The effects of telehealth-delivered mindfulness meditation, cognitive therapy, and behavioral activation for chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant problem affecting millions of people worldwide. Three widely implemented psychological techniques used for CLBP management are cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and behavioral activation (BA). This study aimed to evaluate the relative immediate (pre- to post-treatment) and longer term (pre-treatment to 3- and 6-month follow-ups) effects of group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM for CLBP. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a three-arm, randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of three active treatments-CT, BA, and MM-with no inert control condition. Participants were N = 302 adults with CLBP, who were randomized to condition. The primary outcome was pain interference, and other secondary outcomes were also examined. The primary study end-point was post-treatment. Intent-to-treat analyses were undertaken for each time point, with the means of the changes in outcomes compared among the three groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Effect sizes and confidence intervals are also reported. RESULTS: Medium-to-large effect size reductions in pain interference were found within BA, CT, and MM (ds from - .71 to - 1.00), with gains maintained at both follow-up time points. Effect sizes were generally small to medium for secondary outcomes for all three conditions (ds from - .20 to - .71). No significant between-group differences in means or changes in outcomes were found at any time point, except for change in sleep disturbance from pre- to post-treatment, improving more in BA than MM (d = - .49). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this trial, one of the largest telehealth trials of psychological treatments to date, critically determined that group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM are effective for CLBP and can be implemented in clinical practice to improve treatment access. The pattern of results demonstrated similar improvements across treatments and outcome domains, with effect sizes consistent with those observed in prior research testing in-person delivered and multi-modal psychological pain treatments. Thus, internet treatment delivery represents a tool to scale up access to evidence-based chronic pain treatments and to overcome widespread disparities in healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03687762.

Effects of Chronic Pain Diagnoses on the Antidepressant Efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) and chronic pain are highly comorbid and bidirectionally related. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is effective in treating MDD, but additional research is needed to determine if chronic pain interferes with rTMS for MDD. METHODS: Participants were 124 veterans ( Mage = 49.14, SD = 13.83) scheduled for 30 sessions of rTMS across 6 weeks. Depression severity was monitored weekly using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Having any pain diagnosis, low back pain, or headache/migraine were assessed by chart review. We fit latent basis models to estimate total change by pain diagnosis in depression scores and quadratic latent growth models to examine differences in growth rates. Then, we computed χ2 tests of group differences in response (PHQ-9 reduction ≥50%) and remission rates (final PHQ-9 < 5). RESULTS: A total of 92 participants (74%) had a documented pain diagnosis, 58 (47%) had low back pain, and 32 (26%) had headache/migraine. In growth models, depression scores initially decreased (linear slope estimate = -2.04, SE = 0.26, p < .0001), but the rate of decrease slowed over time (quadratic slope estimate = 0.18, SE = 0.04, p < .001). Overall change was not different as a function of any pain diagnosis ( p = .42), low back pain (p = .11 ), or headache/migraine ( p = .28). However, we found that low back pain was a negative predictor of response ( p = .032). CONCLUSIONS: These data support rTMS as a viable treatment option for comorbid populations. Although patients with comorbid chronic pain conditions are likely to receive benefit from rTMS for depression, adjunctive pain treatment may be indicated.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis with Management of Acute Low Back Pain: A Medicare Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

Evolving role of VIADISC for chronic low back and discogenic pain: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain is a leading cause of disability and healthcare spending worldwide. Discogenic pain, pain originating from the intervertebral disk, is a common etiology of chronic lower back pain. Currently, accepted treatments for chronic discogenic pain focus only on the management of symptoms, such as pain. There are no approved treatments that stop or reverse degenerating intervertebral discs. Biologic therapies promoting disc regeneration have been developed to expand treatment options. VIADISC™ NP, is a viable disc allograft supplementation that, in a recent trial, demonstrated a significant reduction in pain and increased function in patients suffering from symptomatic degenerative disc disease. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript summarizes the epidemiology and etiology of low back pain, the pathophysiology of degenerative disc disease, current treatments, and a need for newer therapies. The rationale behind intradiscal biologics for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease is also discussed. EXPERT OPINION: Characterization of the biology leading to disc degeneration has allowed for the development of intradiscal biologics. They may soon be capable of preventing and reversing disc degeneration. Clinical trials have shown promise, but further research into efficacy and safety is needed before these therapies are widely employed.

