Developing and assessing the measurement properties of an instrument to assess the impact of musculoskeletal pain in children aged 9 to 12-the pediatric musculoskeletal pain impact summary score.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain in children, there is a lack of instruments to measure the impact of MSK pain on children's activity and participation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and construct validity of the Pediatric MSK Pain Impact summary score in school children (aged 9 to 12) with MSK pain. METHODS: We used a pragmatic approach in a reflective framework to assess internal consistency, structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminative validity in a sample of 615 children with MSK pain. RESULTS: The confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the summary score has limited internal consistency and construct validity. The estimated Cronbach's alpha was 0.63, and most goodness of fit indices met the recommended thresholds (SRMR = 0.030; GFI = 0.993, CFI = 0.955, RMSEA 0.073), although they were close to the lower bounds of the thresholds. The convergent validity showed appropriate correlation of the summary score with quality of life (r = -0.33), care-seeking (r = 0.45), and medication intake (r = 0.37). Discriminative validity showed that the instrument can discriminate between the impact of pain on children with frequent and infrequent (2.93; 95% CI: 2.36 - 3.50) MSK pain. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric MSK Pain Impact summary showed limited internal consistency and construct validity; however, it can discriminate between children with frequent and infrequent pain. The results are promising for clinical and research practices as it is a short and convenient tool to be used in school-aged children.

What does high value care for musculoskeletal conditions mean and how do you apply it in practice? A consensus statement from a research network of physiotherapists in New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a physiotherapist-led consensus statement on the definition and provision of high-value care for people with musculoskeletal conditions. DESIGN: We performed a three-stage study using Research And Development/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method methodology. We reviewed evidence about current definitions through a rapid literature review and then performed a survey and interviews with network members to gather consensus. Consensus was finalised in a face-to-face meeting. SETTING: Australian primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Registered physiotherapists who are members of a practice-based research network (n=31). RESULTS: The rapid review revealed two definitions, four domains of high value care and seven themes of high-quality care. Online survey responses (n=26) and interviews (n=9) generated two additional high-quality care themes, a definition of low-value care, and 21 statements on the application of high value care. Consensus was reached for three working definitions (high value, high-quality and low value care), a final model of four high value care domains (high-quality care, patient values, cost-effectiveness, reducing waste), nine high-quality care themes and 15 statements on application. CONCLUSION: High value care for musculoskeletal conditions delivers most value for the patient, and the clinical benefits outweigh the costs to the individual or system providing the care. High-quality care is evidence based, effective and safe care that is patient-centred, consistent, accountable, timely, equitable and allows easy interaction with healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

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.

"Myths and Facts" Education Is Comparable to "Facts Only" for Recall of Back Pain Information but May Improve Fear-Avoidance Beliefs: An Embedded Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of patient education with "myths and facts" versus "facts only" on recall of back pain information and fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomized Study Within A Trial. METHODS: One hundred fifty-two participants with chronic LBP were included. Participants allocated to the "facts only" group received an information sheet with 6 LBP facts, whereas those allocated to the "myths and facts" group received the same information sheet, with each myth refuted by its respective fact. The primary outcome was a correct recall of back pain facts, and the secondary outcome was the physical activity component of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-PA), 2 weeks after the provision of the information sheet. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with a correct recall between the "myths and facts" and "facts only" groups (odds ratio = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48, 1.99) and no significant difference in FABQ-PA mean scores between groups (-1.58; 95% CI: -3.77, 0.61). Sensitivity analyses adjusted for prognostic factors showed no difference in information recall but a larger difference in FABQ-PA scores (-2.3; 95% CI: -4.56, -0.04). CONCLUSION: We found no overall difference in the recall of back pain information for patients provided with "myths and facts" compared with that for patients provided with "facts only" and a slight reduction in fear-avoidance beliefs for physical activity using "myths and facts" compared with that using "facts only," but the meaningfulness of this result is uncertain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(9):586-594. Epub: 9 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10989.

Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is one of the most common and burdensome chronic conditions worldwide. Lifestyle factors, such as excess weight, physical inactivity, poor diet and smoking, are linked to low back pain chronicity and disability. There are few high-quality randomised controlled trials that investigate the effects of targeting lifestyle risk factors in people with chronic low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain targeting weight, physical activity, diet and smoking to reduce disability in patients with chronic low back pain compared with usual care. This is a randomised controlled trial, with participants stratified by body mass index, allocated 1:1 to the HeLP intervention or usual physiotherapy care. HeLP involves three main components: (1) clinical consultations with a physiotherapist and dietitian; (2) educational resources; and (3) telephone-based health coaching support for lifestyle risk factors. The primary outcome is disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, weight, quality of life and smoking status. Data will be collected at baseline, and at weeks 6, 12, 26 and 52. Patients with chronic low back pain who have at least one health risk factor (are overweight or obese, are smokers and have inadequate physical activity or fruit and vegetable consumption) will be recruited from primary or secondary care, or the community. Primary outcome data will be analysed by intention to treat using linear mixed-effects regression models. We will conduct three supplementary analyses: causal mediation analysis, complier average causal effects analysis and economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (Approval No 17/02/15/4.05), and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No H-2017-0222). Outcomes of this trial and supplementary analyses will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001288314.