Can General Practitioner Opioid Prescribing to Compensated Workers with Low Back Pain Be Detected Using Administrative Payments Data? An Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one third of Australians with accepted time loss workers' compensation claims for low back pain (LBP) are dispensed opioid analgesics. Structured administrative payments data is scalable but does not directly link opioids to prescribers. We sought to determine whether opioid prescribing by general practitioners (GPs) to workers with workers' compensation claims for LBP can be detected in structured administrative payments data. METHODS: We used a sample of workers with accepted time loss workers' compensation claims for low back pain from 2011 to 2015 from the Australian states of Victoria and South Australia. We structured administrative data to test the assumption that opioid dispenses that occurred immediately after a GP encounter in sequence and occurred on the same date as the GP encounter are likely to be related. We measured the number and proportion of opioid dispenses with a GP encounter prior and the days between a GP encounter and opioid dispense. RESULTS: Nearly one third of workers (32.2%, N = 4,128) in our sample (n = 12,816) were dispensed opioids a median of five times (interquartile range 2, 17). There were 43,324 opioid dispenses to included workers. 30,263 (69.9%) of opioid dispenses were immediately preceded by a GP encounter. Of those dispenses, 51.0% (n = 15,443) occurred on the same day as the GP encounter. CONCLUSION: At least one third of opioids dispensed to workers with claims for LBP can be potentially linked to GP prescribing using workers' compensation structured administrative payments data. This approach could have potential applications in supporting monitoring and audit and feedback systems. Future research should test this approach with a more diverse array of pain medicines and medical practitioners.

It's OK to move! Effect of a brief video on community confidence in activity despite back pain: A randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the difference in confidence to become active despite low back pain in people who were exposed to one of two video interventions delivered on social media, compared to no intervention. DESIGN: A proof of concept three group randomised controlled trial, in a 1:1:1 ratio. METHODS: Participants aged 18 years and over, with and without low back pain, were recruited via the social media channel Facebook, to view either a humorous video, a neutral video or to no intervention. The videos were delivered online, explained evidence-based management for low back pain, and were designed to "go viral". The primary outcome was confidence in becoming active despite pain, measured using the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire(Item 10) [range from 0 (not at all confident) to 6 (completely confident)] immediately after watching the video. We aimed to capture the real-time impact and immediate reactions that contributed to the content's reach. RESULTS: Among 1933 randomized participants (mean [SD] age 58.9 [14.0] years, 1285 [75%] women) 1232 [70%] had low back pain and 88.8% completed the primary outcome. 1264 participants were randomised to receive a video intervention, and 633 participants did not receive a video. On a 6-point scale, individuals exposed to either video (n=1088) showed a mean confidence level 0.3 points higher (95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) compared with no video (n=630). CONCLUSION: Participants who viewed a brief video intervention reported a very small difference in confidence to become active despite low back pain, compared with no intervention. The difference may lack clinical relevance.

Behavioural 'nudging' interventions to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): protocol for a 2×2 factorial, before-after, cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural 'nudge' interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623001000695.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000934640.

Corporate Influences on Science and Health-the Case of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

This Viewpoint discusses tactics by corporations to criticize scientific research that may be unfavorable to their industries, recently including the spinal cord stimulator industry.

Awareness and use of five imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes. RESULTS: We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

Adding Brief Pain Science or Ergonomics Messages to Guideline Advice Did Not Increase Feelings of Reassurance in People With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.

How do people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease in terms of words/feelings evoked by the advice and treatment needs. SETTING: We performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: 2028 people with shoulder pain read a vignette describing someone with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to: bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation emphasised that treatment is needed for recovery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Participants answered questions about: (1) words/feelings evoked by the advice; (2) treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers developed coding frameworks to analyse responses. RESULTS: 1981 (97% of 2039 randomised) responses for each question were analysed. Guideline-based advice (vs treatment recommendation) more often elicited words/feelings of reassurance, having a minor issue, trust in expertise and feeling dismissed, and treatment needs of rest, activity modification, medication, wait and see, exercise and normal movements. Treatment recommendation (vs guideline-based advice) more often elicited words/feelings of needing treatment/investigation, psychological distress and having a serious issue, and treatment needs of injections, surgery, investigations, and to see a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Words/feelings evoked by advice for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain why guideline-based advice reduces perceived need for unnecessary care compared to a treatment recommendation.

Low back pain of disc, sacroiliac joint, or facet joint origin: a diagnostic accuracy systematic review.

