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.

An Artificial Intelligence-Based App for Self-Management of Low Back and Neck Pain in Specialist Care: Process Evaluation From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-management is endorsed in clinical practice guidelines for the care of musculoskeletal pain. In a randomized clinical trial, we tested the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence-based self-management app (selfBACK) as an adjunct to usual care for patients with low back and neck pain referred to specialist care. OBJECTIVE: This study is a process evaluation aiming to explore patients' engagement and experiences with the selfBACK app and specialist health care practitioners' views on adopting digital self-management tools in their clinical practice. METHODS: App usage analytics in the first 12 weeks were used to explore patients' engagement with the SELFBACK app. Among the 99 patients allocated to the SELFBACK interventions, a purposive sample of 11 patients (aged 27-75 years, 8 female) was selected for semistructured individual interviews based on app usage. Two focus group interviews were conducted with specialist health care practitioners (n=9). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nearly one-third of patients never accessed the app, and one-third were low users. Three themes were identified from interviews with patients and health care practitioners: (1) overall impression of the app, where patients discussed the interface and content of the app, reported on usability issues, and described their app usage; (2) perceived value of the app, where patients and health care practitioners described the primary value of the app and its potential to supplement usual care; and (3) suggestions for future use, where patients and health care practitioners addressed aspects they believed would determine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Although the app's uptake was relatively low, both patients and health care practitioners had a positive opinion about adopting an app-based self-management intervention for low back and neck pain as an add-on to usual care. Both described that the app could reassure patients by providing trustworthy information, thus empowering them to take actions on their own. Factors influencing app acceptance and engagement, such as content relevance, tailoring, trust, and usability properties, were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04463043; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04463043.

Effects of different parameters of Tai Chi on the intervention of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of Tai Chi in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain by Meta-analysis and to investigate its influencing factors. METHODS: The study searched eight databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM) from inception to October 2023. Two investigators independently selected 10 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) against inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by data extraction and study quality assessment by ROB 2. The outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. The studies were combined using meta-analysis when statistical pooling of data was possible. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: 10 randomized controlled studies with a total sample of 886 cases were included, of which 4 (40%) were assessed as low risk of bias. The effect size of Tai Chi for chronic low back pain was [Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -1.09 (-1.26, -0.92), p < 0.01], all achieving large effect sizes and statistically significant; the effect size for disability was [Standard Mean Difference (SMD) with 95% CI = -1.75 (-2.02, -1.48), p < 0.01], and the combined effect sizes of physical health and mental health for quality of life were [WMD (95% CI) = 4.18 (3.41, 4.95), p < 0.01; WMD (95% CI) = 3.23 (2.42, 4.04), p < 0.01] respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions was low. Meta regression and subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant effect on intervention measures (Tai Chi alone, Tai Chi as additional therapy, water Tai Chi), Tai Chi school (Chen and Yang) and the number of total intervention sessions (> 30 and ≤ 30). The evidence quality evaluation showed that the evidence of pain, physical health of quality of life and mental health score was medium quality, while the evidence of disability and adverse reactions was low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Tai Chi has an obvious effect of in relieving chronic low back pain. Tai Chi alone and Tai Chi as supplementary therapy have good effects. Tai Chi in water have not been verified. Chen style Tai Chi and Yang's Tai Chi, intervention more than 30 times or less than 30 times had no significant difference in the effect of intervention on CLBP.

