Can language enhance physical therapists' willingness to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations? A best-worst scaling study.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely recommendations could reduce physical therapists' use of low-value care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether language influences physical therapists' willingness to follow the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations. DESIGN: Best-worst Scaling survey METHODS: The six original APA Choosing Wisely recommendations were modified based on four language characteristics (level of detail, strength- qualified/unqualified, framing, and alternatives to low-value care) to create 60 recommendations. Physical therapists were randomised to a block of seven choice tasks, which included four recommendations. Participants indicated which recommendation they were most and least willing to follow. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to create normalised (0=least preferred; 10=most preferred) and marginal preference scores. RESULTS: 215 physical therapists (48.5% of 443 who started the survey) completed the survey. Participants' mean age (SD) was 38.7 (10.6) and 47.9% were female. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations with more detail (marginal preference score of 1.1) or that provided alternatives to low-value care (1.3) and less willing to follow recommendations with negative framing (-1.3). The use of qualified ('don't routinely') language (vs. unqualified - 'don't') did not affect willingness. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations to avoid imaging for non-specific low back pain (3.9) and electrotherapy for low back pain (3.8) vs. recommendation to avoid incentive spirometry after upper abdominal and cardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations that provided more detail, alternatives to low-value care, and were positively framed. These findings can inform the development of future Choosing Wisely recommendations and could help reduce low-value physical therapy.

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices. OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public's perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains. RESULTS: From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences', 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences' and 'emotion' were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains 'skills' and 'beliefs about capabilities' were more salient for HCPs. CONCLUSION: Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140784.

Deprescribing Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: Systematic Review of Randomised Trials.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017068422.

Do physical therapists follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions? Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists' treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: We performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' from the earliest record to April 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Studies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Using medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes). RESULTS: We included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits). CONCLUSIONS: Many physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018094979.

Physiotherapists' views on the Australian Physiotherapy Association's Choosing Wisely recommendations: a content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Choosing Wisely holds promise for increasing awareness of low-value care in physiotherapy. However, it is unclear how physiotherapists' view Choosing Wisely recommendations. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiotherapists' feedback on Choosing Wisely recommendations and investigate agreement with each recommendation. SETTING: The Australian Physiotherapy Association emailed a survey to all 20 029 physiotherapist members in 2015 seeking feedback on a list of Choosing Wisely recommendations. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9764 physiotherapists opened the email invitation (49%) and 543 completed the survey (response rate 5.6%). Participants were asked about the acceptability of the wording of recommendations using a closed (Yes/No) and free-text response option (section 1). Then using a similar response format, participants were asked whether they agreed with each Choosing Wisely recommendation (sections 2-6). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: We performed a content analysis of free-text responses (primary outcome) and used descriptive statistics to report agreement and disagreement with each recommendation (secondary outcome). RESULTS: There were 872 free-text responses across the six sections. A total of 347 physiotherapists (63.9%) agreed with the 'don't' style of wording. Agreement with recommendations ranged from 52.3% (electrotherapy for back pain) to 76.6% (validated decision rules for imaging). The content analysis revealed that physiotherapists felt that blanket rules were inappropriate (range across recommendations: 13.9%-30.1% of responses), clinical experience is more valuable than evidence (11.7%-28.3%) and recommendations would benefit from further refining or better defining key terms (7.3%-22.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Although most physiotherapists agreed with both the style of wording for Choosing Wisely recommendations and with the recommendations, their feedback highlighted a number of areas of disagreement and suggestions for improvement. These findings will support the development of future recommendations and are the first step towards increasing the impact Choosing Wisely has on physiotherapy practice.

Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP is common, limited supportive data can be found in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative interventions related to these procedures. The main goal of perioperative interventions is to reduce the rate of adverse events while improving women's outcomes following surgical intervention for prolapse. A broad spectrum of perioperative interventions are available, and although the benefits of interventions such as prophylactic antibiotics before abdominal surgery are well established, others are unique to women undergoing POP surgeries and as such need to be investigated separately. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to compare the safety and effectiveness of a range of perioperative interventions versus other interventions or no intervention (control group) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 November 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse that compared a perioperative intervention related to pelvic organ prolapse surgery versus no treatment or another intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were objective failure at any site and subjective postoperative prolapse symptoms. We also measured adverse effects, focusing on intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, and postoperative urinary tract infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs that compared eight different interventions versus no treatment for 1992 women in five countries. Most interventions were assessed by only one RCT with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate. The main limitation was imprecision, associated with small sample sizes and low event rates.Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with no treatment (three RCTs) - peri-operative intervention The simplest of the PFMT programmes required women to attend six perioperative consultations in the three months surrounding prolapse surgery. Trial results provided no clear evidence of a difference between groups in objective failure at any site at 12 to 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.54; two RCTs, 327 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to awareness of prolapse, findings were inconsistent. One RCT found no evidence of a difference between groups at 24 months (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; one RCT, 305 women; low-quality evidence), and a second small RCT reported symptom reduction from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Questionnaire completed by the intervention group at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -3.90, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.69; one RCT, 27 women; low-quality evidence). Researchers found no clear differences between groups at 24-month follow-up in rates of repeat surgery (or pessary) for prolapse (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.02; one RCT, 316 women; low-quality evidence).Other interventionsSingle RCTs evaluated the following interventions: preoperative guided imagery (N = 44); injection of vasoconstrictor agent at commencement of vaginal prolapse surgery (N = 76); ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension (N = 91); vaginal pack (N = 116); prophylactic antibiotics for women requiring postoperative urinary catheterisation (N = 159); and postoperative vaginal dilators (N = 60).Two RCTs evaluated bowel preparation (N = 298), and four RCTs assessed the method and timing of postoperative catheterisation (N = 514) - all in different comparisons.None of these studies reported our primary review outcomes. One study reported intraoperative blood loss and suggested that vaginal injection of vasoconstrictors at commencement of surgery may reduce blood loss by a mean of about 30 mL. Another study reported intraoperative ureteral injury and found no clear evidence that ureteral stent placement reduces ureteral injury. Three RCTs reported postoperative urinary tract infection and found no conclusive evidence that rates of urinary tract infection were influenced by use of a vaginal pack, prophylactic antibiotics, or vaginal dilators. Other studies did not report these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a paucity of data about perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. A structured programme of pelvic floor muscle training before and after prolapse surgery did not consistently demonstrate any benefit for the intervention; however, this finding is based on the results of two small studies. With regard to other interventions (preoperative bowel preparation and injection of vasoconstrictor agent, ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension, postoperative vaginal pack insertion, use of vaginal dilators, prophylactic antibiotics for postoperative catheter care), we found no evidence regarding rates of recurrent prolapse and no clear evidence that these interventions were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, or postoperative urinary tract infection.

Methodologic Quality and Statistical Reporting of Physical Therapy Randomized Controlled Trials Relevant to Musculoskeletal Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the methodologic quality and statistical reporting of reports of trials indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) classified in the musculoskeletal subdiscipline, and to analyze the characteristics of the trials that can predict trial report quality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. We randomly selected 19% of trials coded as musculoskeletal from PEDro. Methodologic quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. We assessed aspects of the trial using 9 items from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. We performed multivariate linear regression analysis models to predict the total PEDro score. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: A total of 1404 articles were included in the analysis. The mean total PEDro scale score was 5.27±1.63 points, which reflects low methodologic quality. There was a slight improvement in the quality of articles over time. The characteristics that predicted the total PEDro scale score were endorsement of the CONSORT statement, sample size calculation, lower number of primary outcomes, evaluation of electrotherapy as intervention, if the trial reported the research design in the title, reporting of participant flow diagram, years since publication (most recent trials), and trials published in English. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the trials in musculoskeletal physical therapy is suboptimal. The use of reporting checklists (eg, CONSORT statement) should be mandatory in all journals. Journal reviewers and journal editors should also use the CONSORT statement during the review process.