Background: The accuracy of diagnostic tests available in primary care to identify the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint as the source of low back pain is uncertain. Methods: Systematic review of diagnostic tests available in primary care. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched between March 2006 and 25th January 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Pooling was performed for homogenous studies. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) ≥2 and negative likelihood ratios (-LR) ≤0.5 were considered informative. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020169828). Findings: We included 62 studies: 35 investigated the disc, 14 the facet joint, 11 the sacroiliac joint, and 2 investigated all three structures in patients with persistent low back pain. For risk of bias, the domain 'reference standard' scored worst, however approximately half the studies were of low risk of bias for every other domain. For the disc, pooling demonstrated MRI findings of disc degeneration and annular fissure resulted in informative +LRs: 2.53 (95% CI: 1.57-4.07) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.02-4.10) and -LRs: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.24) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.10-0.55) respectively. Pooled results for Modic type 1, Modic type 2, and HIZ on MRI, and centralisation phenomenon yielded informative +LRs: 10.00 (95% CI: 4.20-23.82), 8.03 (95% CI: 3.23-19.97), 3.10 (95% CI: 2.27-4.25), and 3.06 (95% CI: 1.44-6.50) respectively, but uninformative -LRs: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96), 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.77), and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.84) respectively. For the facet joint, pooling demonstrated facet joint uptake on SPECT resulted in informative +LRs: 2.80 (95% CI: 1.82-4.31) and -LRs: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25-0.77). For the sacroiliac joint, a combination of pain provocation tests and absence of midline low back pain resulted in informative +LRs of 2.41 (95% CI: 1.89-3.07) and 2.44 (95% CI: 1.50-3.98) and -LRs of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12-1.01) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21-0.47) respectively. Radionuclide imaging yielded an informative +LR 7.33 (95% CI: 1.42-37.80) but an uninformative -LR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.41-1.34). Interpretation: There are informative diagnostic tests for the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint (only one test). The evidence suggests a diagnosis may be possible for some patients with low back pain, potentially guiding targeted and specific treatment approaches. Funding: There was no funding for this study.

Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: On 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one other database for published trials. We also searched three clinical trials registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials comparing SCS with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The primary comparison was SCS versus placebo, at the longest time point measured in the trials. Major outcomes were mean low back pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Our primary time point was long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with 699 participants: 55% of participants were female; mean age ranged from 47 to 59 years; and all participants had chronic low back pain with mean duration of symptoms ranging from five to 12 years. Ten cross-over trials compared SCS with placebo. Three parallel-group trials assessed the addition of SCS to medical management. Most studies were at risk of performance and detection bias from inadequate blinding and selective reporting bias. The placebo-controlled trials had other important biases, including lack of accounting for period and carryover effects. Two of the three parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management were at risk of attrition bias, and all three had substantial cross-over to the SCS group for time points beyond six months. In the parallel-group trials, we considered the lack of placebo control to be an important source of bias. None of our included studies evaluated the impact of SCS on mean low back pain intensity in the long term (≥ 12 months). The studies most often assessed outcomes in the immediate term (less than one month). At six months, the only available evidence was from a single cross-over trial (50 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that SCS probably does not improve back or leg pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo. Pain was 61 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no pain) at six months with placebo, and 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse) with SCS. Function was 35.4 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no disability or best function) at six months with placebo, and 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse) with SCS. Health-related quality of life was 0.44 points out of 1 (0 to 1 index, 0 = worst quality of life) at six months with placebo, and 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse) with SCS. In that same study, nine participants (18%) experienced adverse events and four (8%) required revision surgery. Serious adverse events with SCS included infections, neurological damage, and lead migration requiring repeated surgery. We could not provide effect estimates of the relative risks as events were not reported for the placebo period. In parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management, it is uncertain whether, in the medium or long term, SCS can reduce low back pain, leg pain, or health-related quality of life, or if it increases the number of people reporting a 50% improvement or better, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that adding SCS to medical management may slightly improve function and slightly reduce opioid use. In the medium term, mean function (0- to 100-point scale; lower is better) was 16.2 points better with the addition of SCS to medical management compared with medical management alone (95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4 points better to 13.0 points better; I2 = 95%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). The number of participants reporting opioid medicine use was 15% lower with the addition of SCS to medical management (95% CI 27% lower to 0% lower; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events with SCS were poorly reported but included infection and lead migration. One study found that, at 24 months, 13 of 42 people (31%) receiving SCS required revision surgery. It is uncertain to what extent the addition of SCS to medical management increases the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, or serious adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data in this review do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial. Current evidence suggests SCS probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.

