A national media mass campaign improves beliefs and behaviours about low back pain in the general population and in general practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Previous international mass-media campaigns for low back pain (LBP) have had conflicting impacts on the general population. The objective was to evaluate the impact of a national back pain campaign conducted between 2017 and 2019 on beliefs and behaviours of general practitioners and the general population in France. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2019, a mass-media campaign was used to disseminate positive messages about LBP using several media, along with a parallel campaign addressed to general practitioners. An email survey before the campaign and 6 and 18 months after the campaign started evaluated beliefs and behaviours among a representative sample of the 2 target populations (3500 people from the general population and 700 general practitioners before the campaign, and 2000 people and 300 general practitioners 6 and 18 months after). RESULTS: Overall, 56% of the general population respondents before the campaign and 74% and 75% at 6 and 18 months after adhered to the statement "One should maintain physical activity" when dealing with LBP. Conversely, the percentage adhering to the statement "The best treatment is resting" decreased significantly from 68% before the campaign to 45% at 6 and 18 months after. Physicians reported delivering more reassurance and giving more documentation to patients after the campaign. They prescribed less sick leave during the first consultation (65% before the campaign, 46% and 30% at 6 and 18 months after). CONCLUSION: A mass-media campaign aimed at the public and general practitioners in France significantly modified beliefs and behaviours about LBP.

Rehabilitation and lumbar surgery: the French recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Indications and techniques of rehabilitation differ widely across types of lumbar surgery, including timing (before or after surgery) and prescriptions (surgeons but also medical or paramedical professionals). OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to build consensual recommendations for practice in this context. METHODS: The SOFMER methodology was used to establish recommendations for physical medicine and rehabilitation: a steering committee defined the types of lumbar surgery involved and developed the main questions to be addressed; a scientific committee performed a literature review for grading evidence and proposed the first version of recommendations, which were discussed during a dedicated session at the national Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine congress; then an e-Delphi method with cross-professional experts was used to finalise recommendations and reach a multidisciplinary consensus. RESULTS: The main questions developed were the value of rehabilitation before and after surgery, timing and type of rehabilitation, benefit of supervision and instrumental rehabilitation, value of patient education, and complementary interventions concerning rehabilitation for discectomy, fusion, and disc prosthesis (excluding decompression for spinal stenosis). The literature review identified 60 articles, but for several of the questions, no article in the literature addressed the issue. The multidisciplinary scientific committee analysed the literature and addressed the questions to propose the first version of a set of 23 recommendations. The congress session failed to answer all questions or to reach consensus for all items. After a three-step e-Delphi, 20 recommendations were retained, for which consensus among experts was reached. The recommendations are applicable only to patients without a neurological lesion. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide important and consensual knowledge to assist clinicians in decision-making for rehabilitation in lumbar surgery. Despite many of the recommendations relying exclusively on expert opinion rather than published evidence, this approach is an important advance to improve concordance among healthcare professionals.

PRM programmes of care and PRM care pathways: European approach, developments in France.

The development of European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) physical and rehabilitation medicine programmes of care (PRMPC) and physical and rehabilitation medicine care pathways (PRMCP) in France is a good example of the positive interaction between European and national organizations. PRMPC were defined at the European level to offer a robust template for the description and assessment of physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) clinical activity in various fields and contexts. An accreditation procedure was organized as a peer review. It has started to provide very informative documents. In France, discussions on this topic began in 2000. At the end of the same decade, the European approach fostered the interest of French PRM organizations in a period of negotiating with public authorities about two crucial issues: specifications required for reimbursement of functional instrumental assessments in PRM practice and funding of PRM care in postacute facilities. The French Society of PRM (SOFMER) decided to describe the PRM scope in a systematic way, emphasizing the best balance between patient needs, rehabilitation goals, relevant means and justified funding. Nine 'PRMCP' have been published since 2010 and others are in progress. PRMPC and PRMCP share the same concern about the best response offered by PRM to patients' needs. The first approach is the description of a local organization with respect to both scientific evidence and local conditions. The latter is an outline of PRM intervention related to a multidimensional pattern of patients' situations. Both enhance the role of PRM doctors, whose expertise is necessary for making a synthesis of medical diagnosis and functional assessment, for setting up a patient-centred care strategy and for supervising the rehabilitation team's intervention.

Clinical practice guidelines for rest orthosis, knee sleeves, and unloading knee braces in knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines concerning the use of bracing--rest orthosis, knee sleeves and unloading knee braces--for knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: The French Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Society (SOFMER) methodology, associating a systematic literature review, collection of everyday clinical practice, and external review by multidisciplinary expert panel, was used. RESULTS: Few high-level studies of bracing for knee osteoarthritis were found. No evidence exists for the effectiveness of rest orthosis. Evidence for knee sleeves suggests that they decrease pain in knee osteoarthritis, and their use is associated with subjective improvement. These actions do not appear to depend on a local thermal effect. The effectiveness of knee sleeves for disability is not demonstrated for knee osteoarthritis. Short- and mid-term follow-up indicates that valgus knee bracing decreases pain and disability in medial knee osteoarthritis, appears to be more effective than knee sleeves, and improves quality of life, knee proprioception, quadriceps strength, and gait symmetry, and decreases compressive loads in the medial femoro-tibial compartment. However, results of response to valgus knee bracing remain inconsistent; discomfort and side effects can result. Thrombophlebitis of the lower limbs has been reported with the braces. Braces, whatever kind, are infrequently prescribed in clinical practice for osteoarthritis of the lower limbs. CONCLUSION: Modest evidence exists for the effectiveness of bracing--rest orthosis, knee sleeves and unloading knee braces--for knee osteoarthritis, with only low level recommendations for its use. Braces are prescribed infrequently in French clinical practice for osteoarthritis of the knee. Randomized clinical trials concerning bracing in knee osteoarthritis are still necessary.