Funding is related to the quality, conduct, and reporting of trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy: A survey of 210 published trials.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between trial funding and methodological quality, the conduct and reporting of trials has been investigated in several medical disciplines, but remains unclear in musculoskeletal physical therapy trials. The aim of this study was to determine the association between funding and research team composition, sample size, quality, and journal impact factor of randomized controlled trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy. METHODS: A survey of 210 trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy, which were randomly selected from those published in 2011-2013 and indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), is performed. Total PEDro score and citation details of the trial reports were downloaded from PEDro. Pairs of assessors independently extracted information about funding, sample size, and composition of the research team. Journal impact factor was downloaded by one reviewer. RESULTS: Trial funding was associated with having multiple departments in the research team (odds ratio: 1.89, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-3.49), larger sample size (median: n = 72 versus n = 50), higher quality (mean PEDro score: 6.06 versus 5.11), and publication in journals with higher impact factors (median: 2.12 versus 1.78). CONCLUSION: Trial funding was positively associated with having multiple departments represented in the research team, larger sample size, higher quality, and publication in higher impact factor journals.

Does pain-catastrophising mediate the effect of tai chi on treatment outcomes for people with low back pain?

OBJECTIVES: There is evidence to support the effectiveness of tai chi for reducing pain-related symptoms across multiple musculoskeletal conditions, however, the mechanism(s) are unclear. This study explores the role of pain-catastrophising as a possible mediator in the relationship between practising tai chi and back pain symptoms. DESIGN: Exploratory mediation analyses using a Baron and Kenny approach and bootstrapping methods were employed as a secondary analysis of data from a previously published randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Adults with persistent low back pain were recruited via community advertisement in Sydney, NSW, Australia. INTERVENTIONS: A 10-week tai chi intervention and a wait-list control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients completed self-assessments of pain intensity and bothersomeness using 0-10 numerical rating scales, disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and pain catastrophising using the Pain Coping Strategies Questionnaire pre and post intervention. RESULTS: The results suggest partial mediation, by which a reduction in catastrophising explained approximately 1/3 of the effect on pain intensity and bothersomeness and 2/3 of the effect on disability. CONCLUSION: As the first known mediation analysis of tai chi for reducing low back pain-symptoms, it provides initial evidence that it may do so by having an effect on cognitive appraisal outcomes such as pain-catastrophising and information for choosing appropriate process measures for future studies. As tai chi is growing in popularity as an alternative treatment for patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions, it is important to gain a better understanding of how it might work using confirmatory mediation analysis alongside future RCTs.

Back schools for acute and subacute non-specific low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating people with low-back pain (LBP). However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. In this review we defined back school as a therapeutic programme given to groups of people, which includes both education and exercise. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1999, and updated in 2004. For this review update, we split the review into two distinct reviews which separated acute from chronic LBP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of back schools on pain and disability for people with acute or subacute non-specific LBP. We also examined the effect on work status and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and two clinical trials registers up to 4 August 2015. We also checked the reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field of research on LBP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that reported on back school for acute or subacute non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. The secondary outcomes were work status and adverse events. Back school had to be compared with another treatment, a placebo (or sham or attention control) or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the 2009 updated method guidelines for this Cochrane review. Two review authors independently screened the references, assessed the quality of the trials and extracted the data. We set the threshold for low risk of bias, a priori, as six or more of 13 internal validity criteria and no serious flaws (e.g. large drop-out rate). We classified the quality of the evidence into one of four levels (high, moderate, low or very low) using the adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: The search update identified 273 new references, of which none fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We included four studies (643 participants) in this updated review, which were all included in the previous (2004) update. The quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. As data were too clinically heterogeneous to be pooled, we described individual trial results. The results indicate that there is very low quality evidence that back schools are no more effective than a placebo (or sham or attention control) or another treatment (physical therapies, myofascial therapy, joint manipulations, advice) on pain, disability, work status and adverse events at short-term, intermediate-term and long-term follow-up. There is very low quality evidence that shows a statistically significant difference between back schools and a placebo (or sham or attention control) for return to work at short-term follow-up in favour of back school. Very low quality evidence suggests that back school added to a back care programme is more effective than a back care programme alone for disability at short-term follow-up. Very low quality evidence also indicates that there is no difference in terms of adverse events between back school and myofascial therapy, joint manipulation and combined myofascial therapy and joint manipulation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain if back schools are effective for acute and subacute non-specific LBP as there is only very low quality evidence available. While large well-conducted studies will likely provide more conclusive findings, back schools are not widely used interventions for acute and subacute LBP and further research into this area may not be a priority.

A guide to survival analysis for manual therapy clinicians and researchers.

