provides an adaptation of the FAM for PSaC to be used as a guiding preliminary framework for future research. Future research should aim to include psychological factors proposed in this modified FAM to fully understand PSaC.

Emergency Department Discharge Teaching Interventions: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department discharge education is intended to provide patients with information to self-manage their condition or injury, identify potential complications, and follow-up or referral. However, most patients cannot recall the discharge information provided, leading to adverse clinical outcomes, return visits, and higher costs. A scoping review was undertaken to explore discharge education interventions that have been studied in the emergency department setting and outcomes that have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using the databases PubMed/Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Education Resources Information Center, with search terms focused on emergency nursing and patient discharge education interventions. RESULTS: Of the publications identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was variation among studies on the conditions/injuries and populations of focus for the intervention. The interventions were categorized by learning styles, including auditory (n=10), kinesthetic (n=1), visual (n=15), reading/writing (n=1), and multimodal (n=7). Outcomes evaluated included those that were patient-specific (education, self-management, clinical, and adherence) and metrics of the health system and public health. DISCUSSION: Multimodal discharge education that addresses various learning styles and levels of health literacy improved patient education, self-management, and clinical outcomes. Additional support and reminders improved patient adherence. Identified gaps included limited kinesthetic interventions and culturally tailored education. Translational science for advancing sustainable interventions in clinical practice is needed to enhance the emergency department discharge process and patient, system, and public health outcomes.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP). METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP. RESULTS: We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02647658.

Patient- and Physical Therapist-Level Predictors of Patient-Reported Therapeutic Alliance: An Observational, Exploratory Study of Cohorts With Knee and Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient- and physical therapist-level predictors for therapeutic alliance at the end of an episode of physical therapy for knee or low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of observational cohort. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving physical therapy for knee (n=189) or LBP (n=252) and physical therapists (n=19). Candidate predictor variables included demographics, patient clinical characteristics, and physical therapist attitudes and beliefs (Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists) and confidence in providing patient-centered care (Self-Efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported therapeutic alliance was measured using the 12-item Work Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR). RESULTS: Final linear mixed models indicated different patient- and physical therapist-level factor contributions in predicting final WAI-SR scores across cohorts with knee and LBP. Female sex was a consistent patient-level predictor for both knee (estimated ß=1.57, P<.05) and LBP (ß=1.42, P<.05), with age (ß=-0.07, P<.01) and baseline function (ß=0.06, P<.01) contributing to cohorts with knee and LBP, respectively. Physical therapist-level predictors included female sex (ß=6.04, P<.05), Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists behavioral (ß=0.65, P<.01), and Self-Efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (SEPCQ) Exploring Patient Perspective (ß=-0.75, P<.01) subscale scores for LBP, with SEPCQ Sharing Information and Power subscale scores (ß=0.56, P<.05) contributing to both cohorts with knee (ß=0.56, P<.05) and LBP (ß=0.74, P<.01). Random effects for patients nested within physical therapists were observed for both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide preliminary evidence for inconsistent relationships among patient- and physical therapist-level factors and therapeutic alliance across cohorts with knee and LBP.

Prediction of healthcare utilization following an episode of physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, value-based purchasing has created the need for healthcare systems to prospectively identify patients at risk for high healthcare utilization beyond a physical therapy episode for musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of pain-related healthcare utilization subsequent to an index episode of physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This study assessed data from the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) longitudinal cohort study that recruited individuals with a primary complaint of neck, low back, knee or shoulder pain in physical therapy (n = 440). Demographics, health-related information, review of systems, comorbidity and pain-related psychological distress measures were collected at baseline evaluation. Baseline to 4-week changes in pain intensity, disability, and pain-related psychological distress were measured as treatment response variables. At 6-months and 1-year after baseline evaluation, individuals reported use of opioids, injection, surgery, diagnostic tests or imaging, and emergency room visits for their pain condition over the follow-up period. Separate prediction models were developed for any subsequent care and service-specific utilization. RESULTS: Subsequent pain-related healthcare utilization was reported by 43% (n = 106) of the study sample that completed the 12-month follow-up (n = 246). Baseline disability and 4-week change in pain intensity were important global predictors of subsequent healthcare utilization. Age, insurance status, comorbidity burden, baseline pain, and 4-week changes in pain intensity, disability and pain-related psychological distress predicted specific service utilization. CONCLUSION: In those completing follow up measures, risk of additional pain-related healthcare utilization after physical therapy was best predicted by baseline characteristics and 4-week treatment response variables for pain intensity, disability and pain-related psychological distress. These findings suggest treatment monitoring of specific response variables could enhance identification of those at risk for future healthcare utilization in addition to baseline assessment. Further study is required to determine how specific characteristics of the clinical encounter influence future utilization.

