The use of a biopsychosocial model in the treatment of patients with chronic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the available knowledge on the application of biopsychosocial model (BPS) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A scoping review, including 32 papers that used a BPS to manage adult patients with CLBP, published in any language. Six different databases were searched. RESULTS: According to the description of the protocols, most of them use BPS for assessment of the patients. In this first stage the most often evaluated were pain and disability, kinesiophobia and quality of life, and work-related factors. The intervention most used associate psychological and physical domains using pain education or cognitive functional therapy and active exercise. Even though was not the most common, in the social domain occupational, behavioral and family interventions were observed. CONCLUSION: BPS is more often used as combination of physical and psychological aspects, being the social domain restricted to work-related factors. Patien'ts perception of their health status is little explored, and it is suggested that the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health be used. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Patient perception as well as social factors in addition to occupational ones should be included in the clinical approach of the patient with CLBP and should be further explored in research.

Do patients with low back pain and central sensitization have differences in physical fitness?

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is one of the main musculoskeletal complaints, and may be associated with central sensitization (CS). The physical capacity of patients with low back pain and CS is not very clear. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, with 92 patients divided into two groups according to their risk of CS. The patient's physical capacity ability was assessed using 6-min walking test (6MWT); timed up and go test (TUG); sit-to-stand test (STS); and trunk flexor, extensor and side-bridge endurance tests. In addition, participants completed questionnaires regarding disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophization and quality of life. RESULTS: The group with a higher risk of CS had worst performance in the 6MWT (U = 1248; p < 0.001), STS (t(83) = 3.63; p < 0.001) and TUG (t(83) = -4.46; p < 0.001). Similarly, endurance in the right (U = 1453,5; p = 0,002) and left (U = 1467; p = 0,003) side-bridge tests, and the trunk extensor test (U = 1546; p = 0,003) was worse. Disability (U = 1272; p < 0.001), physical capacity kinesiophobia (t(83) = -2.21; p = 0.03) work kinesiophobia (U = 1452; p < 0.001), and pain catastrophization (t(77.57) = -5.03; p < 0.001), were also higher in the group with a higher risk of CS. Quality of life indicators were worse in the higher risk group for all domains of the EQ-5D-3L: Mobility (X2(1) = 12.92; p < 0.001), self-care (X2(1) = 16,3; p = 0,012), usual activities (X2(2) = 14.14; p = 0.001), pain (X2(2) = 27.79; p < 0.001), anxiety and depression (X2(2) = 15.05; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with low back pain and higher risks of CS appear to show lower performance in physical capacity tests, higher rates of disability, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophization, and lower quality of life compared to those with lower risks of CS.