Survival analysis is a statistical approach used to study time to an event of interest. The approach is highly applicable to the manual therapy discipline, yet is rarely used. This masterclass aims to present a simple overview of survival analysis aimed at both clinicians and researchers in the manual therapy field. Specifically the masterclass aims to 1) describe situations where survival analysis is appropriate to use 2) describe unique characteristics of survival data including censoring of participants 3) describe analysis methods for survival data including log rank test and Cox regression 4) describe the interpretation of results from survival analyses including survival plots and hazard ratios.

Interventions available over the counter and advice for acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: This systematic review evaluated evidence from randomized controlled trials investigating interventions available over the counter and advice that could be provided to people with acute low back pain. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AMED, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO for eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was pain. Eligible controls included placebo, no treatment, or usual care. Two reviewers extracted data and rated study quality. A random effects model was used to pool trial effects with the overall strength of evidence described using the GRADE criteria. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (2,847 participants) evaluating advice, bed rest, simple analgesics (paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), heat application, and a topical rubefacient were included. There was low-quality evidence that bed rest is ineffective and very-low-quality evidence that advice is ineffective in the short, intermediate, and long terms. There was very-low-quality evidence that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen and diclofenac "when required" dosing) provide an immediate analgesic effect (mean differences -10.9 [95% confidence interval = -17.6 to -4.2] and -11.3 [95% confidence interval = -17.8 to -4.9], respectively). There is very-low-quality evidence that heat wrap and a capsicum-based rubefacient provide an immediate analgesic effect (mean differences -13.5 [95% confidence interval = -21.3 to -5.7] and 17.5, P < .001, respectively), but there was no information on longer-term outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: There is limited evidence that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, heat wrap, and rubefacients provide immediate pain relief for acute back pain and that bed rest and advice are both ineffective. Future research is needed to provide evidence to support rational use of over-the-counter remedies and advice for people with acute low back pain.

Compliance with clinical guidelines for whiplash improved with a targeted implementation strategy: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies for clinical guidelines have shown modest effects in changing health professional's knowledge and practice, however, targeted implementations are suggested to achieve greater improvements. This study aimed to examine the effect of a targeted implementation strategy of the Australian whiplash guidelines on health professionals' knowledge, beliefs and practice and to identify predictors of improved knowledge. METHODS: 94 health professionals (Physiotherapists, Chiropractors and Osteopaths) who manage whiplash participated in this study. Prior to their inclusion in the study, health professionals were classified as compliant with clinical guidelines for whiplash (n = 52) or non-compliant (n = 42), according to a record of clinical practice. All participants completed a 2- day interactive workshop with outcomes measured at baseline and 3 months following the workshop. The workshop was delivered by opinion leaders, with the educational content focused on the pre-identified knowledge and practice gaps in relation to clinical guidelines for whiplash. Knowledge and health professional beliefs were assessed by a questionnaire and professional practice by record of clinical practice. RESULTS: Participants significantly increased knowledge (p < 0.0001) and were more likely to be compliant with the guidelines at follow-up (compliant at baseline 58%, follow-up 79%, p = 0.002). Health professional belief systems significantly changed to be more behavioural (p = 0.02) and less biomedical (p = 0.000). Predictors of improved knowledge were baseline knowledge (parameter estimate = -0.6, p = 0.000) and profession (parameter estimate = -3.8, p = 0.003) (adj R2 = 35%). CONCLUSIONS: A targeted implementation strategy improved health professional's knowledge and clinical practice so that they became more compliant with clinical guidelines for whiplash. In addition health professionals' belief systems significantly changed to be more behavioural in orientation. Baseline knowledge and profession predicted 35% of the variance in improved knowledge.

People seeking treatment for a new episode of neck pain typically have rapid improvement in symptoms: an observational study.

