How Do Physiotherapists Explain Influencing Factors to Chronic Low Back Pain? A Qualitative Study Using a Fictive Case of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: While pain is influenced by multiple factors including psychosocial factors, previous research has shown that physiotherapists still favour a biomedical approach. PURPOSE: To evaluate: (1) how physiotherapists explain the patient's chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP); (2) whether physiotherapists use one or multiple influencing factors, and (3) whether these factors are framed in a biopsychosocial or biomedical approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study uses a vignette depicting chronic non-specific LBP and employs a flexible framework analysis. Physiotherapists were asked to mention contributing factors to the pain based on this vignette. Five themes were predefined ("Beliefs", "Previous experiences", "Emotions", "Patients behaviour", "Contextual factors") and explored. RESULTS: Physiotherapists use very brief explanations when reporting contributing factors to chronic pain (median 13 words). Out of 670 physiotherapists, only 40% mentioned more than two different themes and 2/3rds did not see any link between the patients' misbeliefs and pain. Only a quarter of the participants mentioned the patient's worries about pain and movement, which is considered to be an important influencing factor. CONCLUSION: The lack of a multifactorial approach and the persistent biomedical beliefs suggest that it remains a challenge for physiotherapists to fully integrate the biopsychosocial framework into their management of chronic LBP.

Effect of a multidisciplinary program for the prevention of low back pain in hospital employees: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospital workers with physically demanding jobs are at risk for developing recurrent LBP. There is a lack of studies evaluating multidisciplinary prevention of low back pain (LBP) in hospital workers. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial evaluates the effect of a multidisciplinary prevention program, focusing on a client-centred approach, on hospital workers at risk for developing LBP. METHODS: Caregiving hospital workers were allocated to an experimental (12-week lasting multidisciplinary prevention program) or control group (no intervention). They were evaluated prior to the intervention and after a 6 months follow-up period. Primary outcome measures included incidence of LBP, work absenteeism and general health. Secondary outcomes included daily physical activity, job satisfaction and coping strategies. RESULTS: A significant improvement was seen for passive coping after 6 months follow-up, but no significant differences were observed between groups in primary or other secondary outcome measures (p> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary prevention program fitting into a bio-psychosocial context may not have been intensive enough to promote a change in daily habitudes, and had no effect on work absenteeism, incidence of LBP or general health. Further research should determine whether prevention of LBP is possible in caregiving personnel.