Integrating randomized and observational studies to estimate optimal dynamic treatment regimes.

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) are the gold standard for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs), but are costly and require a large sample size. We introduce the multi-stage augmented Q-learning estimator (MAQE) to improve efficiency of estimation of optimal DTRs by augmenting SMART data with observational data. Our motivating example comes from the Back Pain Consortium, where one of the overarching aims is to learn how to tailor treatments for chronic low back pain to individual patient phenotypes, knowledge which is lacking clinically. The Consortium-wide collaborative SMART and observational studies within the Consortium collect data on the same participant phenotypes, treatments, and outcomes at multiple time points, which can easily be integrated. Previously published single-stage augmentation methods for integration of trial and observational study (OS) data were adapted to estimate optimal DTRs from SMARTs using Q-learning. Simulation studies show the MAQE, which integrates phenotype, treatment, and outcome information from multiple studies over multiple time points, more accurately estimates the optimal DTR, and has a higher average value than a comparable Q-learning estimator without augmentation. We demonstrate this improvement is robust to a wide range of trial and OS sample sizes, addition of noise variables, and effect sizes.

The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain. METHODS: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry. RESULTS: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts (n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain. INTERPRETATION: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.

A Stratified Approach for Managing Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care (SPLIT Program): A Before-and-After Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of stratified primary care for low back pain (SPLIT program) in decreasing back-related disability for patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after study. We compared health-related outcomes for 2 sequential, independent cohorts of patients with LBP recruited at 7 primary care units in Portugal. The first prospective cohort study characterized usual care (UC) and collected data from February to September 2018. The second was performed when the SPLIT program was implemented and collected data from November 2018 to October 2021. Between cohorts, physical therapists were trained in the implementation of the SPLIT program, which used the STarT Back Screening Tool to categorize patients for matched treatment. We compared back-related disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, 0-24 points), pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale, 0-10 points), perceived effect of treatment (Global Perceived Effect Scale, -5 to +5 points), and health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5 dimensions 3 levels index, 0-1 points). RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 447 patients: 115 in the UC cohort (mostly treated with pharmacologic treatment) and 332 in the SPLIT cohort (all referred for a physical therapy intervention program). Over the study period of 6 months, patients in the SPLIT program showed significantly greater improvements in back-related disability (ß, -2.94; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.24; P ≤ .001), pain (ß, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.57; P ≤ .001), perceived effect of treatment (ß, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.82; P ≤ .001), and health-related quality of life (ß, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.14; P ≤ .001) compared with UC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the SPLIT program for LBP showed greater benefits regarding health-related outcomes than those receiving UC.

Lumbar braces and other assistive devices for treatment of chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of assistive technologies (i.e. non-rigid and rigid lumbar braces, belts, supports, and devices to assist mobility and gait) for improving pain and function (and consequently reducing disability) in adults with chronic low back pain.

Exercises for the prevention of non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of exercise alone or exercise plus education compared with inactive control or education alone to prevent non-specific LBP.

Enhanced Pain Relief and Muscle Growth in Individuals with Low Back Instability: The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise during Sit to Stand Movements.