Psychological predictors of recovery from low back pain: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Recovery from low back pain (LBP) is an important outcome for patients and clinicians. Psychological factors are known to impact the course of LBP but have not been extensively investigated for predicting recovery. The purposes of this study were to: 1) describe LBP recovery rates at 6 months following 4 weeks of physical therapy; 2) identify psychological factors predictive of 6 month recovery status; and 3) identify psychological factors that co-occur with 6 month recovery status. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of patients (n = 111) receiving outpatient physical therapy for LBP. Patients were administered the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT), individual psychological measures, a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at intake, 4-week, and 6-month assessments. LBP recovery was operationally defined based on meeting NPRS = 0/10 and RMDQ ≤ 2 criterion at 6-month follow-up assessment. Recovery groups were then compared for differences on all variables at intake and on individual psychological measures at 6-months. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) identified which descriptive variables were predictive of recovery status. RESULTS: The 6-month recovery rate was 14/111 (12.6%) for the combined NPRS and RMDQ criterion. Non-recovered patients were associated with SBT risk status (p = 0.004), higher intake pain intensity (p = .008) and higher depressive symptoms (p < .001) scores compared to recovered patients. The overall accuracy for intake classification using DFA was 87.2% with SBT risk status, pain intensity, and depressive symptoms all making unique contributions. At 6-months, non-recovered patients had higher fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms (p's < .001) compared to recovered patients. The overall accuracy for 6-month classification using DFA was 86.4% with fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms all making unique contributions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that psychological risk status, depressive symptoms, and pain intensity were predictive of 6 month recovery status. Furthermore elevated fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms co-occurred with non-recovery at 6 months. Future studies should investigate whether stratified psychologically informed treatment options have the potential to improve recovery rates for those most at risk for non-recovery.

Virtual Rehabilitation and COVID-19: Varied Adoption and Satisfaction Among Patients and Providers Participating in a Multi-Site Survey Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic compelled rapid healthcare adaptations including increased use of telehealth (TH) and virtual care (VC) to provide rehabilitation services. This multi-site cross-sectional survey study examined rehabilitation patients' and providers' experiences with service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of TH/VC. Patients and providers who received or provided rehabilitation services were recruited from 1 of 3 large, post-acute rehabilitation systems located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants rated personal satisfaction with rehabilitation services received or rendered during the pandemic and willingness to use TH/VC in the future. Questions also addressed accessibility, ease of use, and perceived barriers to TH/VC use. The adoption and personal satisfaction of TH/VC for rehabilitation care varied between patients and providers. Patients reported higher levels of satisfaction compared to providers (P < .001). Patients who did not use TH/VC had higher satisfaction than those who did (P < .05). Patients were less willing than providers to use TH/VC (P < .001). Those who used TH/VC prior to the pandemic were more willing to use post-pandemic (P < .001). Patients reported TH/VC was useful in increasing health services accessibility yet were neutral as to the ability of TH/VC to improve outcomes. Patients and providers agreed that TH/VC was easy to learn and use. Medical providers found TH/VC more useful than therapy providers. Participants who used TH/VC during the pandemic are more willing to use the service again in the future. Understanding patient and provider preferences and perspectives is key to the continued use of TH/VC in rehabilitation care.

Validation of the Keele STarT MSK Tool for Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain in United States-based Outpatient Physical Therapy Settings.

