One size does not fit all: Participants' experiences of the selfBACK app to support self-management of low back pain-a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for disability globally. Digital interventions are a promising means of supporting people to self-manage LBP, but implementation of digital interventions has been suboptimal. An artificial intelligence-driven app, selfBACK, was developed to support self-management of LBP as an adjunct to usual care. To better understand the process of implementation from a participant perspective, we qualitatively explored factors influencing embedding, integrating, and sustaining engagement with the selfBACK app, and the self-perceived effects, acceptability, and satisfaction with the selfBACK app. METHODS: Using a qualitative interview study and an analytic framework approach underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT), we investigated the experiences of patients who participated in the selfBACK randomized controlled trial (RCT). Interviews focused on the motivation to participate in the RCT, experiences of using the selfBACK app, and views about future intended use and potential of using digital health interventions for self-management of LBP. Participants were purposively sampled to represent diversity in age, sex, and implementation reflected by a proxy measure of number of app-generated self-management plans during the first three months of RCT participation. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants aged 21-78, eleven females and fifteen men, with two to fourteen self-management plans, were interviewed between August 2019 and April 2020. A broad range of factors influencing implementation of selfBACK within all constructs of NPT were identified. Key facilitating factors were preferences and beliefs favoring self-management, a friendly, motivational, and reassuring supporter, tailoring and personalization, convenience and ease of use, trustworthiness, perceiving benefits, and tracking achievements. Key impeding factors were preferences and beliefs not favoring self-management, functionality issues, suboptimal tailoring and personalization, insufficient time or conflicting life circumstances, not perceiving benefits, and insufficient involvement of health care practitioners. Self-perceived effects on pain and health, behavior/attitude, and gaining useful knowledge varied by participant. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of LBP globally coupled with the advantages of providing help through an app offers opportunities to help countless people. A range of factors should be considered to facilitate implementation of self-management of LBP or similar pain conditions using digital health tools.

PET/CT imaging of spinal inflammation and microcalcification in patients with low back pain: A pilot study on the quantification by artificial intelligence-based segmentation.

BACKGROUND: Current imaging modalities are often incapable of identifying nociceptive sources of low back pain (LBP). We aimed to characterize these by means of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) of the lumbar spine region applying tracers 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and 18 F-sodium fluoride (NaF) targeting inflammation and active microcalcification, respectively. METHODS: Using artificial intelligence (AI)-based quantification, we compared PET findings in two sex- and age-matched groups, a case group of seven males and five females, mean age 45 ± 14 years, with ongoing LBP and a similar control group of 12 pain-free individuals. PET/CT scans were segmented into three distinct volumes of interest (VOIs): lumbar vertebral bodies, facet joints and intervertebral discs. Maximum, mean and total standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVtotal) for FDG and NaF uptake in the 3 VOIs were measured and compared between groups. Holm-Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple testing. RESULTS: FDG uptake was slightly higher in most locations of the LBP group including higher SUVmean in the intervertebral discs (0.96 ± 0.34 vs. 0.69 ± 0.15). All NaF uptake values were higher in cases, including higher SUVmax in the intervertebral discs (11.63 ± 3.29 vs. 9.45 ± 1.32) and facet joints (14.98 ± 6.55 vs. 10.60 ± 2.97). CONCLUSION: Observed intergroup differences suggest acute inflammation and microcalcification as possible nociceptive causes of LBP. AI-based quantification of relevant lumbar VOIs in PET/CT scans of LBP patients and controls appears to be feasible. These promising, early findings warrant further investigation and confirmation.

Quantitative evaluation of normal spinal osseous metabolism with 18F-NaF PET/CT.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe osseous metabolic activity with respect to age and weight in the spine as expressed through fluorine-18-sodium fluoride (F-NaF) uptake in a healthy male population. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Whole-body F-NaF PET/CT scans of healthy male participants (22-71 years, 50-145 kg, n=47) were analysed using a global assessment methodology to derive the mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean). Individual regions of the spine (cervical, thoracic and lumbar) along with the aggregate whole spine were assessed and compared as potential functions of age and body weight. RESULTS: Older participants did not have higher F-NaF uptake than younger participants (whole spine, P=0.93; cervical, P=0.12, thoracic, P=0.93; lumbar, P=0.42), whereas increasing body weight was associated with greater tracer uptake (whole spine P=0.003; cervical P=0.01; thoracic P=0.002; lumbar P=0.004). Both the thoracic (average SUVmean=4.864±1.338) and lumbar (average SUVmean=4.939±1.284) spines had significantly elevated (P≤0.0001) uptake compared with the cervical spine (average SUVmean=3.969±1.024). CONCLUSION: We assessed the metabolic activity of the spine's osseous tissues with F-NaF PET using a global assessment approach in healthy men. Our study provides evidence of differences in spinal metabolism as related to weight, but not age. Our study offers a foundation for future larger studies in symptomatic populations.