BACKGROUND Blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) improves muscle strength at a relatively low intensity by temporarily restricting blood flow. This study compared pain and quadriceps muscle mass (QMM) in 40 patients with lower back pain (LBP) undertaking sit-to-stand (STS) exercise with and without blood flow restriction. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty adults were divided into 2 groups, and the experimental group (n=20) performed an STS exercise with BFRE, and the control group (n=20) performed an STS exercise without BFRE. Blood pressure, including systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), was measured using a portable blood pressure monitor. Saturation of percutaneous oxygen (SpO2) was measured using oxygen saturation. Pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). QMM was assessed using ultrasonography. RESULTS Data were analyzed using paired and independent t tests. SBP (P=.000), DBP (P=.004), and SpO2 (P=.001) were significantly different in the experimental group, both before and during the intervention. The VAS scores showed a statistically significant difference in the post-test (P=.003) and rate of change (P=.009) between the groups. The ODI scores showed statistically significant differences in the post-test (P=.000) and rate of change (P=.001) comparison between the groups. The rate of change in QMM, including the rectus femoris (P=.000), vastus intermedius (P=.004), vastus medialis (P=.001), and vastus lateralis (P=.014), increased significantly in the experimental group compared to that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the additive effect of BFRE on pain relief and QMM increase, thus contributing to existing knowledge about therapeutic exercise for the effective management of LBP.

A Study of 60 Patients with Low Back Pain to Compare Outcomes Following Magnetotherapy, Ultrasound, Laser, and Electrotherapy with and without Lumbosacral Kinesiotherapy.

BACKGROUND This study of 60 patients with low back pain (LBP) aimed to compare outcomes following magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and electrotherapy, with and without lumbosacral kinesiotherapy, and used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OLBPDQ). This was a randomized actively controlled intervention trial of adding kinesiotherapy to a standard physiotherapy for LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS The research included 60 participants with a diagnosis of chronic non-specific lumbar pain syndrome (CNSLPS) (mean±SD age 58.3±15.4 years, 37 women) LBP randomly assigned (1: 1) to 2 treatment groups. In Group 1, 30 patients were treated with magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and electrotherapy. In Group 2, 30 patients received the same treatments as in Group 1, and also performed kinesiotherapy exercises affecting the lumbosacral spine and adjacent muscles. At baseline and at the end of the study, all participants completed the RMDQ and the OLBPDQ. RESULTS Both groups had significant improvement after therapy. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that at the end of treatment there was significantly greater progress and symptom reduction (P<0.001) in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 had a pain reduction of 52.5%, while Group 1 had 25.4% pain reduction (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS For treatment of disability caused by CNSLPS, physical therapy combined with kinesiotherapy should be a treatment of choice.

Exercise Therapy for Treatment of Acute Non-specific Low Back Pain: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of exercise for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) vs our main comparisons: (1) sham treatment and (2) no treatment at short term (main follow-up time). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive search up till November 2021 was conducted in numerous databases for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise in adults with acute LBP (<6 weeks). Studies examining LBP with a specific etiology were excluded. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-specific functional status, and recovery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 23 randomized controlled trials (2674 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants) and on functional status (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants) in the short term. There is very low-quality evidence which suggests no difference in effect on pain and functional status for exercise vs no treatment (2 studies; n=157, not pooled due to heterogeneity) at short-term follow-up. Similar results were found for the other follow-up moments. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded because many randomized controlled trials had a high risk of bias, were small in size, and/or there was substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo and no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

The Role of Orthoses in Chronic Axial Spinal Conditions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bracing represents a prevalent conservative, non-surgical approach used in the management of chronic spinal conditions such as spondylosis, degenerative disc disease, and spondylolisthesis. A wide variety of orthoses are available to aid in addressing cervical, thoracic, lumbar, thoracic, and SI joint pain. In this review, we aim to comprehensively examine brace types with their current applications and implications of usage. RECENT FINDINGS: There are multiple cervical bracing options, such as soft and rigid collars, to assist in managing acute trauma and chronic degenerative conditions. The review highlights the nuanced decision-making process between hard and soft collars based on the severity of bone or ligamentous injury and neurological findings. Orthoses for low back pain are commonly used. The review highlights the challenges of chronic neck and lower back pain, emphasizing the importance of clinicians exploring all treatment strategies including braces which can improve function and reduce pain.