The STarT MSK tool was developed to enable risk stratification of patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain conditions and help identify individuals who may require more targeted interventions or closer monitoring in primary care settings, however, its validity in U.S.-based outpatient physical therapy settings has not been investigated. The 10-item Keele STarT MSK risk stratification tool was tested for construct (convergent and discriminant) and predictive validity using a multicenter, prospective cohort study design. Participants (n = 141) receiving physical therapy for MSK pain of the back, neck, shoulder, hip, knee, or multisite regions completed intake questionnaires including the Keele STarT MSK tool, Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI), Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review-of-Systems and Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag tools. Pain intensity, pain interference, and health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 8-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-8) physical [PCS] and mental [MCS] component summary scores) were measured at 2- and 6-month follow-up. Participants were classified as STarT MSK tool low (44%), medium (39%), and high (17%) risk. Follow-up rates were 70.2% (2 months) and 49.6% (6 months). For convergent validity, fair relationships were observed between the STarT MSK tool and FCI and SF-8 MCS (r = .35-.37) while moderate-to-good relationships (r = .51-.72) were observed for 7 other clinical measures. For discriminant validity, STarT MSK tool risk-dependent relationships were observed for Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review-of-Systems, Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag, pain interference, and SF-8 PCS (low < medium < high; P < .01) and FCI, pain intensity, and SF-8 MCS (low < medium-or-high; P < .01). For predictive validity, intake STarT MSK tool scores explained additional variability in pain intensity (11.2%, 20.0%), pain interference (7.5%, 14.1%), and SF-8 PCS (8.2%, 12.8%) scores at 2 and 6 months, respectively. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing additional evidence of STarT MSK tool cross-sectional construct validity and longitudinal predictive validity. PERSPECTIVE: This study presents STarT MSK risk stratification tool validity findings from a U.S. outpatient physical therapy sample. The STarT MSK tool has the potential to help physical therapists identify individuals presenting with the most common MSK pain conditions who may require more targeted interventions or closer monitoring.

Postconcussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale: Preliminary Reliability and Validity Analysis of Cross-sectional Data.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe cross-sectional relationships between postconcussion symptom catastrophizing and patient-level factors in a postconcussion cohort. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study was conducted in an outpatient rehabilitation hospital concussion clinic and consisted of adults undergoing a neuropsychological evaluation. Cronbach α assessed internal consistency for Post-Concussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale total scores. Pearson r correlation coefficients assessed construct validity among emotional function measures and Post-Concussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale total scores at initial evaluation. Hierarchical regression models were used to assess criterion validity. RESULTS: Excellent internal consistency was observed for Post-Concussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale total scores (α = 0.953). The Post-Concussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale was significantly correlated with cause of injury ( r = -0.223, P < 0.01), litigation consideration ( r = 0.309, P < 0.05), and history of psychiatric illness ( r = 0.198, P < 0.01). The Post-Concussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale was significantly correlated with emotional functioning (Patient Health Questionnaire [ r = 0.600, P < 0.05]; Generalized Anxiety Disorder [ r = 0.602, P < 0.05]), symptom rating (Sports Concussion Assessment Tool [Fifth Edition, r = 0.477, P < 0.05]), and cognitive functioning (Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status [ r = -0.238, P < 0.05]) measures. The final regression model explained 64.7% variance in Post-Concussion Symptom Catastrophizing Scale total scores and included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder ( b = 1.038, ß = 0.466, P = 0.001) as a unique predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate strong, positive relationships between anxiety and catastrophizing at initial neuropsychological evaluation in a postconcussion sample.

Effect of Risk-Stratified Care on Disability Among Adults With Low Back Pain Treated in the Military Health System: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tailored treatments for low back pain (LBP) based on stratifying risk for poor prognosis have emerged as a promising approach to improve quality of care, but they have not been validated in trials at the level of individual randomization in US health systems. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness of risk-stratified vs usual care on disability at 1 year among patients with LBP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial enrolled adults (ages 18-50 years) seeking care for LBP with any duration in primary care clinics within the Military Health System from April 2017 to February 2020. Data analysis was conducted from January to December 2022. Interventions: Risk-stratified care, in which participants received physiotherapy treatment tailored for their risk category (low, medium, or high), or usual care, in which care was determined by participants' general practitioners and may have included a referral to physiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 1 year, with planned secondary outcomes of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) and Physical Function (PF) scores. Raw downstream health care utilization was also reported within each group. Results: Analysis included 270 participants (99 [34.1%] female participants; mean [SD] age, 34.1 [8.5] years). Only 21 patients (7.2%) were classified as high risk. Neither group was superior on the RMDQ (least squares [LS] mean ratio of risk-stratified vs usual care: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26), the PROMIS PI (LS mean difference, -0.75 points; 95% CI -2.61 to 1.11 points), or the PROMIS PF (LS mean difference, 0.05 points; 95% CI, -1.66 to 1.76 points). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, using risk stratification to categorize and provide tailored treatment for patients with LBP did not result in better outcomes at 1 year compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03127826.

