Physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain: A systematic review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of different physical therapies for acute and sub-acute low back pain supported by evidence, and create clinical recommendations and expert consensus for physiotherapists on clinical prescriptions. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published within the previous 15 years. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials assessing patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain were included. Two reviewers independently screened relevant studies using the same inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, respectively. The final recommendation grades were based on the consensus discussion results of the Delphi of 22 international experts. RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews and 21 randomized controlled trials were included. Spinal manipulative therapy and low-level laser therapy are recommended for acute low back pain. Core stability exercise/motor control, spinal manipulative therapy, and massage can be used to treat sub-acute low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements provided medical staff with appliable recommendations of physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain. This consensus statement will require regular updates after 5-10 years.

A Prospective Observational Study of Emergency Department-Initiated Physical Therapy for Acute Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Low back pain accounts for nearly 4 million emergency department (ED) visits annually and is a significant source of disability. Physical therapy has been suggested as a potentially effective nonopioid treatment for low back pain; however, no studies to our knowledge have yet evaluated the emerging resource of ED-initiated physical therapy. The study objective was to compare patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving ED-initiated physical therapy and patients receiving usual care for acute low back pain. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of ED patients receiving either physical therapy or usual care for acute low back pain from May 1, 2018, to May 24, 2019, at a single academic ED (>91,000 annual visits). The primary outcome was pain-related functioning, assessed with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference (PROMIS-PI) scores. The secondary outcome was use of high-risk medications (opioids, benzodiazepines, and skeletal muscle relaxants). Outcomes were compared over 3 months using adjusted linear mixed and generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: For 101 participants (43 receiving ED-initiated physical therapy and 58 receiving usual care), the median age was 40.5 years and 59% were women. Baseline outcome scores in the ED-initiated physical therapy group were higher than those in the usual care group (ODI = 51.1 vs 36.0; PROMIS-PI = 67.6 vs 62.7). Patients receiving ED-initiated physical therapy had greater improvements in both ODI and PROMIS-PI scores at the 3-month follow-up (ODI = -14.4 [95% CI = -23.0 to -5.7]; PROMIS-PI = -5.1 [95% CI = -9.9 to -0.4]) and lower use of high-risk medications (odds ratio = 0.05 [95% CI = 0.01 to 0.58]). CONCLUSION: In this single-center observational study, ED-initiated physical therapy for acute low back pain was associated with improvements in functioning and lower use of high-risk medications compared with usual care; the causality of these relationships remains to be explored. IMPACT: ED-initiated physical therapy is a promising therapy for acute low back pain that may reduce reliance on high-risk medications while improving patient-reported outcomes. LAY SUMMARY: Emergency department-initiated physical therapy for low back pain was associated with greater improvement in functioning and lower use of high-risk medications over 3 months.

Physical Therapy Referral From Primary Care for Acute Back Pain With Sciatica : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined primary care management for acute sciatica, including referral to physical therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early referral to physical therapy reduced disability more than usual care (UC) alone for patients with acute sciatica. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02391350). SETTING: 2 health care systems in Salt Lake City, Utah. PATIENTS: 220 adults aged 18 to 60 years with sciatica of less than 90 days' duration who were making an initial primary care consultation. INTERVENTION: All participants received imaging and medication at the discretion of the primary care provider before enrollment. A total of 110 participants randomly assigned to UC were provided 1 session of education, and 110 participants randomly assigned to early physical therapy (EPT) were provided 1 education session and then referred for 4 weeks of physical therapy, including exercise and manual therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW) score after 6 months. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, patient-reported treatment success, health care use, and missed workdays. RESULTS: Participants in the EPT group had greater improvement from baseline to 6 months for the primary outcome (relative difference, -5.4 points [95% CI, -9.4 to -1.3 points]; P = 0.009). The OSW and several secondary outcomes favored EPT after 4 weeks. After 1 year, between-group differences favored EPT for the OSW (relative difference, -4.8 points [CI, -8.9 to -0.7 points]) and back pain intensity (relative difference, -1.0 points [CI, -1.6 to -0.4 points]). The EPT group was more likely to self-report treatment success after 1 year (45.2%) than the UC group (27.6%) (relative risk, 1.6 [CI, 1.1 to 2.4]). There were no significant differences in health care use or missed workdays. LIMITATION: The patients and providers were unblinded, and specific physical therapy interventions responsible for effects could not be determined. CONCLUSION: Referral from primary care to physical therapy for recent-onset sciatica improved disability and other outcomes compared with UC. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Effect of Low Back Pain Chronicity on Patient Outcomes Treated in Outpatient Physical Therapy: A Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential relationship between physical therapy (PT) treatment outcomes and chronicity of low back pain (LBP) in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Outpatient PT clinics across 11 states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11,941 patients with LBP provided with PT services and discharged from care between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Focus on Therapeutic Outcome Low Back Functional Status (FS) Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) was the primary outcomes measure used. It assesses the patients' perceived physical abilities for patients experiencing LBP impairments. It determined a functional score on a linear metric ranging from 0 (low functioning) to 100 (high functioning). The difference in score between the intake FS and final FS score produced the FS change, which represented the overall improvement of the episode of care. RESULTS: The mean FS change was 16.997 (n=11,945). Patients with chronic symptoms (>90-d duration) had an FS change of 15.920 (n=7264) across 14.63 visits. Patients with subacute symptoms (15-90d) had an FS change of 21.66 (n=3631) across 14.05. Patients with acute symptoms (0-14d) had an FS change of 29.32 (n=1050) across 13.66 visits. Stepwise regression analysis revealed a significant â for chronicity (-4.155) with all models. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study shows patients experiencing shorter duration of LBP symptoms before starting a PT episode of care experience significantly better outcomes than patients who waited. Furthermore, the number of treatment session and duration of care was similar between groups, indicating potential ineffective or insufficient care was provided for patients with chronic pain.

Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine professional practice for persons with acute and chronic pain. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section).

BACKGROUND: Pain is a frequent complaint from patients undergoing rehabilitation. It can be a major problem and can lead to several activity limitations and participation restrictions. For this reason, when the Professional Practice Committee (PPC) of the Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) Section of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) decided to prepare evidence-based practice position papers (EBPPs) on the most relevant fields of PRM, a paper on the role of the PRM specialist on pain conditions was also included. The goals of this paper are to provide recommendations on the PRM physician's role in pain management; how to address this major problem and what is the best evidence-based approach for the PRM physician in acute and chronic pain conditions. This paper follows the methodology defined by the Professional Practice Committee of the UEMS-PRM Section. METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed was carried out and the results obtained from filtered papers were subjected to four Delphi rounds. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations were obtained from the Consensus Process and systematic review and were approved by all of the delegates of the UEMS-PRM Section. It is recommended that PRM physicians focus on pain as a primary aim of their interventions, in whatever field they are applying their competencies. It is also recommended that the approach to pain focuses either on reducing the symptoms and improving functioning/reducing disability or recurrences and improving the health condition in the long term avoiding chronicity. CONCLUSIONS: Every PRM specialist encounters the problem of pain and some specialize in this field and their role is greater than that of the regular PRM doctor. Based on the evidence available, it is reasonable to determine the role of the physiatrist in managing pain.