Physiotherapists' attitudes and beliefs in the management of low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) poses a significant global health burden where a biopsychosocial model of care has been recommended. Physiotherapists (PTs) play a crucial role in LBP management; however, their attitudes and beliefs towards LBP were not reviewed in detail. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarise the attitudes and beliefs of PTs towards LBP and the factors influencing them. METHODS: The review protocol and methods adhere to the PRISMA-P and Meta Analyses and Systematic Reviews for Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro and Ovid databases will be conducted to search for cross-sectional studies evaluating PTs' attitudes and beliefs towards LBP. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles, conduct data extraction and assess methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies. Data synthesis will involve a narrative synthesis of study characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and methodological quality. If feasible, a meta-analysis will be performed to quantify the pooled effects. CONCLUSION: Despite the emphasis on biopsychosocial approaches for managing LBP, the adoption of such approaches in physiotherapy practice is still suboptimal, with attitudes and beliefs of PTs being considered an important factor influencing treatment practices. Our review will summarise the literature on attitudes and beliefs of PTs towards LBP. Such knowledge would inform the need for development of additional interventions addressing the attitudes and beliefs that would eventually enhance the update of the biopsychosocial model of care in physiotherapy management of LBP.

Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation: A UK Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this economic analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM-SCS) for treating chronic intractable low back pain, compared with conventional spinal cord stimulation (C-SCS) and conservative medical management (CMM), by updating and expanding the inputs for a previously published cross-industry model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This model comprised a 12-month decision-tree phase followed by a long-term Markov model. Costs and outcomes were calculated from a UK National Health Service perspective, over a base-case horizon of 15 years and up to a maximum of 40 years. All model inputs were derived from published literature or other deidentified sources and updated to reflect recent clinical trials and costs. Deterministic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across the 15-year time horizon and to explore the impact of individual parameter variability on the cost-effectiveness results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of joint parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: DTM-SCS was the most cost-effective option from a payer perspective. Compared with CMM alone, DTM-SCS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6101 per QALY gained (incremental net benefit [INB] = £21,281). The INB for C-SCS compared with CMM was lower than for DTM-SCS, at £8551. For the comparison of DTM-SCS and C-SCS, an ICER of £897 per QALY gained was calculated, with a 99.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low back pain treated over a 15-year follow-up period, DTM-SCS and C-SCS are cost-effective compared with CMM, from both payer and societal perspectives. DTM-SCS is associated with a lower ICER than that of C-SCS. Wider uptake of DTM-SCS in the UK health care system is warranted to manage chronic low back pain.

Effects of combined anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and motor control exercise on cortical topography and muscle activation in individuals with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant movement in chronic low back pain (CLBP) is associated with a deficit in the lumbar multifidus (LM) and changes in cortical topography. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can be used to enhance cortical excitability by priming the neuromuscular system for motor control exercise (MCE), thereby enhancing LM activation and movement control. This study aimed to determine the effects of a 6-week MCE program combined with a-tDCS on cortical topography, LM activation, movement patterns, and clinical outcomes in individuals with CLBP. METHODS: Twenty-two individuals with CLBP were randomly allocated to the a-tDCS group (a-tDCS; n = 12) or sham-tDCS group (s-tDCS; n = 10). Both groups received 20 min of tDCS followed by 30 min of MCE. The LM and erector spinae (ES) cortical topography, LM activation, movement control battery tests, and clinical outcomes (disability and quality of life) were measured pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: Significant interaction (group × time; p < 0.01) was found in the distance between LM and ES cortical locations. The a-tDCS group demonstrated significantly fewer discrete peaks (p < 0.05) in both ES and LM and significant improvements (p < 0.05) in clinical outcomes post-intervention. The s-tDCS group demonstrated a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the number of discrete peaks in the LM cortical topography. No significant changes (p > 0.05) in LM activation were observed in either group; however, both groups demonstrated improved movement patterns. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that combined a-tDCS with MCE can separate LM and ES locations over time while s-tDCS (MCE alone) reduces the distance. Our study did not find superior benefits of adding a-tDCS before MCE for LM activation, movement patterns, or clinical outcomes.