Expectations affect pain sensitivity changes during massage.

BACKGROUND: Pain-inducing massage produces comparable changes in pain sensitivity as a cold pressor task, suggesting shared neurophysiological mechanisms of conditioned pain modulation. Manual therapy and conditioned pain modulation are influenced by positive and negative expectations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of positive and negative expectations on pain-free and pain-inducing massage. METHODS: 56 healthy participants were randomly assigned to receive a positive or negative expectation instructional set followed by a pain-inducing or a pain-free massage. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was measured followed by each interval of massage. A repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for post-randomization differences in sex tested for massage x expectation set x PPT interaction effects, as well as two-way interaction effects. RESULTS: A significant three-way interaction effect (p = 0.04) and time x expectation interaction effect was observed for individuals receiving pain inducing massage (p = 0.02). Individuals who received the positive expectation instructional set demonstrated significantly higher PPT at minutes 3 and 4 of massage compared to individuals who received the negative expectation instructional set. CONCLUSIONS: Expectations impact pain sensitivity changes produced during massage. Clinicians planning to provide pain-inducing massage should consider the role of expectations in modulating pain sensitivity changes.

The Psychologically Informed Practice Consultation Roadmap: A Clinical Implementation Strategy.

Psychologically informed practice (PiP) includes a special focus on psychosocial obstacles to recovery, but research trials have revealed significant difficulties in implementing PiP outside of research environments. Qualitative studies have identified problems of both competence and confidence in tackling the psychosocial aspects of care, with a tendency to prefer dealing with the more mechanical aspects of care. In PiP, the distinction between assessment and management is not clear-cut. Analysis of the problem is part of the intervention, and guided self-management begins with the initial detective work by the patient, who is encouraged to develop successful and relevant behavior change. This requires a different style and focus of communication that some clinicians find difficult to enact. In this Perspective, the PiP Consultation Roadmap is offered as a guide for clinical implementation to establish a therapeutic relationship, develop patient-centered communication, and guide effective pain self-management. These strategies are illustrated through the metaphor of the patient learning to drive, with the therapist as a driving instructor and the patient as a student driver. For convenience, the Roadmap is depicted in 7 stages. Each stage represents aspects of the clinical consultation in a recommended order, although the Roadmap should be viewed as a general guide with a degree of flexibility to accommodate individual differences and optimize PiP interventions. It is anticipated that the experienced PiP clinician will find it progressively easier to implement the Roadmap as the building blocks and style of consultation become more familiar.

Psychologically Informed Practice: The Importance of Communication in Clinical Implementation.

There has been increasing interest in the secondary prevention of chronic pain and pain-associated disability over the past 3 decades. In 2011, psychologically informed practice (PiP) was suggested as a framework for managing persistent and recurrent pain, and, since then, it has underpinned the development of stratified care linking risk identification (screening). Although PiP research trials have demonstrated clinical and economic advantage over usual care, pragmatic studies have been less successful, and qualitative studies have identified implementation difficulties in both system delivery and individual clinical management. Effort has been put into the development of screening tools, the development of training, and the assessment of outcomes; however, the nature of the consultation has remained relatively unexplored. In this Perspective, a review of the nature of clinical consultations and the clinician-patient relationship is followed by reflections on the nature of communication and the outcome of training courses. Consideration is given to the optimization of communication, including the use of standardized patient-reported measures and the role of the therapist in facilitating adaptive behavior change. Several challenges in implementing a PiP approach in day-to-day practice are then considered. Following brief consideration of the impact of recent developments in health care, the Perspective concludes with a brief introduction to the PiP Consultation Roadmap (the subject of a companion paper), the use of which is suggested as a way of structuring the consultation with the flexibility required for a patient-centered approach to guided self-management of chronic pain conditions.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Receiving Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain with a Nociplastic Pain Presentation: A Secondary Analysis.