Digital Support Interventions for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of disability and is ranked as the most burdensome health condition globally. Self-management, including components on increased knowledge, monitoring of symptoms, and physical activity, are consistently recommended in clinical guidelines as cost-effective strategies for LBP management and there is increasing interest in the potential role of digital health. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to synthesize and critically appraise published evidence concerning the use of interactive digital interventions to support self-management of LBP. The following specific questions were examined: (1) What are the key components of digital self-management interventions for LBP, including theoretical underpinnings? (2) What outcome measures have been used in randomized trials of digital self-management interventions in LBP and what effect, if any, did the intervention have on these? and (3) What specific characteristics or components, if any, of interventions appear to be associated with beneficial outcomes? METHODS: Bibliographic databases searched from 2000 to March 2016 included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER and TRoPHI, Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index. Reference and citation searching was also undertaken. Search strategy combined the following concepts: (1) back pain, (2) digital intervention, and (3) self-management. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols or completed RCTs involving adults with LBP published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool. An independent third reviewer adjudicated on disagreements. Data were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Of the total 7014 references identified, 11 were included, describing 9 studies: 6 completed RCTs and 3 protocols for future RCTs. The completed RCTs included a total of 2706 participants (range of 114-1343 participants per study) and varied considerably in the nature and delivery of the interventions, the duration/definition of LBP, the outcomes measured, and the effectiveness of the interventions. Participants were generally white, middle aged, and in 5 of 6 RCT reports, the majority were female and most reported educational level as time at college or higher. Only one study reported between-group differences in favor of the digital intervention. There was considerable variation in the extent of reporting the characteristics, components, and theories underpinning each intervention. None of the studies showed evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: The literature is extremely heterogeneous, making it difficult to understand what might work best, for whom, and in what circumstances. Participants were predominantly female, white, well educated, and middle aged, and thus the wider applicability of digital self-management interventions remains uncertain. No information on cost-effectiveness was reported. The evidence base for interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of LBP remains weak.

A randomized clinical trial of chiropractic treatment and self-management in patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain: 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously reported short-term follow-up from a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing 2 treatments for acute musculoskeletal chest pain: (1) chiropractic treatment and (2) self-management. Results indicated a positive effect in favor of the chiropractic treatment after 4 and 12 weeks. The current article investigates the hypothesis that the advantage observed at 4 and 12 weeks would be sustained after 1 year. In addition, we describe self-reported consequences of acute musculoskeletal chest pain at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: In a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial undertaken at an emergency cardiology department and 4 outpatient chiropractic clinics, 115 consecutive patients with acute chest pain of musculoskeletal origin were included. After the baseline evaluation, patients were randomized to 4 weeks of either chiropractic treatment or self-management, with posttreatment questionnaire follow-up 52 weeks later. The primary outcome measures were change in pain intensity (11-point box numerical rating scale) and self-perceived change in pain (7-point ordinal scale). RESULTS: Both groups experienced decreases in pain, positive global, self-perceived treatment effect, and increases in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups at the 1-year follow-up, and we could not deduce a common trend in favor of either intervention. CONCLUSIONS: At the 1-year follow-up, we found no difference between groups in terms of pain intensity and self-perceived change in chest pain in the first randomized clinical trial assessing chiropractic treatment vs minimal intervention for patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain. Further research into health care utilization and use of prescriptive medication is warranted.

Reconstruction of the decision-making process in assessing musculoskeletal chest pain: an exploratory study using recursive partitioning.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to identify the most important determinants from the patient history and clinical examination in diagnosing musculoskeletal chest pain (MSCP) in patients with acute noncardiac chest pain when supported by a structured protocol and to construct a decision tree for identification of MSCP in acute noncardiac chest pain. METHODS: Consecutive patients with noncardiac chest pain (n = 302) recruited from an emergency cardiology department were assessed. Using data from self-report questionnaires, interviews, and clinical assessment, patient characteristics were associated with the MSCP diagnosis, and the decision-making process of the clinician was reconstructed using recursive procedures in the tradition of constructing Classification and Regression Trees. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients had MSCP. There was no single determinant that predicted the condition completely. However, many items with high associations could be identified, mainly with high negative predictive value. The decision-making process was reconstructed giving rise to a 5-step, linear decision tree without branches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians use a combination of indicators including systematic palpation of the spine and chest wall and items from the case history to diagnose MSCP. However, the high negative predictive values of the main determinants suggest that the MSCP diagnosis may be a diagnosis by exclusion.