Acute effects of Kinesio taping on pain, disability and back extensor muscle endurance in patients with low back pain caused by magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed lumbar disc degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with disc degeneration experience associated pain and disability. Considering its safety and affordability, Kinesio tape (KT) may be a viable treatment. However, most KT studies have demonstrated its effects in healthy adults and patients with nonspecific low back pain. The efficacy of KT in patients with disc degeneration is yet to be investigated. OBJECTIVES: To examine the acute effects of KT on patients with lumbar disc degeneration confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: A total of 31 eligible patients (aged 25-64 years) with low back pain caused by lumbar disc degeneration were divided into mild and moderate-to-severe pain groups. KT was applied to the painful lumbar region in a lumbar brace-like pattern for 1 day. A visual analogue scale for pain and the Oswestry disability index were analysed before and after 1 day of taping. The Biering-Sorensen test for trunk muscle endurance was performed before, immediately after, and 1 day after taping as well as immediately after tape removal. RESULTS: After taping, both groups showed significant pain reduction (p< 0.001), but the reduction was of minimal clinical importance in the moderate-to-severe pain group. The magnitude of treatment (i.e. effect size) was higher in the moderate-to-severe pain group. Disability significantly decreased in both groups, particularly in the moderate-to-severe pain group, but the improvement was not clinically worthwhile. Trunk muscle endurance significantly improved in both groups with in situ taping, but it decreased after tape removal. CONCLUSIONS: KT may be adopted as an assistive aid for immediate pain reduction, particularly in lumbar disc degeneration patients with moderate-to-severe pain; however, its effects on disability and trunk muscle endurance are not clinically worthwhile. The long-term effects of KT, with or without active exercise, warrant further assessment.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is associated with enormous personal and societal burdens, especially when it reaches the chronic stage of the disorder (pain for a duration of more than three months). Indeed, individuals who reach the chronic stage tend to show a more persistent course, and they account for the majority of social and economic costs. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the importance of intervening at the early stages of LBP.According to the biopsychosocial model, LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological, and social influences. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.This review is an update of a Cochrane Review on MBR for subacute LBP, which was published in 2003. It is part of a series of reviews on MBR for musculoskeletal pain published by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of MBR for subacute LBP (pain for a duration of six to 12 weeks) among adults, with a focus on pain, back-specific disability, and work status. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant trials in any language by a computer-aided search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and two trials registers. Our search is current to 13 July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with subacute LBP. We included studies that investigated a MBR program compared to any type of control intervention. We defined MBR as an intervention that included a physical component (e.g. pharmacological, physical therapy) in combination with either a psychological, social, or occupational component (or any combination of these). We also required involvement of healthcare professionals from at least two different clinical backgrounds with appropriate training to deliver the component for which they were responsible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In particular, the data extraction and 'risk of bias' assessment were conducted by two people, independently. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias and the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of nine RCTs (981 participants) in this review. Five studies were conducted in Europe and four in North America. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 351. The mean age across trials ranged between 32.0 and 43.7 years.All included studies were judged as having high risk of performance bias and high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding, and four of the nine studies suffered from at least one additional source of possible bias.In MBR compared to usual care for subacute LBP, individuals receiving MBR had less pain (four studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.21, moderate-quality of evidence due to risk of bias) and less disability (three studies with 240 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.01, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency), as well as increased likelihood of return-to-work (three studies with 170 participants; OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.98, very low-quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision) and fewer sick leave days (two studies with 210 participants; SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.66 to -0.10, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) at 12-month follow-up. The effect sizes for pain and disability were low in terms of clinical meaningfulness, whereas effects for work-related outcomes were in the moderate range.However, when comparing MBR to other treatments (i.e. brief intervention with features from a light mobilization program and a graded activity program, functional restoration, brief clinical intervention including education and advice on exercise, and psychological counselling), we found no differences between the groups in terms of pain (two studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), functional disability (two studies with 345 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.18, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), and time away from work (two studies with 158 participants; SMD -0.25 95% CI -0.98 to 0.47, very low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias). Return-to-work was not reported in any of the studies.Although we looked for adverse events in both comparisons, none of the included studies reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, people with subacute LBP who receive MBR will do better than if they receive usual care, but it is not clear whether they do better than people who receive some other type of treatment. However, the available research provides mainly low to very low-quality evidence, thus additional high-quality trials are needed before we can describe the value of MBP for clinical practice.

Outcomes of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Background: The impact of physical therapy on the outcomes of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) stratified by the STart Back Screening Tool (SBST) is unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute LBP who were stratified as medium or high risk. Design: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Setting: Patients were recruited between March 2011 and November 2013 from primary care clinics in Salt Lake City, Utah. Participants: One hundred eighty-one participants with acute LBP who were stratified as medium risk (n = 120) or high risk (n = 61) by the SBST were included. They were aged 18 through 60 years, with duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no symptoms below the knee, no treatment for LBP in the past 6 months, and an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 20% or greater. Intervention: After participants received education on how to manage their LBP, they were randomized to receive usual care (n = 97) by their primary care provider or early intervention (n = 84) by a physical therapist. Measurements: The primary (3-month ODI score) outcome measure was obtained at baseline and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. Results: No differences were detected in the effect of intervention between participants stratified as medium or high risk. For the high-risk subgroup, there was a significant difference between the early intervention and usual care groups for the 3-month ODI (mean difference = -5.87 [95% CI = -11.24, -0.50]) favoring early intervention. Limitations: The primary study was not designed to examine the SBST. Conclusions: Patients with acute LBP stratified as high risk seem likely to respond well to one session of education. They may experience additional benefit by 3 months from evidence-based physical therapy treatments. These effects disappear at 1 year.

Systematic Review of Prognostic Factors for Return to Work in Workers with Sub Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain.

