Musculoskeletal Health and Work: Development and Internal-External Cross-Validation of a Model to Predict Risk of Work Absence and Presenteeism in People Seeking Primary Healthcare.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate prediction models for the risk of future work absence and level of presenteeism, in adults seeking primary healthcare with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). METHODS: Six studies from the West-Midlands/Northwest regions of England, recruiting adults consulting primary care with MSD were included for model development and internal-external cross-validation (IECV). The primary outcome was any work absence within 6 months of their consultation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month presenteeism and 12-month work absence. Ten candidate predictors were included: age; sex; multisite pain; baseline pain score; pain duration; job type; anxiety/depression; comorbidities; absence in the previous 6 months; and baseline presenteeism. RESULTS: For the 6-month absence model, 2179 participants (215 absences) were available across five studies. Calibration was promising, although varied across studies, with a pooled calibration slope of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.41-1.46) on IECV. On average, the model discriminated well between those with work absence within 6 months, and those without (IECV-pooled C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86). The 6-month presenteeism model, while well calibrated on average, showed some individual-level variation in predictive accuracy, and the 12-month absence model was poorly calibrated due to the small available size for model development. CONCLUSIONS: The developed models predict 6-month work absence and presenteeism with reasonable accuracy, on average, in adults consulting with MSD. The model to predict 12-month absence was poorly calibrated and is not yet ready for use in practice. This information may support shared decision-making and targeting occupational health interventions at those with a higher risk of absence or presenteeism in the 6 months following consultation. Further external validation is needed before the models' use can be recommended or their impact on patients can be fully assessed.

Comparison of health-care utilization, costs and health-related quality of life across the subgroups defined by the Keele STarT MSK Tool.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe and compare health economic outcomes [health-care utilization and costs, work outcomes, and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L)] in patients classified into different levels-of-risk subgroups by the Keele STarT MSK Tool. METHODS: Data on health-care utilization, costs and EQ-5D-5L were collected from a health-care perspective within a primary care prospective observational cohort study. Patients presenting with one (or more) of the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations were included: back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain. Participants at low, medium and high risk of persistent disabling pain were compared in relation to mean health-care utilization and costs, health-related quality of life, and employment status. Regression analysis was used to estimate costs. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the mean (s.d.) total health-care (National Health Service and private) costs associated with the low, medium, and high-risk subgroups were £132.92 (167.88), £279.32 (462.98) and £476.07 (716.44), respectively. Mean health-related quality of life over the 6-month period was lower and more people changed their employment status in the high-risk subgroup compared with the medium- and low-risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subgroups of people with different levels of risk for poor musculoskeletal pain outcomes also have different levels of health-care utilization, health-care costs, health-related quality of life, and work outcomes. The findings show that the STarT MSK Tool not only identifies those at risk of a poorer outcome, but also those who will have more health-care visits and incur higher costs.

The Swedish version of the STarT MSK Tool: cross-cultural adaption, test-retest reliability, and aspects of validity.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a common reason for seeking primary health care. The STarT Musculoskeletal (MSK) tool is designed to stratify patients suffering from MSDs to risk groups, based on prognostic factors. AIM: The aim was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the STarT MSK tool in a Swedish primary health care context through testing of reliability and construct validity. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with MSDs seeking primary care (n = 99). The STarT MSK was translated using international recommendations. Construct validity was investigated by correlation analysis (Spearmans Rho) with the following reference instruments: the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPQ), the EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) and the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSKHQ). Reliability was tested using test-retest (Intra Class Correlation, ICC2.1) (n = 31). Known-groups validity was calculated with a difference of 10% between risk groups based on how the participants had answered. RESULTS: The STarT MSK was successfully translated into Swedish. The participants were grouped into low risk (n = 28), medium risk (n = 60) and high risk (n = 11). The construct validity showed a moderate to high correlation with the ÖMPQ (r = .61), EQ-5D (r = .59) and MSK-HQ (r = .56). All separate items except item 2 and 9 correlated according to predefined hypotheses. Test-retest demonstrated an excellent reliability for the total score (ICC2.1 0.85) (n = 31). The STarT MSK tool was able to differentiate by 10% between the risk groups, based on how the participants had answered. CONCLUSION: The STarT MSK has been successfully translated and adapted into Swedish and shows acceptable measurement properties regarding test-retest reliability and aspects of validity and seems to be able to discriminate between the proposed risk groups. The tool can therefore be useful in a Swedish primary health care context. A future study needs to determine the tools predictive validity and to investigate if stratification to risk groups leads to a faster recovery and to lower health care costs.

