Illness perceptions in people with chronic and disabling non-specific neck pain seeking primary healthcare: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Illness perceptions can affect the way people with musculoskeletal pain emotionally and behaviorally cope with their health condition. Understanding patients illness perceptions may help facilitate patient-centered care. The purpose of this study was to explore illness perceptions and the origin of those perceptions in people with chronic disabling non-specific neck pain seeking primary care. METHODS: A qualitative study using a deductive and inductive analytical approach was conducted in 20 people with persistent (> 3 months) and disabling (i.e., Neck Disability Index ≥ 15) neck pain. Using a semi-structured format, participants were interviewed about their illness perceptions according to Leventhal's Common Sense Model. Purposive sampling and member checking were used to secure validity of study results. RESULTS: Participants reported multiple symptoms, thoughts and emotions related to their neck pain, which continuously required attention and action. They felt trapped within a complex multifactorial problem. Although some participants had a broader biopsychosocial perspective to understand their symptoms, a biomedical perspective was dominant in the labelling of their condition and their way of coping (e.g., limiting load, building strength and resilience, regaining mobility, keep moving and being meaningful). Their perceptions were strongly influenced by information from clinicians. Several participants indicated that they felt uncertain, because the information they received was contradictory or did not match their own experiences. CONCLUSION: Most participants reported that understanding their pain was important to them and influenced how they coped with pain. Addressing this 'sense making process' is a prerequisite for providing patient-centered care.

Concurrent validity of DorsaVi wireless motion sensor system Version 6 and the Vicon motion analysis system during lifting.

BACKGROUND: Wearable sensor technology may allow accurate monitoring of spine movement outside a clinical setting. The concurrent validity of wearable sensors during multiplane tasks, such as lifting, is unknown. This study assessed DorsaVi Version 6 sensors for their concurrent validity with the Vicon motion analysis system for measuring lumbar flexion during lifting. METHODS: Twelve participants (nine with, and three without back pain) wore sensors on T12 and S2 spinal levels with Vicon surface markers attached to those sensors. Participants performed 5 symmetrical (lifting from front) and 20 asymmetrical lifts (alternate lifting from left and right). The global-T12-angle, global-S2-angle and the angle between these two sensors (relative-lumbar-angle) were output in the sagittal plane. Agreement between systems was determined through-range and at peak flexion, using multilevel mixed-effects regression models to calculate root mean square errors and standard deviation. Mean differences and limits of agreement for peak flexion were calculated using the Bland Altman method. RESULTS: For through-range measures of symmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 0.86° (0.78) at global-T12-angle, 0.90° (0.84) at global-S2-angle and 1.34° (1.25) at relative-lumbar-angle. For through-range measures of asymmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 1.84° (1.58) at global-T12-angle, 1.90° (1.65) at global-S2-angle and 1.70° (1.54) at relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of symmetrical lifts, was - 0.90° (-6.80 to 5.00) for global-T12-angle, 0.60° (-2.16 to 3.36) for global-S2-angle and - 1.20° (-8.06 to 5.67) for relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of asymmetrical lifts was - 1.59° (-8.66 to 5.48) for global-T12-angle, -0.60° (-7.00 to 5.79) for global-S2-angle and - 0.84° (-8.55 to 6.88) for relative-lumbar-angle. CONCLUSION: The root means squared errors were slightly better for symmetrical lifts than they were for asymmetrical lifts. Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement showed variability across lift types. However, the root mean squared errors for all lifts were better than previous research and below clinically acceptable thresholds. This research supports the use of lumbar flexion measurements from these inertial measurement units in populations with low back pain, where multi-plane lifting movements are assessed.