Acupuncture Versus Oral Medications for Acute/Subacute Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pharmacologic intervention do not always achieve benefits in the treatment of acute/subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). We assessed efficacy and safety of acupuncture for acute/subacute NSLBP as alternative treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Epistemonikos, CNKI, Wan Fang Database, VIP database, CBMLD, CSTJ, clinical trials, EUCTR, World WHO ICTRP, and ChiCTR for randomized controlled trials, cross-over studies, and cohort studies of NSLBP treated by acupuncture versus oral medication from inception to 23th April 2022. A total of 6 784 records were identified, and 14 studies were included 1 263 participants in this review. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture therapy was slightly more effective than oral medication in improving pain (P < 0.00001, I2 = 92%, MD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.61, -0.72]). According to the results of the meta-analysis, acupuncture therapy exhibited a significant advantage over oral medication with a substantial effect (P < 0.00001, I2 = 90%, SMD = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.62]). Based on the results of the meta-analysis, acupuncture therapy was associated with a 12% improvement rate compared to oral medication in patients with acute/subacute NSLBP (P < 0.0001, I2 = 54%, RR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.05, 1.18]). Acupuncture is more effective and safer than oral medication in treating acute/subacute NSLBP. This systematic review is poised to offer valuable guidance to clinicians treating acute/subacute NSLBP and potentially benefit the afflicted patients. REGISTRATION: This review was registered in PROSPERO ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ) with registration number CRD42021278346.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation of the Sacroiliac Joint.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain utilizing a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RECENT FINDINGS: The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated at around 25% of low back pain cases, and its diagnosis lacks a gold standard. Treatments include exercise therapy, injections, ablation, and fusion, with variable effectiveness. COVID-19 altered utilization patterns of interventions, including sacroiliac joint procedures, and the evidence for these interventions remains inconclusive. Recently, Medicare has issued its local coverage determinations (LCDs) in the United States, which provides noncoverage of sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy. Additionally, a recent systematic review of sacroiliac joint injections showed Level III or fair evidence. The sacroiliac joint, a critical axial joint linking the spine and pelvis, contributes to low back pain. Its complex innervation pattern varies among individuals. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, causing pain and stiffness, arises from diverse factors.The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate radiofrequency neurotomy's effectiveness for sacroiliac joint pain management by applying rigorous methodology, considering both RCTs and observational studies. Despite methodological disparities, the evidence from this review, supported by changes in pain scores and functional improvement, suggests Level III evidence with fair recommendation for radiofrequency neurotomy as a treatment option. The review's strengths include its comprehensive approach and quality assessment. However, limitations persist, including variations in criteria and technical factors, underscoring the need for further high-quality studies in real-world scenarios.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Radiofrequency Techniques for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: Combined with Anatomy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lumbar facet pain is generally considered to be one of the major causes of chronic low back pain. Each lumbar facet joint is innervated by the medial branch of the posterior spinal nerve from its own level and above. Radiofrequency (RF) of the medial branch of the posterior branch of the spinal nerve is an effective method for the treatment of lumbar facet pain. RF technology is diverse, including traditional radiofrequency (TRF), pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), cooled radiofrequency (CRF), low-temperature plasma radiofrequency ablation (CA), and other treatment methods. The purpose of this paper is to compare the efficacy of different radiofrequency techniques and to analyze the reasons for this in the context of anatomy. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been studies confirming the differences in efficacy of different RF techniques. However, most of the studies only compared two RF techniques, not four techniques, TRF, CRF, PRF, and CA, and did not analyze the reasons for the differences in efficacy. This article reviews the differences in the efficacy of the above four RF techniques, clarifies that the differences are mainly due to the inability to precisely localize the medial branch of the posterior branch of the spinal nerve, analyzes the reasons for the inability to precisely localize the posterior branch of the spinal nerve in conjunction with anatomy, and proposes that the development of RF technology for lumbar facet pain requires more in-depth anatomical, imaging, and clinical studies.

