Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques.

STUDY DESIGN: Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-) effectiveness of the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To describe the course of low back pain in patients who are referred to physiotherapy, to identify clinically important prognostic factors on different outcomes, and to evaluate the influence of different statistical techniques in developing a prognostic model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have aimed to identify prognostic factors for low back pain in primary care. These studies focused on different outcome measures and used various statistical techniques. METHODS: Primary outcomes were perceived recovery, improvement in pain, improvement in functioning, and presence of disabling low back pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each outcome variable. Two cut-off points were used to determine significance with respect to the univariate analysis, and two selection methods were used to build the final multivariate models. The resulting prognostic models were compared. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients were included. Pain and disability reduced considerably in the first 3 months, but further reduction was only modest. Prognostic factors varied for different outcomes, but the duration of the current episode was included in all models generated. Varying the statistical techniques also resulted in a different prognostic model with some change to the amount of variance explained. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients still experienced some pain and disability at 12 months follow-up. The most stable predictor of prognosis in low back pain was the duration of the current episode. The choice of statistical method influenced the final model; however, changes in the explained variance were small.

Development of an implementation strategy for physiotherapy guidelines on low back pain.

In the Netherlands, clinical practice physiotherapy guidelines are mainly implemented by using passive implementation strategies. It is well known that these strategies are not effective in establishing changes in behaviour of health care professionals. Therefore, a new implementation strategy was developed for the physiotherapy guidelines on low back pain. This paper describes the method for the design of this strategy. A survey was conducted of 100 physiotherapy practices to identify perceived barriers to implementation of the guidelines and the most important discrepancies between current practice and recommendations of the guidelines. The strategy was further developed using a model for changing professionals' behaviour and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of implementation interventions. The most frequently reported barriers for implementation of the guidelines are related to a lack of knowledge or skills of physiotherapists. The most frequently reported discrepancies between physiotherapy practice and guidelines recommendations were related to the focus of the diagnostic process on impairments, the common use of passive physiotherapeutic interventions, the frequent use of a pain-contingent approach, and the expectations of the patient. The new implementation strategy consisted of multiple interventions, namely education, discussion, role-playing, feedback and reminders. The strategy addressed perceived barriers and discrepancies between current practice and the recommendations of the guidelines.

Disseminating and implementing the results of back pain research in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN: Description of a workshop entitled "Implementation and Dissemination: Getting Research into Practice," that was held at the Fourth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care, in Israel in March 2000. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A gap exists between research endeavors and the dissemination and implementation of new research findings. OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of a workshop on implementation and dissemination of research findings. METHODS: The Fourth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care aimed to encourage open discussion and consensus building among leading experts in the field, and to develop a research agenda. The workshop on implementation and dissemination focused on issues surrounding the gap between research results and actual practice. These issues were introduced by several presentations. The broad conclusions of the subsequent debate are summarized in this paper as a series of responses to key questions: 1) who should do the implementation?, 2) what should researchers do to help implementation?, 3) what are the key outcomes?, and 4) what are important ingredients for successful implementation? RESULTS: There was consensus about the importance of implementation of research findings, about the ineffectiveness of merely publishing or disseminating research findings, and about the need for prospective randomized trials evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different implementation strategies. The majority view is that the health provider professions and the professional bodies are the central organizations to implement guidelines, rather than the researchers themselves. Success in getting guidelines or research results into practice is dependent on involving local health service groups, experts, and opinion leaders (both local and national). Patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of guideline implementation were considered important. It was acknowledged that there are many potentially effective ingredients for successful implementation, but a clear indication of the contents of an effective implementation strategy is still lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The plenary and workshops focused on closing the gap between research results and actual practice. As long as we do not fully understand how best to influence and change physician behavior, the choice of implementation strategies should be based on the present knowledge of potentially effective interventions and should include considerations of available resources for, and potential barriers to, implementation.