Purpose We systematically reviewed the evidence on factors that predict duration of sick leave in workers after 6 weeks low back pain (LBP) related sick leave. We hypothesized that different factors affect the duration of the leave depending on the time away from work. Methods The review occurred in seven phases: (1) developing the central question, (2) conducting the literature search, (3) identifying relevant publications, (4) quality appraisal, (5) data extraction, (6) evidence synthesis, and (7) knowledge translation. We searched for studies that reported episodes of LBP and sick leave that lasted more than 6 weeks. All included studies reported at least one prognostic factor where return to work was the outcome. Results We identified twenty-two relevant publications. The impact of pain, functional status and radiating pain seems to change with duration of work disability. Workers' recovery expectations remain important after 6 weeks. Modified duties are rarely studied in later phases of work disability. Depression/mental health did not appear to be an important factor in later phases. Workplace physical factors remain important. There is insufficient evidence that pain catastrophising and fear avoidance are predictive factors in later phases. There was moderate evidence for age in the later phases. Functional capacity and claim related factors were supported by some evidence. Discusion Physical demands in the workplace are preventing workers from getting back to work in a timely fashion across phases. The psychosocial work environment is understudied in later phases. Overall, we cannot conclude that prognostic factors change over time.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Do Acute and Chronic Pain Patients Differ on Affirmation of One Aspect of Pain Acceptance? Acknowledgement that a Cure Is Unlikely.

BACKGROUND: Many chronic pain patients (CPPs) cannot be cured of their pain, but can learn to manage it. This has led to research on pain "acceptance" which is defined as a behavior pattern with awareness of pain but not directed at changing pain. OBJECTIVE: CPPs who have accepted their pain generally acknowledge that a cure is unlikely. Time with pain may be necessary to reach such an acknowledgment. It was therefore hypothesized that fewer acute pain patients (APPs) than CPPs should affirm that a cure is unlikely and that other described aspects of acceptance such as denial of disability status should be associated with cure is unlikely in both APPs and CPPs. STUDY DESIGN: APPs and CPPs were compared for frequency of endorsement of 2 items/questions with face validity for cure is unlikely: little hope of getting better from pain (LH) and physical problem (pain) can't be cured (CBC). Demographic variables and variables reported associated with acceptance were utilized in logistic prediction models for the above items in APPs and CPPs. SETTING: Rehabilitation programs/offices. RESULTS: CPPs were statistically more likely than APPs to affirm both LH and CBC. In both APPs and CPPs, items reported associated with acceptance, e.g., denial of disability status, predicted LH and CBC. LIMITATIONS: Information gathered from CPP self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: APPs versus CPPs differ on their affirmation on acknowledgement that a cure is unlikely.

A narrative analysis of spiritual distress in geriatric physical rehabilitation.

Drawing upon narrative data generated in a semi-structured interview with an 82-year-old female patient in geriatric physical rehabilitation, this clinical case study provides a detailed example of recognizing, assessing, and addressing spiritual distress as a symptom of physical pain. Data analysis focused on narrative content as well as on the interactive and performative aspects of narrating spiritual health issues in a close reading of two "attachment narratives." Results support the "narrative turn" in healthcare, including the therapeutic benefits of empathic listening as "narrative care" in geriatric rehabilitation and in healthcare in general.

A rapid evidence assessment of immersive virtual reality as an adjunct therapy in acute pain management in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: Immersive virtual reality (IVR) therapy has been explored as an adjunct therapy for the management of acute pain among children and adults for several conditions. Therapeutic approaches have traditionally involved medication and physiotherapy but such approaches are limited over time by their cost and side effects. This review seeks to critically evaluate the evidence for and against IVR as an adjunctive therapy for acute clinical pain applications. METHODS: A rapid evidence assessment (REA) strategy was used. CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and the Cochrane Library databases were screened in from December 2012 to March 2013 to identify studies exploring IVR therapies as an intervention to assist in the management of pain. Main outcome measures were for acute pain and functional impairment. RESULTS: Seventeen research studies were included in total including 5 RCTs, 6 randomized crossover studies, 2 case series studies, and 4 single-patient case studies. This included a total of 337 patients. Of these studies only 4 had a low risk of bias. There was strong overall evidence for immediate and short-term pain reduction, whereas moderate evidence was found for short-term effects on physical function. Little evidence exists for longer-term benefits. IVR was not associated with any serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: This review found moderate evidence for the reduction of pain and functional impairment after IVR in patients with acute pain. Further high-quality studies are required for the conclusive judgment of its effectiveness in acute pain, to establish potential benefits for chronic pain, and for safety.