"What helps your back pain?" A qualitative analysis of pain management strategies in opioid-treated adults with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative analysis was to better understand what pain management strategies adults with opioid-treated chronic low back pain (CLBP) found most helpful. DESIGN: A subgroup of participants from a larger randomized control trial of two psychological interventions were asked: "What helps your back pain?" at baseline and 12 months (exit) in brief, video-recorded interviews. Videos were analyzed using qualitative thematic content analysis utilizing Transana™. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the community and outpatient clinics in three United States sites. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-nine adults with long-term (≥3 months) opioid-treated (≥15 mg/day morphine equivalent) CLBP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants' baseline and exit qualitative responses to the question "What helps your back pain?" RESULTS: At baseline, participants identified medication (n = 63), body position (n = 59), thermal application (n = 50), physical activity (n = 49), and stretching (n = 24) as the CLBP management strategies they found helpful. At exit, the reports of medication (n = 55), physical activity (n = 41), and stretching (n = 21) were often considered helpful for CLBP and remained relatively stable, while position (n = 36) and thermal application (n = 35) strategies were mentioned less frequently and psychological strategies (n = 29) were mentioned more frequently (up from n = 5) compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, the reports of medication and active pain management strategies, eg, physical activity, remained stable, while the reports of some passive pain management strategies, eg, position and thermal, declined over time. Increased use of psychological strategies implies that study interventions were incorporated as useful pain self-management strategies.

Effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme on the physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain compared with a standard back school programme: protocol for a randomised controlled study (END-LC).

INTRODUCTION: Education is recognised as an effective and necessary approach in chronic low back pain. Nevertheless, data regarding the effectiveness of education in promoting physical activity in the medium term or long term are still limited, as are the factors that could lead to successful outcomes. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme compared with traditional back school on physical activity 3 months and 1 year after educational sessions coupled with a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme. Additionally, we seek to evaluate the effects of these educational interventions on various factors, including pain intensity and psychobehavioural factors. Finally, our goal is to identify the determinants of success in educational sessions combined with the rehabilitation programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will involve 82 adults with chronic low back pain. It will be a monocentric, open, controlled, randomised, superiority trial with two parallel arms: an experimental group, 'pain neuroscience education', and a control group, 'back school'. The primary outcome is the average number of steps taken at home over a week, measured by an actigraph. Secondary outcomes include behavioural assessments. Descriptive and inferential analysis will be conducted. Multivariate modelling will be performed using actimetric data and data from the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee for Personal Protection of Ile de France VII (CPP) gave a favourable opinion on 22 June 2023 (National number: 2023-A00346-39). The study was previously registered with the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (IDRCB: 2023-A00346-39). Participants signed an informed consent during the inclusion visit. This protocol is the version submitted to the CPP entitled 'Protocol Version N°1 of 03/29/2023'. The results of the study will be presented nationally and internationally through conferences and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840302.

Effects of Gluteal Muscle Strengthening Exercise-Based Core Stabilization Training on Pain and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.

Background: The World Health Organization reports that back pain is a major cause of disorder worldwide. It is the most common musculoskeletal disorder with limited pain, muscle tension, and stiffness, and 70-80% of all individuals experience it once in their lifetime, with higher prevalence in women than in men. This study aimed to investigate the effects of gluteal muscle strengthening exercise- based core stabilization training (GSE-based CST) on pain, function, fear-avoidance patterns, and quality of life in patients with chronic back pain. Methods: This study included 34 patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Seventeen individuals each were included in GSE-based CST and control groups. The GSE-based CST group performed GSE and CST for 15 min, three times a week for four weeks, and the control group performed CST for 30 min a day, three times a week for four weeks. The numeric pain rating scale was used to evaluate pain before and after treatment, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was used to evaluate function, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire was used to evaluate fear-avoidance patterns, and quality of life was measured using the short form-36. Results: In this study, pain, function, and fear-avoidance pattern decreased significantly in both groups (All p < 0.05). During the evaluation of quality of life, both groups showed significant increase in physical and mental factors (p < 0.05). There were significant differences in pain and quality of life (p < 0.05) between the GSE-based CST and control groups. Conclusions: Therefore, GSE-based CST can be used as a basis for effective intervention to enhance pain, function, fear-avoidance patterns, and quality of life, emphasizing the need for gluteal muscle strengthening exercises in patients with non-specific chronic back pain in the future.