Chiropractic treatment vs self-management in patients with acute chest pain: a randomized controlled trial of patients without acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The musculoskeletal system is a common but often overlooked cause of chest pain. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the relative effectiveness of 2 treatment approaches for acute musculoskeletal chest pain: (1) chiropractic treatment that included spinal manipulation and (2) self-management as an example of minimal intervention. METHODS: In a nonblinded, randomized, controlled trial set at an emergency cardiology department and 4 outpatient chiropractic clinics, 115 consecutive patients with acute chest pain and no clear medical diagnosis at initial presentation were included. After a baseline evaluation, patients with musculoskeletal chest pain were randomized to 4 weeks of chiropractic treatment or self-management, with posttreatment questionnaire follow-up 4 and 12 weeks later. Primary outcome measures were numeric change in pain intensity (11-point box numerical rating scale) and self-perceived change in pain (7-point ordinal scale). RESULTS: Both groups experienced decreases in pain, self-perceived positive changes, and increases in Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey scores. Observed between-group significant differences were in favor of chiropractic treatment at 4 weeks regarding the primary outcome of self-perceived change in chest pain and at 12 weeks with respect to the primary outcome of numeric change in pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial assessing chiropractic treatment vs minimal intervention in patients without acute coronary syndrome but with musculoskeletal chest pain. Results suggest that chiropractic treatment might be useful; but further research in relation to patient selection, standardization of interventions, and identification of potentially active ingredients is needed.

Diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal chest pain: design of a multi-purpose trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute chest pain is a major health problem all over the western world. Active approaches are directed towards diagnosis and treatment of potentially life threatening conditions, especially acute coronary syndrome/ischemic heart disease. However, according to the literature, chest pain may also be due to a variety of extra-cardiac disorders including dysfunction of muscles and joints of the chest wall or the cervical and thoracic part of the spine. The diagnostic approaches and treatment options for this group of patients are scarce and formal clinical studies addressing the effect of various treatments are lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: We present an ongoing trial on the potential usefulness of chiropractic diagnosis and treatment in patients dismissed from an acute chest pain clinic without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. The aims are to determine the proportion of patients in whom chest pain may be of musculoskeletal rather than cardiac origin and to investigate the decision process of a chiropractor in diagnosing these patients; further, to examine whether chiropractic treatment can reduce pain and improve physical function when compared to advice directed towards promoting self-management, and, finally, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these procedures. This study will include 300 patients discharged from a university hospital acute chest pain clinic without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome or any other obvious cardiac or non-cardiac disease. After completion of the clinic's standard cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, trial patients will be examined according to a standardized protocol including a) a self-report questionnaire; b) a semi-structured interview; c) a general health examination; and d) a specific manual examination of the muscles and joints of the neck, thoracic spine, and thorax in order to determine whether the pain is likely to be of musculoskeletal origin. To describe the patients status with regards to ischemic heart disease, and to compare and indirectly validate the musculoskeletal diagnosis, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is performed in all patients 2-4 weeks following discharge. Descriptive statistics including parametric and non-parametric methods will be applied in order to compare patients with and without musculoskeletal chest pain in relation to their scintigraphic findings. The decision making process of the chiropractor will be elucidated and reconstructed using the CART method. Out of the 300 patients 120 intended patients with suspected musculoskeletal chest pain will be randomized into one of two groups: a) a course of chiropractic treatment (therapy group) of up to ten treatment sessions focusing on high velocity, low amplitude manipulation of the cervical and thoracic spine, mobilisation, and soft tissue techniques. b) Advice promoting self-management and individual instructions focusing on posture and muscle stretch (advice group). Outcome measures are pain, physical function, overall health, self-perceived treatment effect, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study may potentially demonstrate that a chiropractor is able to identify a subset of patients suffering from chest pain predominantly of musculoskeletal origin among patients discharged from an acute chest pain clinic with no apparent cardiac condition. Furthermore knowledge about the benefits of manual treatment of patients with musculoskeletal chest pain will inform clinical decision and policy development in relation to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00462241 and NCT00373828.