Introduction: Individuals with low back pain (LBP) may be classified based on mechanistic descriptors, such as a nociplastic pain presentation (NPP). The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the frequency and characteristics of patients with a NPP referred to physical therapy with LBP. Additionally, we characterized patients with LBP meeting the criteria for NPP by demographic, clinical, psychological, and pain sensitivity variables. Finally, we examined short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with a NPP compared to those without a NPP. Materials and Methods: Patients referred to physical therapy for LBP completed the Patient Self-report Survey for the Assessment of Fibromyalgia. Participants were categorized as "LBP with NPP" or "LBP without NPP" based on the threshold established in this measure. A rank sum test examined for differences in pain-related psychological factors and pressure-pain threshold between groups. Next, a Friedman test examined if LBP intensity and disability trajectories differed by groups at one and six months after initiation of physical therapy. Results: 22.2% of patients referred to physical therapy for LBP met the criteria for a NPP. Patients with a NPP reported significantly greater disability, pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and somatization compared to individuals without a NPP (p < 0.05). Pressure-pain threshold did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Individuals with LBP with a NPP demonstrated nonsignificant, small to medium reductions in pain and disability at one and six months. Individuals experiencing LBP without a NPP demonstrated significant reductions in pain and disability in the short- and long term. Conclusion: Patients with LBP with a NPP displayed greater negative pain-related psychological factors but similar pain sensitivity compared to LBP without NPP.

Treatment effect modifiers for individuals with acute low back pain: secondary analysis of the TARGET trial.

ABSTRACT: Treatment effect modifiers identify patient characteristics associated with treatment responses. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify potential treatment effect modifiers for disability from the TARGET trial that compared usual care (control) with usual care + psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). The sample consisted of a STarT Back tool identified high-risk patients with acute low back pain that completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data at index visit and 6 months later (n = 1250). Candidate treatment effect modifiers were identified a priori and informed by the literature. Linear mixed models tested for treatment effect modification through tests of statistical interaction. All statistical interactions ( P ≤ 0.20) were stratified by modifier to inspect for specific effects ( P ≤ 0.05). Smoking was identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment * smoking interaction, P = 0.08). In participants who were smokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 5.5; 95% CI: 0.6-10.4; P = 0.03) compared with usual care. In participants who were nonsmokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 1.5; 95% CI: -1.4 to 4.4; P = 0.31) compared with usual care. Pain medication was also identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment × pain medication interaction, P = 0.10). In participants prescribed ≥3 pain medications, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 7.1; 95% CI: -0.1 to 14.2; P = 0.05) compared with usual care. The PIPT effect for participants prescribed no pain medication was (ODI = 3.5; 95% CI: -0.4 to 7.4; P = 0.08) and for participants prescribed 1 to 2 pain medications was (ODI = 0.6; 95% CI: -2.5 to 3.7; P = 0.70) when compared with usual care. These findings may be used for generating hypotheses and planning future clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of tailored application of PIPT.

Pain phenotyping and investigation of outcomes in physical therapy: An exploratory study in patients with low back pain.

Phenotypes have been proposed as a method of characterizing subgroups based on biopsychosocial factors to identify responders to analgesic treatments. This study aimed to, first, confirm phenotypes in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy based on an a priori set of factors used to derive subgroups in other pain populations. Second, an exploratory analysis examined if phenotypes differentiated pain and disability outcomes at four weeks of physical therapy. Fifty-five participants completed psychological questionnaires and pressure pain threshold (PPT). Somatization, anxiety, and depression domains of the Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised, and PPT, were entered into a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis with Ward's method to identify phenotypes. Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed pain ratings and disability by phenotype at four weeks. Three clusters emerged: 1) high emotional distress and pain sensitivity (n = 10), 2) low emotional distress (n = 34), 3) low pain sensitivity (n = 11). As an exploratory study, clusters did not differentiate pain ratings or disability after four weeks of physical therapy (p's>0.05). However, trends were observed as magnitude of change for pain varied by phenotype. This supports the characterization of homogenous subgroups based on a protocol conducted in the clinical setting with varying effect sizes noted by phenotype for short-term changes in pain. As an exploratory study, future studies should aim to repeat this trial in a larger sample of patients.

Procedural Drift: An Underappreciated Element of Clinical Treatment Fidelity.

SYNOPSIS: Procedural fidelity involves delivering the correct guideline-supported treatment choice, in its designed manner, over the full care episode of the patient. Procedural drift is a subcomponent of procedural fidelity that involves performing the right treatment the right way initially, then drifting toward suboptimal treatment over time. Procedural drift occurs most often when providing intricate, patient-centered interventions that require attention to subtle nuances that potentially maximize their effectiveness. Drift comes from the belief that subtle nuances do not matter, or from a lack of motivation or incentive to maintain high fidelity. Strategies to reduce drift in practice include investment in early, high-quality training; using checklists and manuals when providing an intervention; using risk-adjusted patient data as a checks-and-balances system; and incorporating measures of drift in the practitioner's annual review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):63-66. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10961.