Evaluating the STarTBack stratified treatment approach for low back pain: exploring study-level factors potentially explaining differences in results of studies - a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results. DESIGN: A literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

Low back pain self-management mobile applications: a systematic review on digital platforms.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze the features and quality of self-management support of mobile applications available in Brazil for chronic low back pain in adults. METHOD: A systematic review on the Apple Store® and Google Play® digital platforms. The Self-Management Support Assessment Tool scale was used to assess self-management support and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics Functionality Score scale was used to assess functionality. RESULTS: Seventeen applications were selected, which included around seven self-management skills. The applications that met the majority of self-management support skills were Pathways, Branch, Pancea, Pain Navigator, and Curable. The Curable, Branch and MoovButh applications had the highest scores, with ten features on the functionality scale. CONCLUSION: Some applications have the potential to complement in-person treatment in terms of validity, acceptability and clinical usefulness in pain management. However, barriers such as lack of partnership between healthcare providers and patients, limited evidence-based content, social support, cultural relevance, cost, language, security and privacy can limit their sustained use. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022382686.

Effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on chronic low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent disease. It is a critical health concern that can influence functional capacity by restricting living activities. OBJECTIVES: The current study is to investigate the effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (TVNs) in the management of CLBP. METHODS: We searched the databases on Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Pedro for randomized clinical trial (RCT) studies published in any language that looked at the effectiveness of TVNs in people with chronic LBP. The inclusion criteria were PICO. Participants in the research were people (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with persistent low back pain for more than 3 months. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane ROB 2. RESULTS: Our database search found 1084 RCT. A number of studies that were not necessary for the issue were removed, and the overall outcome was six trials. Risk of bias (ROB) evaluations at the study level (derived from outcomes) are reported. In the six studies, two (33.3%) had an overall uncertain ROB (i.e., some concerns), whereas one (16.7%) had a high overall ROB. Three trials (50%) had a low overall RoB. CONCLUSION: There is still no evidence to support the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation as a viable therapeutic rehabilitation strategy. Therefore, we recommend high-quality trials and long-term follow-up to evaluate disability, quality of life, and pain outcomes in these patients.

Prognostic factors for long-term improvement in pain and disability among patients with persistent low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic research in low back pain (LBP) is essential for understanding and managing the condition. This study aimed to, (1) describe the proportions with mild-moderate and severe pain and disability at baseline, 1-year and 4-year follow-up, and (2) investigate prognostic factors for improvement in pain and disability over 4 years in a cohort of secondary care LBP patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of patients with LBP aged 18-40 years recruited from a non-surgical outpatient spine clinic between March 2011 and October 2013 (n = 1037). Questionnaires were collected at baseline, 1-year, and 4-year follow-up. Disability was assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ 0-100) and pain intensity using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS 0-10). 'Mild-moderate pain' was defined as NRS < 7 and 'severe pain' as NRS ≥ 7. Likewise, 'mild-moderate disability' was defined as RMDQ < 58.3, and 'severe disability' was RMDQ ≥ 58.3. In the prognostic analysis, improvement in pain and disability over 4 years was defined as meeting both criteria: decrease of ≥ 2 on the NRS and of ≥ 20.8 on the RMDQ. Sixteen candidate prognostic factors were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among patients with information available at all three time points (n = 241), 54%/48% had persistent mild-moderate pain/disability, while only 7%/15% had persistent severe pain/disability. Of patients included in the multivariate prognostic analysis regarding improvement over 4 years (n = 498), 32% had improved in pain and disability after 4 years. Positive associations were found for pain intensity (OR 1.34 [95%CI: 1.17-1.54]), disability (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.02]), and regular employment or studying (OR 1.67 [1.06-2.64]), and negative associations for episode duration (OR 0.99 [0.99-1.00]) and risk of persistent pain (OR 0.58 [0.38-0.88]). CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent LBP in secondary care had mostly mild-moderate pain and disability consistently at all three time points, with few having consistently severe symptoms over 4 years. Moreover, approximately half of the included patients improved in pain and disability. We found that pain intensity, disability, episode duration, regular employment or studying, and risk of persistent pain predicted a long-term improvement. However, the limited availability of complete follow-up data may affect generalisability.

Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation (Intracept): Procedural Technique.

Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation is indicated for the treatment of chronic vertebrogenic low back pain with failure of at least 6 months of conservative treatment. This article details patient positioning and setup, step-by-step instructions for the procedure, and postoperative management. Pearls and pitfalls are also discussed. In addition, an instructional procedure video accompanies this paper and can be found online (at https://vimeo.com/791578426/de0e90cfbe).

Effectiveness of in-group versus individually administered pain neuroscience education on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled study protocol.

Objective: (1) This trial will compare the clinical and psychosocial effectiveness of in-group and individually pain neuroscience education (PNE) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In addition, (2) the influence of social determinants of health on post-treatment results will be analyzed. Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Sixty-nine participants with CLBP will be recruited in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants, assessor, and statistician will be blinded to group assignment. The PNE intervention will be adapted to the context of the participants. An experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an in-group modality, the other experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an individually modality and the control group (n = 33) will continue with usual care. Additionally, participants will be encouraged to stay active by walking for 20-30 min 3-5 times per week and will be taught an exercise to improve transversus abdominis activation (bracing or abdominal following). The outcome measures will be fear avoidance and beliefs, pressure pain threshold, pain self-efficacy, catastrophizing, pain intensity, and treatment expectation. Outcome measures will be collected at one-week before intervention, immediately post-intervention, and four-weeks post-intervention. Conclusion: The innovative approach of PNE oriented to fear beliefs proposed in this study could broaden the application strategies of this educational therapeutic modality. Impact. Contextualized PNE delivered by physical therapist could be essential to achieve a good cost-effectiveness ratio of this intervention to improve the clinical condition of people with CLBP.

Factors influencing imaging clinical decision-making in low back pain management. A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The use of diagnostic imaging in low back pain (LBP) management is often inappropriate, despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. There is a limited understanding of factors that influence the imaging clinical decision-making (CDM) process. AIM: Explore the literature on factors influencing imaging CDM for people with LBP and consider how these findings could be used to reduce inappropriate use of imaging in LBP management. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHOD: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review extension for scoping reviews. A digital search was conducted in Medline, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies published between January 2010-2023. Data reporting influences on imaging CDM were extracted. Data were then analysed through an inductive process to group the influencing factors into categories. RESULTS: After screening, 35 studies (5 qualitative and 30 quantitative) were included in the review, which reported factors influencing imaging CDM. Three categories were developed: clinical features (such as red flags, pain, and neurological deficit), non-modifiable factors (such as age, sex, and ethnicity) and modifiable factors (such as beliefs about consequences and clinical practice). Most studies reported non-modifiable factors. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this scoping review challenge the perception that imaging CDM is purely based on clinical history and objective findings. There is a complex interplay between clinical features, patient and clinician characteristics, beliefs, and environment. These findings should be considered when designing strategies to address inappropriate imaging behaviour.