"There's definitely something wrong but we just don't know what it is": A qualitative study exploring rowers' understanding of low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Low back pain is highly prevalent in rowing and can be associated with significant disability and premature retirement. A previous qualitative study in rowers revealed a culture of concealment of pain and injury due to fear of judgement by coaches or teammates. The aim of this study was to explore rowers' perspectives in relation to diagnosis, contributory factors, and management of low back pain. DESIGN: Qualitative secondary analysis. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of interview data previously collected from 25 rowers (12 in Australia and 13 in Ireland). A reflexive thematic analysis approach was used. RESULTS: We identified three themes: 1) Rowers attribute low back pain to structural/physical factors. Most rowers referred to structural pathologies or physical impairments when asked about their diagnosis. Some participants were reassured if imaging results helped to explain their pain, but others were frustrated if findings on imaging did not correlate with their symptoms. 2) Rowing is viewed as a risky sport for low back pain. Risk factors proposed by the rowers were primarily physical and included ergometer training, individual technique, and repetitive loading. 3) Rowers focus on physical strategies for the management and prevention of low back pain. In particular, rowers considered stretching and core-strengthening exercise to be important components of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Rowers' understanding of low back pain was predominantly biomedical and focused on physical impairments. Further education of rowers, coaches and healthcare professionals in relation to the contribution of psychosocial factors may be helpful for rowers experiencing low back pain.

"Listen to me, learn from me": a priority setting partnership for shaping interdisciplinary pain training to strengthen chronic pain care.

ABSTRACT: What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. In parallel, cross-discipline health professionals (n = 267; 75% female) rated the importance of these same priorities. Applying the RAND-UCLA method (panel medians: 1-3: "not important," 4-6: "equivocal," or 7-9: "important"), "important" items were retained where the panel median score was >7 with panel agreement ≥70%, with 44 items (84.6%) retained. Specific workforce training targets included the following: empathic validation; effective, respectful, safe communication; and ensuring genuine partnerships in coplanning personalised care. Panellists and health professionals agreed or strongly agreed (95.7% and 95.2%, respectively) that this framework meaningfully reflected the importance in care seeking for pain. More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.

An investigation of implicit bias about bending and lifting.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies in a high-income country have demonstrated that people with and without low back pain (LBP) have an implicit bias that bending and lifting with a flexed lumbar spine is dangerous. These studies present two key limitations: use of a single group per study; people who recovered from back pain were not studied. Our aims were to evaluate: implicit biases between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting in people who are pain-free, have a history of LBP or have current LBP in a middle-income country, and to explore correlations between implicit and explicit measures within groups. METHODS: Exploratory cross-sectional study including 174 participants (63 pain-free, 57 with history of LBP and 54 with current LBP). Implicit biases between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting were assessed with the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Participants completed paper-based (Bending Safety Belief [BSB]) and online questionnaires (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia; Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire). RESULTS: Participants displayed significant implicit bias between images of round-back bending and lifting and words representing "danger" (IATD-SCORE: Pain-free group: 0.56 (IQR=0.31-0.91; 95% CI [0.47, 0.68]); history of LBP group: 0.57 (IQR=0.34-0.84; 95% CI [0.47, 0.67]); current LBP group: 0.56 (IQR=0.24-0.80; 95% CI [0.39, 0.64])). Explicit measures revealed participants hold unhelpful beliefs about the back, perceiving round-back bending and lifting as dangerous (BSBthermometer: Pain-free group: 8 (IQR=7-10; 95% CI [7.5, 8.5]); history of LBP group: 8 (IQR=7-10; 95% CI [7.5, 9.0]); current LBP group: 8.5 (IQR=6.75-10; [7.5, 9.0])). There was no correlation between implicit and explicit measures within the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a middle-income country, people with and without LBP, and those who recovered from LBP have an implicit bias that round-back bending and lifting is dangerous.

What Constitutes "Appropriate Care" for Low Back Pain?: Point-of-Care Clinical Indicators From Guideline Evidence and Experts (the STANDING Collaboration Project).