Mixed messages: most spinal pain and osteoarthritis observational research is unclear or misaligned.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed authors' language and methods to determine alignment between reported aims, methods, intent, and interpretations in observational studies in spinal pain or osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched five databases for observational studies that included people with spinal pain or osteoarthritis published in the last 5 years. We randomized 100 eligible studies, and classified study intent (aims and methods) and interpretations as causal, non-causal, unclear, or misaligned. RESULTS: Overall, 38% of studies were aligned regarding their intent and interpretation (either causally (22%) or non-causally (16%)). 29% of studies' aims and 29% of study methods were unclear. Intent was misaligned in 16% of studies (where aim differed to method) and 23% of studies had misaligned interpretations (where there were multiple conflicting claims). The most common kind of aim was non-causal (38%), and the most common type of method (39%), intent (38%), and interpretations (35%) was causal. CONCLUSIONS: Misalignment and mixed messages are common in observational research of spinal pain and osteoarthritis. More than 6 in 10 observational studies may be uninterpretable, because study intent and interpretations do not align. While causal methods and intent are most common in observational research, authors commonly shroud causal intent in non-causal terminology.

Person-centred education and advice for people with low back pain: Making the best of what we know.

BACKGROUND: The first-line treatment consistently recommended for people with low back pain is patient education and advice. Regardless of the duration of low back pain, clinicians should provide education on the benign nature of low back pain, reassurance about the absence of a serious medical condition, and advice to remain active. There is little guidance on how best to provide this care. OBJECTIVE: This Masterclass will draw on recent evidence to explore how physical therapy clinicians could deliver person-centred education and advice to people with low back pain to refine their clinical consultation. DISCUSSION: First, we highlight the potential value of providing validation to acknowledge the distressing experience and consequences of low back pain. Second, we describe a tool to open channels of communication to provide education and advice in a patient-centred and efficient way. Clinicians could consider using the Attitude toward Education and advice for Low back pain Questionnaire to gain an insight into patient attitudes toward education and advice at the outset of a clinical encounter. Finally, we provide options for tailoring patient education and advice to promote self-management of low back pain based on patient attitudes. We present evidence that a positive attitude toward messages about causes rather than messages about physical activity predicts intention to self-manage low back pain. We combine this evidence to suggest a pathway for clinicians to provide education and advice to people with low back pain within the time constraints of a clinical consultation.

"My Back is Fit for Movement": A Qualitative Study Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain.

A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and maladaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial's active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain.

Content and sentiment analysis of gabapentinoid-related tweets: An infodemiology study.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing number of gabapentinoid (pregabalin and gabapentin) harms, including deaths observed across countries is concerning to health-care professionals and policy makers. However, it is unclear if the public shares these concerns. This study aimed to describe posts related to gabapentinoids, conduct a content analysis to identify common themes and describe adverse events or symptoms. METHODS: Keywords of 'pregabalin' or 'Lyrica' or 'gabapentin' or 'Neurontin' were used to search for related tweets posted by people in the community between 8 March and 7 May 2021. Eligible tweets included a keyword in the post. We extracted de-identified data which included descriptive data of the total number of posts over time; and data on individual tweets including date, number of re-tweets and post content. Data were exported separately for pregabalin- and gabapentin-related tweets. A 20% random sample was used for the thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were 2931 pregabalin-related tweets and 2736 gabapentin-related tweets. Thematic analysis revealed three themes (sharing positive experiences and benefits of taking gabapentinoids, people voicing their negative experiences, and people seeking opinions and sharing information). Positive experiences of gabapentinoids were related to sharing stories and giving advice. This was contrasted to negative experiences including ineffectiveness, withdrawals, side effects and frustration related to cost and insurance coverage. Brain fog was the most common adverse symptom reported. Gabapentinoid-related deaths were only mentioned in three tweets. DISCUSSION: The increasing public health concern of gabapentinoid-related deaths was not translated to Twitter discussions.

Public and patient perceptions of diagnostic labels for non-specific low back pain: a content analysis.

PURPOSE: An online randomised experiment found that the labels lumbar sprain, non-specific low back pain (LBP), and episode of back pain reduced perceived need for imaging, surgery and second opinions compared to disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis among 1447 participants with and without LBP. They also reduced perceived seriousness of LBP and increased recovery expectations. METHODS: In this study we report the results of a content analysis of free-text data collected in our experiment. We used two questions: 1. When you hear the term [one of the six labels], what words or feelings does this make you think of? and 2. What treatment (s) (if any) do you think a person with [one of the six labels] needs? Two independent reviewers analysed 2546 responses. RESULTS: Ten themes emerged for Question1. Poor prognosis emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis, while good prognosis emerged for lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Thoughts of tissue damage were less common for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Feelings of uncertainty frequently emerged for non-specific LBP. Twenty-eight treatments emerged for Question2. Surgery emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis compared to lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Surgery did not emerge for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinicians should consider avoiding the labels disc bulge, degeneration and arthritis and opt for labels that are associated with positive beliefs and less preference for surgery, when communicating with patients with LBP.