QUESTION: What is the clinical course of a new episode of non-specific neck pain in people who are treated with multimodal physical therapies in a primary care setting? DESIGN: Observational study with 3-month follow-up, run in conjunction with a randomised trial. PARTICIPANTS: 181 adults who consulted a physiotherapist or chiropractor for a new episode of nonspecific neck pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to recover from the episode of neck pain, time to recover normal activity, and pain and neck-related disability at three months. Clinical and demographic characteristics were investigated as potential predictors of recovery. RESULTS: Within 3 months, 53% of participants reported complete recovery from the episode of neck pain. On a scale from 0 (none) to 10 (worst), pain improved from 6.1 (SD 2.0) at baseline to 2.5 (SD 2.1) at 2 weeks and to 1.5 (SD 1.8) at 3 months. On a scale from 0 (none) to 50 (worst), disability improved from 15.5 (SD 7.4) at baseline to 5.4 (SD 6.4) at 3 months. Faster recovery was independently associated with better self-rated general health, shorter duration of symptoms, being a smoker, and absence of concomitant upper back pain or headache. Higher disability at 3 months was independently associated with higher disability at baseline, concomitant upper or lower back pain, older age, and previous sick leave for neck pain. CONCLUSION: People who seek physical treatments for a new episode of neck pain in this primary care setting typically have high pain scores that improve rapidly after commencing treatment. Although almost half of those who seek treatment do not recover completely within three months, residual pain and disability in this group is relatively low. Physiotherapists should reassure people with a new episode of neck pain that rapid improvement in symptoms is common, modifying this advice where applicable based on risk factors.

Effect of 2 lumbar spine postures on transversus abdominis muscle thickness during a voluntary contraction in people with and without low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated the effect of 2 different lumbar spine postures, neutral and flexed lumbar postures, on transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle function during a voluntary contraction (hollowing and draw-in maneuver) in people with and without low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Thirty participants with LBP and 30 healthy participants were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Transversus abdominis muscle function was measured as a change in thickness with ultrasound imaging. Participants performed voluntary TrA contraction in a supine lying position with the lumbar spine in neutral and flexed postures. Data were analyzed using a 2-way (groups, postures) analysis of variance. RESULTS: Lumbar posture influenced TrA function during a voluntary contraction in people with and without LBP. There was a significant main effect of posture (F(1,58) = 16.140, P < .001). Neutral lumbar posture improved participants' ability to recruit TrA in both group (mean difference, 7.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3.8%-11.3%). No significant differences were found between healthy subjects and those with LBP. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study showed that, in subjects performing a voluntary TrA contraction, the neutral lumbar posture improves the ability to increase change in TrA thickness. This study found no significant difference in TrA thickness change between healthy subjects and those with nonspecific LBP.

A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain.

UNLABELLED: A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neck manipulation is more effective for neck pain than mobilization. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with blind assessment of outcome. SETTING: Primary care physiotherapy, chiropractic, and osteopathy clinics in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=182) with nonspecific neck pain less than 3 months in duration and deemed suitable for treatment with manipulation by the treating practitioner. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with neck manipulation (n=91) or mobilization (n=91). Patients in both groups received 4 treatments over 2 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. RESULTS: The median number of days to recovery of pain was 47 in the manipulation group and 43 in the mobilization group. Participants treated with neck manipulation did not experience more rapid recovery than those treated with neck mobilization (hazard ratio=.98; 95% confidence interval, .66-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Neck manipulation is not appreciably more effective than mobilization. The use of neck manipulation therefore cannot be justified on the basis of superior effectiveness.

Conservative interventions provide short-term relief for non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

QUESTION: Which interventions for non-specific neck pain are effective in reducing pain or disability? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with non-specific neck pain. INTERVENTION: All interventions for neck pain that were evaluated in trials with a placebo, minimal- or no-intervention control. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and disability outcomes (0-100 scale) at the conclusion of a course of treatment (short term), and in the medium (3 to 9 months) and long (> 9 months) term. RESULTS: 33 trials were identified. The interventions with significant short-term effects on pain were manipulation (MD -22, 95% CI -32 to -11), multimodal intervention (MD -21, 95% CI -34 to -7), specific exercise (MD -12, 95% CI -22 to -2), combination orphenadrine/paracetamol (MD -17, 95% CI -32 to -2), and manual therapy (MD -12, 95% CI -16 to -7). There was a significant short-term effect on disability for acupuncture (MD -8, 95% CI -13 to -2) and manual therapy (MD -6, 95% CI -11 to -2). Treatment with laser therapy resulted in better pain outcomes at medium-term follow-up but not at short-term follow-up. No other intervention demonstrated medium- or long-term effects. CONCLUSION: Some conservative interventions for neck pain are effective in the short term. Few interventions that have been investigated have shown longer term effects that are better than placebo or minimal intervention.

Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. DESIGN: Cohort study with one year follow-up. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks' duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. RESULTS: The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.