First Contact Practitioners' (FCPs) and General Practitioners' Perceptions Towards FCPs Delivering Vocational Advice to Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Qualitative Investigation of the Implementation Potential of the I-SWAP Initiative.

Purpose Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a common cause of work absence. The recent SWAP (Study of Work And Pain) randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a brief vocational advice service for primary care patients with MSK pain led to fewer days' work absence and provided good return-on-investment. The I-SWAP (Implementation of the Study of Work And Pain) initiative aimed to deliver an implementation test-bed of the SWAP vocational advice intervention with First Contact Practitioners (FCP). This entailed adapting the SWAP vocational advice training to fit the FCP role. This qualitative investigation explored the implementation potential of FCPs delivering vocational advice for patients with MSK pain. Methods Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 10 FCPs and 5 GPs. Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Results I-SWAP achieved a degree of 'coherence' (i.e. made sense), with both FCPs and GPs feeling FCPs were well-placed to discuss work issues with these patients. However, for many of the FCPs, addressing or modifying psychosocial and occupational barriers to return-to-work was not considered feasible within FCP consultations, and improving physical function was prioritised. Concerns were also raised that employers would not act on FCPs' recommendations regarding return-to-work. Conclusion FCPs appear well-placed to discuss work issues with MSK patients, and signpost/refer to other services; however, because they often only see patients once they are less suited to deliver other aspects of vocational advice. Future research is needed to explore how best to provide vocational advice in primary care settings.

Validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire in people on sick leave.

BACKGROUND: The Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) is a recently developed generic questionnaire that consists of 14 items assessing health status in people with musculoskeletal disorders. The objective was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the MSK-HQ into Norwegian and to examine its construct validity and reliability in people on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out in Norway on people between 18 and 67 years of age and sick leave due to a musculoskeletal disorder. The participants were recruited through the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration during November 2018-January 2019 and responded to the MSK-HQ at inclusion and after four weeks. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha, and structural validity with a factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed by eight "a priori" defined hypotheses regarding correlations between the MSK-HQ and other reference scales. Correlations were analyzed by Spearman's- or Pearson's correlation coefficient and interpreted as high with values ≥ 0.50, moderate between 0.30-0.49, and low < 0.29. Reliability was tested with test-retest, standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). RESULTS: A total of 549 patients, mean age (SD) 48.6 (10.7), 309 women (56.3%), were included. The mean (SD) MSK-HQ sum scores (min-max 3-56) were 27.7 (8.2). Internal consistency was 0.86 and a three-factor structure was determined by factor analysis. Construct validity was supported by the confirmation of all hypotheses; high correlation with HRQOL, psychosocial risk profile, and self-perceived health; moderate correlation with physical activity, self-perceived work ability, and work presenteeism; and low correlation with the number of sick days. The test-retest reliability was good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.89), SEM was 2.3 and SDC 6.5. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian version of the MSK-HQ demonstrated high internal consistency, a three-factor structure, good construct validity and good test-retest reliability when used among people on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders.

Integrating clinician support with intervention design as part of a programme testing stratified care for musculoskeletal pain in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to early treatment options. The STarT-MSK programme developed and tested a new stratified primary care intervention for patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in general practice. Stratified care involves changing General Practitioners' (GPs) behaviour, away from the current 'stepped' care approach to identifying early treatment options matched to patients' risk of persistent pain. Changing healthcare practice is challenging, and to aid the successful delivery of stratified care, education and support for GPs was required. This paper details the iterative development of a clinician support package throughout the lifespan of the programme, to support GPs in delivering the stratified care intervention. We argue that clinician support is a crucial aspect of the intervention itself, which is often overlooked. METHODS: Qualitative research with patients and GPs identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of stratified care, which were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Identified domains were 'translated' into an educational paradigm, and an initial version of the support package developed. This was further refined following a feasibility and pilot RCT, and a finalised support package was developed for the main RCT. RESULTS: The clinician support package comprised face-to-face sessions combining adult-learning principles with behaviour change theory in a multimethod approach, which included group discussion, simulated consultations, patient vignettes and model consultation videos. Structured support for GPs was crucial to facilitate fidelity and, ultimately, a successful trial. Clinician support is a two-way process- the study team can learn from and adapt to specific local factors and issues not previously identified. The support from senior clinicians was required to ensure 'buy in'. Monitoring of GP performance, provision of regular feedback and remedial support are important aspects of effective clinician support. CONCLUSION: Designing effective clinician support from the onset of trial intervention design, in an evidence-based, theory-informed manner, is crucial to encourage active engagement and intervention fidelity within the trial, enabling the delivery of a robust and reliable proof-of-principle trial. We offer practical recommendations for future general practice interventions.