Diagnostic labels and advice for rotator cuff disease influence perceived need for shoulder surgery: an online randomised experiment.

QUESTION: What are the effects of diagnostic labels and advice, and interactions between labels and advice, on perceived need for shoulder surgery for rotator cuff disease? DESIGN: 2×2 factorial online randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: People with shoulder pain. INTERVENTION: Participants read a scenario describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice, and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation stressed that treatment is needed for recovery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived need for surgery (primary outcome), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist; and perceived seriousness of the condition, recovery expectations, impact on work performance and need to avoid work. RESULTS: A total of 2,024 responses (99.8% of 2,028 randomised) were analysed. Labelling as bursitis (versus rotator cuff tear) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -0.5 on a 0-to-10 scale, 98.3% CI -0.7 to -0.2), imaging and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and need to avoid work. Guideline-based advice (versus treatment recommendation) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -1.0, 98.3% CI -1.3 to -0.7), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and recovery expectations. There was little to no evidence of an advice label interaction for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Labels and advice influenced perceived need for surgery and other secondary outcomes in people with rotator cuff disease, with larger effects for advice. There was evidence of little or no interaction between labels and advice for any outcome, but the additive effect of labels and advice appeared large for some outcomes (eg, perceived need for imaging and perceived seriousness of the condition). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621001370897.

Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021. Interventions: Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation. Results: A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, -2.66 [95% CI, -3.24 to -2.07]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Australian general practitioners known to frequently request musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging, an individualized audit and feedback intervention, compared with no intervention, significantly decreased the rate of targeted musculoskeletal imaging tests ordered over 12 months. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12619001503112.

It's safe to move! A protocol for a randomised controlled trial investigating the effect of a video designed to increase people's confidence becoming more active despite back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Social media provide promising contemporary platforms for sharing public health information with a broad audience. Before implementation, testing social media campaigns that are intended to engage audiences and initiate behaviour change is necessary. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of a public health campaign to increase people's confidence in becoming more active despite low back pain in comparison with no intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an online randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups and one control group in a 1:1:1 allocation. People over 18 years of age and fluent in English will be recruited via social media advertising. We developed a social media-based public health campaign to support recommendations for managing low back pain. The interventions are two videos. Participants in the control group will be asked questions about low back pain but will not view either video intervention. The primary outcome will be item 10 of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, which asks participants to rate how confident they would feel to gradually become more active despite pain ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to 6 (completely confident). This outcome will be measured immediately in all participant groups. We will compare group mean of the three arms of the trial using univariate analyses of variance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We obtained ethical approval from our institutions Human Research Ethics Committee before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000466741).

Effect of diagnostic labelling on management intentions for non-specific low back pain: A randomized scenario-based experiment.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic labels may influence treatment intentions. We examined the effect of labelling low back pain (LBP) on beliefs about imaging, surgery, second opinion, seriousness, recovery, work, and physical activities. METHODS: Six-arm online randomized experiment with blinded participants with and without LBP. Participants received one of six labels: 'disc bulge', 'degeneration', 'arthritis', 'lumbar sprain', 'non-specific LBP', 'episode of back pain'. The primary outcome was the belief about the need for imaging. RESULTS: A total of 1375 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.7 years [18.4 years]; 748 women [54.4%]) were included. The need for imaging was rated lower with the labels 'episode of back pain' (4.2 [2.9]), 'lumbar sprain' (4.2 [2.9]) and 'non-specific LBP' (4.4 [3.0]) compared to the labels 'arthritis' (6.0 [2.9]), 'degeneration' (5.7 [3.2]) and 'disc bulge' (5.7 [3.1]). The same labels led to higher recovery expectations and lower ratings of need for a second opinion, surgery and perceived seriousness compared to 'disc bulge', 'degeneration' and 'arthritis'. Differences were larger amongst participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care. No differences were found in beliefs about physical activity and work between the six labels. CONCLUSIONS: 'Episode of back pain', 'lumbar sprain' and 'non-specific LBP' reduced need for imaging, surgery and second opinion compared to 'arthritis', 'degeneration' and 'disc bulge' amongst public and patients with LBP as well as reducing the perceived seriousness of LBP and enhancing recovery expectations. The impact of labels appears most relevant amongst those at risk of poor outcomes (participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care).