The healthcare buffet: preferences in the clinical decision-making process for patients with musculoskeletal pain.

The preferences a person has for care are associated with outcomes for patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain conditions. These include preferences for differing levels of involvement in the decision-making process, preferences for the provider attributes, and preferences for particular interventions. In this paper, we discuss these various forms of preference, as well as how they influence clinical care within shared decision-making frameworks. We also present a conceptual framing for how patient preferences can be incorporated in clinical decision-making by orthopedic manual physical therapists. Finally, research implications for interpreting findings from clinical studies are discussed.

American Physical Therapy Association Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation for Neck and Low Back Pain in Outpatient Physical Therapy: A Nonrandomized, Cross-sectional Stepped-Wedge Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multifaceted implementation strategy for American Physical Therapy Association neck and low back pain clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was associated with changes in clinician and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional stepped-wedge pilot study. METHODS: Physical therapy clinics (n = 9) were allocated to 1 of 4 clusters that varied by CPG implementation timing. Clinics crossed over from usual care (control) to CPG implementation (intervention) every 8 weeks and ended with a 24-week follow-up period. Implementation outcomes were measured at the clinician (perspectives and behaviors) and patient (pain and disability outcomes) levels. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize clinician perspectives and behaviors. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze patient-level outcomes data (pain and disability) and total number of physical therapy visits. RESULTS: Improvements in several clinician perspectives about CPGs were observed 8 weeks after training and sustained at 16 weeks (P<.05), although it is unclear whether these changes were meaningful. Training on CPGs was relevant to physical therapists and more acceptable at 16 weeks (P<.05). In a random sample (n = 764/1994, 38.3%), the overall rate of CPG classification was 65.0% (n = 497/764), and CPG intervention concordance was 71.2% (n = 354/497). Implementation of a CPG was not associated with final pain and disability scores (P>.05) but was associated with an approximate increase of 8% in total visits. CONCLUSION: Our multifaceted implementation strategy was associated with statistical changes in clinician perspectives and behaviors, but not in patient outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):113-123. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10545.

Low Risk for Persistent Back Pain Disability Is Characterized by Lower Pain Sensitivity and Higher Physical Performance.

OBJECTIVE: The STarT Back Tool (SBT) predicts risk for persistent low back pain (LBP)-related disability based on psychological distress levels. Other non-psychological factors associated with LBP, such as pain sensitivity and physical performance, may further characterize SBT-risk subgroups. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a low-risk SBT subgroup demonstrated lower pain sensitivity and/or higher physical performance compared with a medium-/high-risk SBT subgroup. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, secondary analysis, adults with LBP (N = 76) completed SBT and demographics (age, sex, race, chronicity) questionnaires. Participants underwent pain sensitivity (local and remote pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation) and physical performance (Back Performance Scale, walking speed, obstacle negotiation, Timed "Up & Go" [TUG], TUG Cognitive) testing. Independent samples t tests determined low- versus medium-/high-risk SBT subgroup differences. A follow-up discriminant function analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: The medium-/high-risk subgroup demonstrated a lower proportion of participants with acute pain. The low-risk subgroup demonstrated lower pain sensitivity (higher local pressure pain thresholds and higher conditioned pain modulation) and higher physical performance (superior Back Performance Scale scores, faster walking speeds, faster obstacle approach and crossing speeds, and faster TUG completion). Discriminant function analysis results supported the 2-subgroup classification and indicated strong to moderate relationships with obstacle crossing speed, chronicity, and conditioned pain modulation. CONCLUSION: Lower pain sensitivity and higher physical performance characterized the low-risk SBT subgroup and may represent additional LBP prognostic factors associated with persistent disability. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm whether these factors can enhance SBT prediction accuracy and further direct treatment priorities. IMPACT: Sensory and physical factors contribute to SBT risk classification, suggesting additional, non-psychological factors are indicative of favorable LBP outcomes. Findings highlight the need for assessment of multiple factors to improve LBP clinical prediction. LAY SUMMARY: People at low risk for back pain disability have less sensitivity to pain and better physical performance. By measuring these factors, physical therapists could guide treatment and improve outcomes for people with back pain.