Usual care for low back pain and barriers to best practice: A cross-sectional study in Danish general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current content of low back pain (LBP) care in Danish general practice, the patients' self-management activities, and the clinicians' experienced barriers to providing best practice care. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included adults with LBP seeking care in Danish general practice from August 2022 to June 2023. Patient-reported information included demographics, pain intensity, medical history, treatments, and self-management strategies. Clinicians provided data specific to each consultation, detailing the content of these consultations, and barriers to best practice in the specific cases. RESULTS: The study involved 71 clinicians from 42 general practice clinics, with patient-reported data from 294 patients, and clinician-reported data from 283 (95%) consultations. The mean age for the included patients was 53 years, 56% were female, and 31% had been on sick leave for LBP during the previous 3 months. Moreover, 44% had seen two or more healthcare professionals in the previous month, 55% had previously undergone diagnostic imaging for LBP, 81% reported using any type of analgesics, and 14% reported using opioids. The majority (91%) reported engaging in self-management activities to alleviate pain. Consultations typically included a physical examination (84%), information about the cause of the pain (74%), and management advice (68%), as reported by clinicians or patients. In general, clinicians reported consultation elements more frequently than patients. Clinicians reported providing best practice care in 84% of cases, with time constraints (23%) and patient expectations (10%) being the most common barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides detailed insights into the management of LBP in Danish general practice. It reveals a complex landscape of patient engagement, varying management strategies, and differing perceptions of care content between patients and clinicians. Patients were often engaged in self-management activities and clinicians reported few barriers to providing best practice care.

Pain neuroscience education improves post-traumatic stress disorder, disability, and pain self-efficacy in veterans and service members with chronic low back pain: Preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are frequently co-morbid. Some research suggests that PTSD and CLBP may share common neurobiological mechanisms related to stress. Traditional biomedical education may be ineffective for PTSD and CLBP, especially when co-morbid. The purpose of this study is to determine if pain neuroscience education (PNE) is more effective than traditional education in reducing PTSD, disability, pain, and maladaptive beliefs in patients with CLBP. Participants with CLBP and possible PTSD/PTSD-symptoms were recruited for this study. Participants were randomly allocated to a PNE group or a traditional education group. The intervention included 30 minutes of education followed by a standardized exercise program once a week for 4-weeks with a 4 and 8-week follow-up and healthcare utilization assessed at 12-months. Forty-eight participants consented for this research study with 39 allocated to treatment (PNE n = 18, traditional n = 21). PNE participants were more likely to achieve a clinically meaningful reduction in PTSD symptoms and disability at short-term follow-up. At 12-months, the PNE group utilized healthcare with 76% lower costs. In participants with CLBP, PNE may reduce hypervigilance toward pain and improve PTSD symptoms. Participants who received PNE were more confident body-tissues were safe to exercise. These beliefs about pain could contribute to a decrease in perceived disability and healthcare consumption for CLBP.

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack). METHODS: Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference -0·5 [97·5% CI -1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (-0·6 [-1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care. INTERPRETATION: The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).

MyBack - effectiveness and implementation of a behavior change informed exercise programme to prevent low back pain recurrences: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common health condition and the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most LBP episodes have a favourable prognosis, but recurrences within a year are common. Despite the individual and societal impact related to LBP recurrences, there is limited evidence on effective strategies for secondary prevention of LBP and successful implementation of intervention programmes in a real-world context. The aim of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of a tailored exercise and behavioural change programme (MyBack programme) in the secondary prevention of LBP; and evaluate acceptability, feasibility and determinants of implementation by the different stakeholders, as well as the implementation strategy of the MyBack programme in real context. METHODS: This protocol describes a hybrid type I, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of MyBack programme in the context of primary health care. The Behaviour Change Wheel framework and FITT-VP principles will inform the development of the behaviour change and exercise component of MyBack programme, respectively. Patients who have recently recovered from an episode of non-specific LBP will be randomly assigned to MyBack and usual care group or usual care group. The primary outcome will be the risk of LBP recurrence. The secondary outcomes will include disability, pain intensity, musculoskeletal health, and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed monthly for 1 year. Costs data related to health care use and the MyBack programme will be also collected. Implementation outcomes will be assessed in parallel with the effectiveness study using qualitative methods (focus groups with participants and health providers) and quantitative data (study enrolment and participation data; participants adherence). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the effectiveness and implementation of a tailored exercise and behaviour change programme for prevention of LBP recurrences. Despite challenges related to hybrid design, it is expected that data on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of the MyBack programme may contribute to improve health care in patients at risk of LBP recurrences, contributing to direct and indirect costs reduction for patients and the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05841732.