Measurement properties of the musculoskeletal health questionnaire (MSK-HQ): a between country comparison.

BACKGROUND: The Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) has been developed to measure musculoskeletal health status across musculoskeletal conditions and settings. However, the MSK-HQ needs to be further evaluated across settings and different languages. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of the MSK-HQ across Danish (DK) and English (UK) cohorts of patients from primary care physiotherapy services with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: MSK-HQ was translated into Danish according to international guidelines. Measurement invariance was assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) were evaluated and compared between DK (n = 153) and UK (n = 166) cohorts. RESULTS: The Danish version demonstrated acceptable face and construct validity. Out of the 14 MSK-HQ items, three items showed DIF for language (pain/stiffness at night, understanding condition and confidence in managing symptoms) and three items showed DIF for pain location (walking, washing/dressing and physical activity levels). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for test-retest were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) for DK cohort and 0.77 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.90) for the UK cohort. The systematic measurement error was 1.6 and 3.9 points for the DK and UK cohorts respectively, with random measurement error being 8.6 and 9.9 points. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the change scores against patients' own judgment at 12 weeks exceeded 0.70 in both cohorts. Absolute and relative MCIC estimates were 8-10 points and 26% for the DK cohort and 6-8 points and 29% for the UK cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of MSK-HQ were acceptable across countries, but seem more suited for group than individual level evaluation. Researchers and clinicians should be aware that some discrepancy exits and should take the observed measurement error into account when evaluating change in scores over time.

Exploring Patients' Experiences of Internet-Based Self-Management Support for Low Back Pain in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: We explored patients' experiences of using Internet-based self-management support for low back pain (LBP) in primary care, with and without physiotherapist telephone guidance. DESIGN: Exploratory descriptive qualitative study using thematic analysis, nested within a randomized feasibility trial. METHODS: Patients with LBP who participated in a feasibility trial of the SupportBack Internet intervention (ISRCTN: 31034004) were invited to take part in semistructured telephone interviews after the three-month intervention period (a convenience sample from within the trial population). Fifteen participants took part (age range = 36-87 years, 66.7% female, characteristics representative of the trial population). Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Analysis resulted in the development of six themes (subthemes in parentheses): Perceptions of SupportBack's design (Clarity and ease of use, Variety and range of information provided, Need for specificity and flexibility), Engaging with the SupportBack intervention, Promoting positive thought processes (Reassurance, Awareness of self-management), Managing behavior with SupportBack (Motivation and goal setting, Using activity as a pain management strategy, Preferences for walking or gentle back exercises), Feeling supported by telephone physiotherapists (Provision of reassurances and clarity, Physiotherapists are motivating), Severity and comorbidity as barriers (Preexisting condition or severity acting as a barrier, Less useful for mild low back pain). CONCLUSIONS: The Internet intervention SupportBack appeared to feasibly support self-management of LBP. Reassurance and ongoing support to implement behavioral changes were central to reported benefits. The addition of physiotherapist telephone support further enhanced the patient experience and the potential utility of the intervention.

Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: qualitative findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to appropriate early treatment options. The STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the feasibility of a future main trial and of delivering prognostic stratified primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain. The pilot RCT was conducted in 8 UK general practices (4 stratified care; 4 usual care) with 524 patients. GPs in stratified care practices were asked to use i) the Keele STarT MSK development tool for risk-stratification and ii) matched treatment options for patients at low-, medium- and high-risk of persistent pain. This paper reports on a nested qualitative study exploring the feasibility of delivering stratified care ahead of the main trial. METHODS: 'Stimulated-recall' interviews were conducted with patients and GPs in the stratified care arm (n = 10 patients; 10 GPs), prompted by consultation recordings. Data were analysed thematically and mapped onto the COM-B behaviour change model; exploring the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation GPs and patients had to engage with stratified care. RESULTS: Patients reported positive views that stratified care enabled a more 'structured' consultation, and felt tool items were useful in making GPs aware of patients' worries and concerns. However, the closed nature of the tool's items was seen as a barrier to opening up discussion. GPs identified difficulties integrating the tool within consultations (Opportunity), but found this easier as it became more familiar. Whilst both groups felt the tool had added value, they identified 'cumbersome' items which made it more difficult to use (Capability). Most GPs reported that the matched treatment options aided their clinical decision-making (Motivation), but identified some options that were not available to them (e.g. pain management clinics), and other options that were not included in the matched treatments but which were felt appropriate for some patients (e.g. consider imaging). CONCLUSION: This nested qualitative study, using the COM-B model, identified amendments required for the main trial including changes to the Keele STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options, targeting the COM-B model constructs, and these have been implemented in the current main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15366334.

A conceptual framework for increasing clinical staff member involvement in general practice: a proposed strategy to improve the management of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain affects about 80% of all adults, many of whom consult general practice. Providing management can be challenging, in part due to the scarcity of effective treatment methods. There is broad consensus in international clinical practice guidelines to provide patients with information about the nature of their pain and recommend them to stay active despite discomfort. Delivering this information is time-demanding and challenged by the limited available resources in general practice in many countries. Furthermore, general practice settings are highly variable in size and in their composition of clinical staff members - which presents difficulties, but also opportunities for developing alternative approaches to clinical management. Expanding the patient consultation time by involving clinical staff members (aside from the general practitioner) has been found feasible for other conditions. We propose that this approach is applied for non-specific low back pain. Consequently, we suggest the involvement of clinical staff members as part of a new strategy for managing low back pain in general practice. MAIN TEXT: Multifaceted implementation strategies have the potential to effectively enable change in the clinical management of patients with low back pain in general practice if they are based on theory and are tailored to stake holders. Inspired by the Medical Research Council's guidance for complex interventions and the ChiPP (Change in professional performance) statement, we suggest applying the following two policy categories: organizational change (environmental/social planning) and service provision. This will involve attention to environmental restructuring, modelling, enabling, education, training, persuasion, and incentivising of general practices, with an over-arching strategy of involving clinical staff members in the management of low back pain. CONCLUSION: This is a pre-clinical proposal of a multifaceted strategy to support the delivery of evidence-based treatment for patients with low back pain in general practice. As an original idea, we suggest it would be feasible to involve clinical staff members in the delivery of information and advice to patients, whilst the general practitioner remains responsible for diagnostic decision-making.