Patient and Staff Insights on Digital Care Pathways for Patients With Low Back Pain in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a huge global problem. For some people, the pain is so severe that they feel the need to present to an emergency department (ED). Our aim was to explore patient and staff perspectives for the development of a digital care pathway (DCP) for people with back pain who have presented to ED, including acceptability, barriers and facilitators. METHODS: We used a descriptive phenomenology approach using semi-structured interviews with patient and staff participants at a tertiary hospital. Interviews were transcribed and data codes were developed using inductive thematic analysis. Themes were discussed between researchers until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 16 interviews were carried out, half of which involved patient participants. We identified three major themes: (i) expectations and experiences of staff and patients with low back pain in ED; (ii) a digital care pathway can empower patients and support clinicians in providing care; and (iii) acceptability, barriers, facilitators and recommendations of engaging with a DCP to track the trajectory of back pain. Each theme was further categorised into subthemes. CONCLUSION: Introducing a DCP was perceived as acceptable and beneficial by patients and staff. Both groups were aware of the potential participant burden if surveys were too long. Introducing a DCP could be a valuable adjunct to current management care models, providing a standardised source of education with the potential for individualised tracking and monitoring. The design and development of a DCP will need to consider reported facilitators and address perceived barriers for engagement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project sought insights from patients and staff about a digital care pathway. This forms the first step of patient and consumer consultation before implementing a digital care pathway. All consumers were offered the opportunity to review their responses and our interpretation.

Acceptability, values, and preferences of older people for chronic low back pain management; a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) and other musculoskeletal conditions represent a sizable attribution to the global burden of disability, with rates greatest in older age. There are multiple and varied interventions for CPLBP, delivered by a wide range of health and care workers. However, it is not known if these are acceptable to or align with the values and preferences of care recipients. The objective of this synthesis was to understand the key factors influencing the acceptability of, and values and preferences for, interventions/care for CPLBP from the perspective of people over 60 and their caregivers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and OpenAlex, for eligible studies from inception until April 2022. We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; explored the perceptions and experiences of older people and their caregivers about interventions to treat CPLBP; from any setting globally. We conducted a best fit framework synthesis using a framework developed specifically for this review. We assessed our certainty in the findings using GRADE-CERQual. RESULTS: All 22 included studies represented older people's experiences and had representation across a range of geographies and economic contexts. No studies were identified on caregivers. Older people living with CPLBP express values and preferences for their care that relate to therapeutic encounters and the importance of therapeutic alliance, irrespective of the type of treatment, choice of intervention, and intervention delivery modalities. Older people with CPLBP value therapeutic encounters that validate, legitimise, and respect their pain experience, consider their context holistically, prioritise their needs and preferences, adopt a person-centred and tailored approach to care, and are supported by interprofessional communication. Older people valued care that provided benefit to them, included interventions beyond analgesic medicines alone and was financially and geographically accessible. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide critical context to the implementation of clinical guidelines into practice, particularly related to how care providers interact with older people and how components of care are delivered, their location and their cost. Further research is needed focusing on low- and middle-income settings, vulnerable populations, and caregivers.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

The positive effect of pulse electromagnetic field therapy on pain and disability in chronic low back pain: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain that lasts longer than three months is called chronic low back pain. Chronic low back pain is among the most common problems in the world, causing severe disability and loss of employment in patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of pulse electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT) added to routine physical therapy on pain and functional status in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included 69 patients with chronic low back pain. The patients were divided into two groups: those who received lumbar transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, infrared, and ultrasound treatments, and those who additionally received PEMFT. The files of patients with chronic low back pain were reviewed, and those who had been evaluated using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) in terms of functional capacity and effects of low back pain and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain both before and after treatment were included in the study. RESULTS: No significant difference was detected between the two groups' pretreatment VAS and QBPDS scores (p > 0.05). The second-and-third measurement scores of both groups were significantly lower than their first-measurement VAS and QBPDS scores (p ˂ 0.001), but there was no significant difference between their second- and third-measurement scores (p > 0.05). According to the inter-group comparison of the VAS and QBPDS scores, the second and third-measurement scores of the PEMFT group were significantly lower than those of the control group (p ˂ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PEMFT seems to be able to alleviate pain intensity and ameliorate disability in patients with chronic low back pain. PEMFT can be considered an effective and safe option that can be added to routine physical therapy modalities for relieving chronic low back pain frequently encountered in clinical practice. Further studies validating the effectiveness of PEMFT could strengthen its position in the management of chronic low back pain.