STUDY DESIGN: Multiround wiki-based Delphi expert panel survey. OBJECTIVE: To provide proof of concept for an alternative method for creating sets of nationally-agreed point-of-care clinical indicators, and obtain consensus among end-user groups on "appropriate care" for the assessment, diagnosis, acute, and ongoing care of people with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The provision of inappropri ate and low value care for LBP is a significant healthcare and societal burden. Vague clinical practice guideline (CPG) recom mendations can be difficult to apply and measure in real world clinical practice, and a likely barrier to "appropriate care." METHODS: Draft "appropriate care" clinical indicators for LBP were derived from CPG recommendations published between 2011 and 2017. Included CPGs were independently appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Headed by a Clinical Champion, a 20-member Expert Panel reviewed and commented on the draft indicators over a three-round modified e-Delphi process using a collaborative online wiki. At the conclusion of each review round, the research team and the Clinical Champion synthesized and responded to experts' comments and incorporated feedback into the next iteration of the draft indicators. RESULTS: From seven CPGs and six qualitative meta-syntheses, 299 recommendations and themes were used to draft 42 "appropriateness" indicators. In total, 17 experts reviewed these indicators over 18 months. A final set of 27 indicators compris ing screening and diagnostic processes (n = 8), assessment (n = 3), acute (n = 5), and ongoing care (n = 9), and two which crossed the acute-ongoing care continuum. Most indicators were geared toward recommended care (n = 21, 78%), with the remainder focused on care to be avoided. CONCLUSION: These 27 LBP clinical indicators can be used by healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers/ funders, and insurers to guide and monitor the provision of "appropriate care" for LBP.Level of Evidence: 4.

Is Neck Posture Subgroup in Late Adolescence a Risk Factor for Persistent Neck Pain in Young Adults? A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether sagittal neck sitting posture subgroup membership in late adolescence was a risk factor for persistent neck pain (PNP) in young adults. METHODS: There were 686 participants enrolled in the Raine Study at the 17- and 22-year follow-ups. At 17 years of age, posture was measured by photographs, and 4 subgroups of sitting neck posture were determined by cluster analysis. Height and weight were measured, and exercise frequency, depression, and PNP were assessed by questionnaire. At 22 years of age, participants answered questions about neck pain and occupation type. Logistic regression examined if neck posture subgroups at 17 years of age were a risk factor for PNP at 22 years of age, taking into account other factors. RESULTS: Female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.16-2.65) and PNP at 17 years of age (OR = 3.78, 95% CI = 2.57-5.57) were associated with PNP at 22 years of age. In females, neck posture subgroup at 17 years of age was a risk factor for PNP at 22 years of age. Compared with the upright subgroup, both the slumped thorax/forward head subgroup groups and the intermediate subgroup had decreased odds for PNP at 22 years of age (OR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.08-0.76; OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15-0.99, respectively). No association was found in males. CONCLUSION: After taking into account PNP at 17 years, sitting neck posture at 17 was not a risk factor for PNP at 22 years of age in males, whereas in females, more relaxed postures (slumped thorax/forward head and Intermediate postures) were protective of neck pain compared with upright posture. IMPACT: Females in late adolescence who sat in slumped thorax/forward head or intermediate posture rather than upright sitting posture had a lower risk of PNP as a young adult. The practice of generic public health messages to sit up straight to prevent neck pain needs rethinking.

Notions of "optimal" posture are loaded with meaning. Perceptions of sitting posture among asymptomatic members of the community.

BACKGROUND: Notions of "optimal" posture are widespread in modern society and strongly interconnected with preconceived beliefs. OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively evaluate spinal posture among members of the community during habitual sitting, and when asked to assume an "optimal" posture. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: Marker-based kinematic analyses of the head, spine, and pelvis were conducted on 100 individuals. Habitual sitting posture and self-perceived "optimal" posture, and whether participants believed that their habitual sitting reflected an "optimal" posture, were evaluated. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed angular differences between the two postures adopted. Exploratory post-hoc analyses were conducted by using the Mann-Whitney U test to assess differences between genders. RESULTS: None of the participants stated that their habitual sitting was "optimal". Statistically significant differences were observed in most of the measured angles (p < 0.001) between habitual and self-perceived "optimal" posture. In habitual sitting posture, a significant interaction with gender was found only in the thoracolumbar (p < 0.05) and pelvic (p < 0.001) angles, with small effect sizes. In self-perceived "optimal" posture females were more extended in the head, upper thoracic, lower thoracic, lumbar and pelvic (p < 0.01) regions, than the males. CONCLUSIONS: A group of young, asymptomatic participants, consistently changed their habitual sitting posture to a more upright posture when asked to assume an "optimal" sitting posture, although the amount of change observed varied between spinal regions. These findings also highlight gender differences in not just habitual sitting posture, but also the degree to which habitual sitting posture is modified when trying to assume an "optimal" sitting posture.

