Perceptions of advice for acute low back pain: a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how people perceive three different forms of advice for acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Content analysis of qualitative data collected in a three-arm randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: 2200 participants with acute LBP (ie, pain duration for ≤6 weeks) were randomly assigned to receive three types of advice: guideline advice and guideline advice with the addition of either brief pain science or ergonomics messages. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: After receiving the advice, participants answered two questions: 'If your health professional gave you this advice, how would it make you feel?' and 'If your health professional gave you this advice, what treatments (if any) do you think you would need?' Two researchers coded responses using deductive content analysis. RESULTS: We analysed 4400 free-text responses from 2200 participants. There were little to no differences in participants' feelings, thoughts and expectations after receiving three types of advice for acute LBP. Participants most commonly expressed feeling positive about the advice (38%-35%), reassured (23%-22%) and empowered (10%-8%). Some expressed being unhappy or being frustrated with the advice (4%-3%). Participants most commonly thought they needed no treatment apart from staying active, followed by exercise and medication. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline advice with or without the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages generated positive feelings, reassurance or a sense of empowerment in many people with acute LBP, with no difference between types of advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000364673.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey. SETTING: Australia. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists. METHODS: Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.