Making exercise count: Considerations for the role of exercise in back pain treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is pain that has persisted for greater than three months. It is common and burdensome and represents a significant proportion of primary health presentations. For the majority of people with CLBP, a specific nociceptive contributor cannot be reliably identified, and the pain is categorised as 'non-specific'. Exercise therapy is recommended by international clinical guidelines as a first-line treatment for non-specific CLBP. AIM: This comprehensive review aims to synthesise and appraise the current research to provide practical, evidence-based guidance concerning exercise prescription for non-specific CLBP. We discuss detailed initial assessment and being informed by patient preferences, values, expectations, competencies and goals. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) using broad search terms from January 2000 to March 2021, to identify the most recent clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on exercise for CLBP. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews show exercise is effective for small, short-term reductions in pain and disability, when compared with placebo, usual care, or waiting list control, and serious adverse events are rare. A range of individualised or group-based exercise modalities have been demonstrated as effective in reducing pain and disability. Despite this consensus, controversies and significant challenges remain. CONCLUSION: To promote recovery, sustainable outcomes and self-management, exercise can be coupled with education strategies, as well as interventions that enhance adherence, motivation and patient self-efficacy. Clinicians might benefit from intentionally considering their own knowledge and competencies, potential harms of exercise and costs to the patient. This comprehensive review provides evidence-based practical guidance to health professionals who prescribe exercise for people with non-specific CLBP.

Key Learning Statements for Persistent Pain Education: An Iterative Analysis of Consumer, Clinician and Researcher Perspectives and Development of Public Messaging.

Over the last decade, the content, delivery and media of pain education have been adjusted in line with scientific discovery in pain and educational sciences, and in line with consumer perspectives. This paper describes a decade-long process of exploring consumer perspectives on pain science education concepts to inform clinician-derived educational updates (undertaken by the authors). Data were collected as part of a quality audit via a series of online surveys in which consent (non-specific) was obtained from consumers for their data to be used in published research. Consumers who presented for care for a persistent pain condition and were treated with a pain science education informed approach were invited to provide anonymous feedback about their current health status and pain journey experience 6, 12 or 18 months after initial assessment. Two-hundred eighteen consumers reported improvement in health status at follow-up. Results of the surveys from 3 cohorts of consumers that reported improvement were used to generate iterative versions of 'Key Learning Statements'. Early iteration of these Key Learning Statements was used to inform the development of Target Concepts and associated community-targeted pain education resources for use in public health and health professional workforce capacity building initiatives. PERSPECTIVE: This paper reflects an explicit interest in the insights of people who have been challenged by persistent pain and then recovered, to improve pain care. Identifying pain science concepts that consumers valued learning provided valuable information to inform resources for clinical interactions and community-targeted pain education campaigns.

What Constitutes "Appropriate Care" for Low Back Pain?: Point-of-Care Clinical Indicators From Guideline Evidence and Experts (the STANDING Collaboration Project).

STUDY DESIGN: Multiround wiki-based Delphi expert panel survey. OBJECTIVE: To provide proof of concept for an alternative method for creating sets of nationally-agreed point-of-care clinical indicators, and obtain consensus among end-user groups on "appropriate care" for the assessment, diagnosis, acute, and ongoing care of people with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The provision of inappropri ate and low value care for LBP is a significant healthcare and societal burden. Vague clinical practice guideline (CPG) recom mendations can be difficult to apply and measure in real world clinical practice, and a likely barrier to "appropriate care." METHODS: Draft "appropriate care" clinical indicators for LBP were derived from CPG recommendations published between 2011 and 2017. Included CPGs were independently appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Headed by a Clinical Champion, a 20-member Expert Panel reviewed and commented on the draft indicators over a three-round modified e-Delphi process using a collaborative online wiki. At the conclusion of each review round, the research team and the Clinical Champion synthesized and responded to experts' comments and incorporated feedback into the next iteration of the draft indicators. RESULTS: From seven CPGs and six qualitative meta-syntheses, 299 recommendations and themes were used to draft 42 "appropriateness" indicators. In total, 17 experts reviewed these indicators over 18 months. A final set of 27 indicators compris ing screening and diagnostic processes (n = 8), assessment (n = 3), acute (n = 5), and ongoing care (n = 9), and two which crossed the acute-ongoing care continuum. Most indicators were geared toward recommended care (n = 21, 78%), with the remainder focused on care to be avoided. CONCLUSION: These 27 LBP clinical indicators can be used by healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers/ funders, and insurers to guide and monitor the provision of "appropriate care" for LBP.Level of Evidence: 4.

Management of musculoskeletal pain in a compensable environment: Implementation of helpful and unhelpful Models of Care in supporting recovery and return to work.

Models of Care (MoCs) for injured workers in the compensation environment recommend adoption of biopsychosocial management approaches. Still, widespread dominance of biomedical constructs at the system, organisational and individual levels of the compensation system prevails, contributing to suboptimal management practices and outcomes for injured workers. Efforts to implement contemporary MoCs in the compensation environment show some promise in improving outcomes. Areas of promise at the organisational level, particularly in the workplace, and at the system level are discussed. Implementation of a contemporary understanding of pain biology as part of the biopsychosocial approach in the management of the person with pain and associated disability has been effective in the non-compensable environment. The implications of this for the compensable environment are explored. Resultant helpful and unhelpful perspectives and behaviours are presented as a blueprint for areas of potential change in development and implementation of MoCs in a compensable environment.