The association of early life stressors with pain sensitivity and pain experience at 22 years.

Early life stress (ELS) can significantly influence biological pathways associated with nociception, increasing vulnerability to future heightened pain sensitivity and subsequent risk of pain events. However, very little human research has investigated the association of ELS, measured across multiple domains, with future pain sensitivity. Data from Gen1 and Gen2 of the Raine Study were used to assess the association between a wide range of early life stressors, including antenatally, and pressure and cold pain sensitivity at young adulthood. Participants were classified into 2 groups according to their cold pain sensitivity. In addition, the interaction between ELS, pain sensitivity, and pain experience (based on Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire) at age 22 years was examined. Analysis was performed using both a complete case and multiple imputation approach, adjusting for contemporaneous 22-year correlates, with comparable results in each model. More problematic behaviour at age 2 years was associated with less pressure pain sensitivity at 22 years (13.7 kPa, 95% CI: 1.0-27.0, P = 0.037), with no interaction between problematic behaviour and pain experience at 22 years. For those reporting a moderate/high pain experience at 22 years, poor family functioning increased the odds ratio for high cold pain sensitivity (3.0, 95% CI: 1.6-5.6), but for those reporting no/low pain experience, it did not (OR:1.2, 95% CI: 0.8-1.8). This study provides the most comprehensive investigation of the relationship between ELS and pressure and cold pain sensitivity in young adults supporting early life as a critical period of development influencing future nociceptive processing.

Workplace interventions for increasing standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability. Physical work environment There was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.096 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). Individual approach There was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term. Organisational level No studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level. Multi-component approach There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.

Managing low back pain in active adolescents.

Adolescent low back pain has received limited research attention despite its potentially considerable impact on quality of life. The role of diagnostic triage to identify serious or specific pathology and/or order relevant investigations is considered. An overview of contemporary pain mechanisms is provided, with specific reference to the wide range of risk factors for persistent low back pain. Education and exercise framed within a biopsychosocial framework are the cornerstones of treatment. There is a lack of data on more comprehensive personalized treatment approaches among adolescents. One such approach - Cognitive Functional Therapy - which has shown promise in adults and active adolescents with low back pain, is described and illustrated using a case study. The most promising avenues, in practice and research, may be those that view adolescent low back pain as less of a local structural spinal issue and more of an indication of the general health of the adolescent.

Physiotherapist perceptions of optimal sitting and standing posture.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of, and advice about, spinal posture is common when people with spinal pain present to physiotherapists. Most descriptions regarding optimal spinal posture have been qualitative in nature. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beliefs of physiotherapists regarding optimal sitting and standing posture. DESIGN: Online survey. METHOD: 544 Greek physiotherapists selected an optimal sitting (choice of seven) and standing (choice of five) posture, while providing justification for their choice. RESULTS: Education regarding optimal sitting and standing posture was considered "considerably" or "very" important by 93.9% of participants. Three different sitting postures, and two different standing postures, were selected as the optimal posture by 97.5% and 98.2% of physiotherapists respectively. While this reflects a lack of complete consensus on optimal posture, the most commonly selected postures were all some variation of upright lordotic sitting, in contrast slouched spinal curves (sitting) or forward head posture (sitting and standing) almost never being selected as optimal. Interestingly, participants used similar arguments (e.g. natural curves, muscle activation) to justify their selection regardless of the spinal configuration of each selected posture. CONCLUSIONS: These results reinforce previous data suggesting that upright lordotic sitting postures are considered optimal, despite a lack of strong evidence that any specific posture is linked to better health outcomes. While postural re-education may play a role in the management of spinal pain for some patients, awareness of such widespread and stereotypical beliefs regarding optimal posture may be useful in clinical assessment and management.