Music provided through a portable media player (iPod) blunts pain during physical therapy.

This research studied, 25 adult patients who underwent physical therapy to assess the analgesic effect of distraction with the use of music during physical therapy. Patients randomly underwent physical therapy once with music provided by an iPod and once without music. In both sessions patients underwent identical physical procedures. At end of both sessions patients filled in 5-item questionnaire where they scored pain and other parameters, such as stress, enjoyment, interaction, and satisfaction, on 10-cm visual analog scale. The mean scores (range, 0-10) of the two sessions were statistically compared. Mean pain scores were significantly lower (p = .031) during the session in which patients received music (4.8 ± 2.5) than during the session without music (5.8 ± 2.3). The other items of the questionnaire did not disclose any statistically significant difference when the sessions with versus without music were compared. Enjoyment (8.5 ± 1.6), interaction (8.3 ± 1.9), and satisfaction (8.6 ± 1.7) scores with music did not significantly differ in the sessions without music (8.5 ± 2.1, 8.5 ± 1.9, and, 8.5 ± 1.5, respectively); mean stress score was, 3.9 in both sessions. The conclusion of the study is that music provided through a portable media player has an analgesic effect. This can be an effective analgesic strategy during painful physical therapy.

Causes and assessment of subacute and chronic wrist pain.

Wrist pain is a common presentation to the general practitioner and emergency department. Most cases are simple to treat, and pain frequently resolves with conservative treatment. However, there are certain conditions, such as scaphoid nonunion and Kienböck's disease, where delayed diagnosis and treatment can result in long-term deformity or disability. This article covers the various causes of wrist pain, recommendations on how wrist pain should be assessed, as well as details some of the common conditions that warrant specialist referral.

Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy to reduce sickness absence for workers with back pain.

BACKGROUND: Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy aims to improve work status for workers on sick leave due to back pain. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review (originally titled 'Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain') first published in 2003, updated in 2010, and updated again in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing time lost from work and improving work status for workers with back pain. Further, to assess which aspects of physical conditioning are related to a faster return to work for workers with back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to March 2012: CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PsycINFO (from 1967), and PEDro. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that studied workers with work disability related to back pain and who were included in physical conditioning programmes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 articles reporting on 25 RCTs with 4404 participants. Risk of bias was low in 16 studies.Three studies involved workers with acute back pain, eight studies workers with subacute back pain, and 14 studies workers with chronic back pain.In 14 studies, physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy was compared to usual care. The physical conditioning mostly consisted of graded activity with work-related exercises aimed at increasing back strength and flexibility, together with a set date for return to work. The programmes were divided into a light version with a maximum of five sessions, or an intense version with more than five sessions up to full time or as inpatient treatment.For acute back pain, there was low quality evidence that both light and intense physical conditioning programmes made little or no difference in sickness absence duration compared with care as usual at three to 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 340 workers).For subacute back pain, the evidence on the effectiveness of intense physical conditioning combined with care as usual compared to usual care alone was conflicting (four studies with 395 workers). However, subgroup analysis showed low quality evidence that if the intervention was executed at the workplace, or included a workplace visit, it may have reduced sickness absence duration at 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 283 workers; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18).For chronic back pain, there was low quality evidence that physical conditioning as part of integrated care management in addition to usual care may have reduced sickness absence days compared to usual care at 12 months follow-up (1 study, 134 workers; SMD -4.42, 95% CI -5.06 to -3.79). What part of the integrated care management was most effective remained unclear. There was moderate quality evidence that intense physical conditioning probably reduced sickness absence duration only slightly compared with usual care at 12 months follow-up (5 studies, 1093 workers; SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.03).Physical conditioning compared to exercise therapy showed conflicting results for workers with subacute and chronic back pain. Cognitive behavioural therapy was probably not superior to physical conditioning as an alternative or in addition to physical conditioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing sick leave for workers with back pain, compared to usual care or exercise therapy, remains uncertain. For workers with acute back pain, physical conditioning may have no effect on sickness absence duration. There is conflicting evidence regarding the reduction of sickness absence duration with intense physical conditioning versus usual care for workers with subacute back pain. It may be that including workplace visits or execution of the intervention at the workplace is the component that renders a physical conditioning programme effective. For workers with chronic back pain physical conditioning has a small effect on reducing sick leave compared to care as usual after 12 months follow-up. To what extent physical conditioning as part of integrated care management may alter the effect on sick leave for workers with chronic back pain needs further research.

Does a patient's physical activity predict recovery from an episode of acute low back pain? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Advice to remain active and normalisation of activity are commonly prescribed in the management of low back pain (LBP). However, no research has assessed whether objective measurements of physical activity predict outcome and recovery in acute low back pain. METHOD: The aims of this study were to assess the predictive relationship between activity and disability at 3 months in a sub-acute LBP population. This prospective cohort study recruited 101 consenting patients with sub-acute LBP (< 6 weeks) who completed the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Visual Analogue Scale, and resumption of full 'normal' activity question (Y/N), at baseline and 3 months. Physical activity was measured for 7 days at both baseline and at 3 months with an RT3 accelerometer and a recall questionnaire. RESULTS: Observed and self-reported measures of physical activity at baseline and change in activity from baseline to 3 months were not independent predictors of RMDQ (p > 0.05) or RMDQ change (p > 0.05) over 3 months. A self-report of a return to full 'normal' activities was significantly associated with greater RMDQ change score at 3 months (p < 0.001). Paired t-tests found no significant change in activity levels measured with the RT3 (p = 0.57) or the recall questionnaire (p = 0.38) from baseline to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: These results question the predictive role of physical activity in LBP recovery, and the assumption that activity levels change as LBP symptoms resolve. The importance of a patient's perception of activity limitation in recovery from acute LBP was also highlighted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12609000282280.

Acceptance, cognitive restructuring, and distraction as coping strategies for acute pain.

UNLABELLED: Little is known about treatment mechanisms underlying acceptance strategies. Acceptance is a strategy that is expected to increase pain tolerance more than distraction, while distraction should lead to lower pain intensity. The effect of cognitive restructuring on experimental pain has not yet been investigated. The present study aimed to explore differential short-term effects of acceptance, distraction, and cognitive restructuring on pain tolerance and intensity. Pain was induced in a sample of 109 female students using a thermode. We conducted analyses of covariance with instruction as the independent variable and posttest scores on pain variables as dependent variables, covarying for pretest scores. In addition, adherence to instructions and credibility of instructions were included as covariates. Acceptance led to a higher increase in pain tolerance than did cognitive restructuring of pain-related thoughts. No differences were detected between either acceptance and distraction or distraction and cognitive restructuring with respect to pain tolerance. Distraction led to lower pain intensity compared to acceptance. Cognitive restructuring did not differ from either acceptance or distraction with respect to pain intensity. As a short-term strategy, cognitive restructuring was not as useful as acceptance in increasing pain tolerance. Further studies should evaluate the preconditions under which different strategies are most effective. PERSPECTIVE: This study demonstrated that acceptance was superior to cognitive restructuring in increasing tolerance for experimentally induced pain, but was inferior to distraction with respect to decreasing pain intensity. Knowledge about the types of strategies that are useful in targeting diverse pain-related outcome measures is important for efforts to refine the treatment of chronic pain.

The rescripting of pain images.

BACKGROUND: The majority of pain sufferers experience images when in pain. The most distressing of these images (the Index image) provokes intense emotional reactions, appraisal shifts, and increases in pain. The ability of pain sufferers to rescript their Index images, and the consequences of doing so, remain to be determined. AIMS: To assess the effects upon emotions, appraisals and pain experience of rescripting Index images in pain sufferers. METHOD: The Index images of a group of 55 pain sufferers were assessed using a voluntary image induction procedure (VIE) to obtain basal levels of pain, appraisal and emotion. Participants were than randomly allocated to one of two groups: Rescripted Image repetition or Index Image repetition. The two groups were compared on their responses to their Index and Rescripted images respectively. RESULTS: The participants found it easy to rescript their distressing Index images. During rescripting, they reported dramatic reductions in emotion, negative appraisals, and pain. The clinically and statistically significant decrements in pain were found independent of reductions in emotion. The pain levels during rescripting were significantly below their basal levels, with 49% reporting no pain at all while viewing a rescripted image. These changes were not a function of image repetition. CONCLUSION: Index images of pain sufferers can be easily elicited and rescripted. Rescripting leads to remarkable reductions in emotion, cognitions and pain levels that are not attributable to image repetition. The significant reductions in pain were independent of reductions in emotion. The implications of these results for CBT approaches to pain management are considered.