Matching treatment options for risk sub-groups in musculoskeletal pain: a consensus groups study.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain represents a considerable worldwide healthcare burden. This study aimed to gain consensus from practitioners who work with MSK pain patients, on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for subgroups of patients based on prognostic risk of persistent disabling pain. Agreement was sought on treatment options for the five most common MSK pain presentations: back, neck, knee, shoulder and multisite pain, across three risk subgroups: low, medium and high. METHODS: Three consensus group meetings were conducted with multi-disciplinary groups of practitioners (n = 20) using Nominal Group Technique, a systematic approach to building consensus using structured in-person meetings of stakeholders which follows a distinct set of stages. RESULTS: For all five pain presentations, "education and advice" and "simple oral and topical pain medications" were agreed to be appropriate for all subgroups. For patients at low risk, across all five pain presentations "review by primary care practitioner if not improving after 6 weeks" also reached consensus. Treatment options for those at medium risk differed slightly across pain-presentations, but all included: "consider referral to physiotherapy" and "consider referral to MSK-interface-clinic". Treatment options for patients at high risk also varied by pain presentation. Some of the same options were included as for patients at medium risk, and additional options included: "opioids"; "consider referral to expert patient programme" (across all pain presentations); and "consider referral for surgical opinion" (back, knee, neck, shoulder). "Consider referral to rheumatology" was agreed for patients at medium and high risk who have multisite pain. CONCLUSION: In addressing the current lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of different treatment options for MSK pain, this study generated consensus from practitioners on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for MSK patients stratified according to prognostic risk. These findings can help inform future clinical decision-making and also influenced the matched treatment options in a trial of stratified primary care for MSK pain patients.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the STarT Back Tool for Arabic speaking adults with low back pain in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back Tool (Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment; SBT) was developed and validated in the United Kingdom for adults with non-specific low back pain (LBP) to provide risk stratification groups. An Arabic version has not yet been developed. Consequently, our objectives were: First, to cross-culturally adapt the SBT for use in Arabic speaking adults (SBT-Ar) with LBP. Second, to assess the face, content and construct validity of SBT-Ar against relevant reference standards. METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study carried out in the outpatient department in a tertiary care hospital. A total of 59 participants (aged 18-60) with LBP able to read Arabic completed the questionnaire. SBT cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to published guidelines. Face and content validity were explored by individual interviews. Construct validity was assessed using pre-hypothesized correlations with relevant reference standards. RESULTS: Following 48 individual interviews the SBT final version was reached and demonstrated face and content validity. The SBT-Ar total score and psychosocial sub-scale had acceptable internal consistency and no redundancy (Cronbach α = 0.7). Moderate Spearman's correlations were found between the SBT-Ar total score and reference standards (Arabic Pain Numeric Rating Scale NRS-Ar r = 0.50 and Arabic Oswestry Disability Index ODI-ar r = 0.51). As expected the SBT-Ar psychosocial subscale had medium to high correlations with the psychosocial reference measures (Arabic Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire Physical Activity FABQPA-Ar r = 0.41, Arabic Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety HADSA-Ar r = 0.58, Arabic Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression HADSD-Ar r = 0.45 and Arabic Pain Catastrophizing Scale PCSAr r = 0.69).The SBT-Ar showed no significant floor or ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: This study culturally adapted and preliminary validated SBT into Arabic. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, Cross-sectional.

Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Physiotherapists' views of implementing a stratified treatment approach for patients with low back pain in Germany: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The STarT-Back-Approach (STarT: Subgroups for Targeted Treatment) was developed in the UK and has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness. Based on the results of a brief questionnaire, patients with low back pain are stratified into three treatment groups. Since the organisation of physiotherapy differs between Germany and the UK, the aim of this study is to explore German physiotherapists' views and perceptions about implementing the STarT-Back-Approach. METHODS: Three two-hour think-tank workshops with physiotherapists were conducted. Focus groups, using a semi-structured interview guideline, followed a presentation of the STarT-Back-Approach, with discussions audio recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen physiotherapists participated (15 female, mean age 41.2 (SD 8.6) years). Three main themes emerged, each with multiple subthemes: 1) the intervention (15 subthemes), 2) the healthcare context (26 subthemes) and 3) individual characteristics (8 subthemes). Therapists' perceptions of the extent to which the STarT-Back intervention would require changes to their normal clinical practice varied considerably. They felt that within their current healthcare context, there were significant financial disincentives that would discourage German physiotherapists from providing the STarT-Back treatment pathways, such as the early discharge of low-risk patients with supported self-management materials. They also discussed the need for appropriate standardised graduate and post-graduate skills training for German physiotherapists to treat high-risk patients with a combined physical and psychological approach (e.g., communication skills). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst many German physiotherapists are positive about the STarT-Back-Approach, there are a number of substantial barriers to implementing the matched treatment pathways in Germany. These include financial disincentives within the healthcare system to early discharge of low-risk patients. Therapists also highlighted the need for solutions in respect of scalable physiotherapy training to gain skills in combined physical and psychological approaches.

Comparison of the Swedish STarT Back Screening Tool and the Short Form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in patients with acute or subacute back and neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Patients with back and neck pain are often seen in primary care and it is important to provide them with tailored interventions based on risk stratification/triage. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is a widely used screening questionnaire which has not yet been validated for a population with back and/or neck pain with short duration. Our aim was to compare the concurrent validity of the SBT and the short form of the ÖMPSQ including psychometric properties and clinical utility in a primary care setting. METHODS: Patients who applied for physiotherapy by direct access (January 2013 to January 2014) at 35 primary care centers in south Sweden, with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain, aged 18-67 years, who were not currently on sick leave or had been on sick leave less than 60 days were asked to complete the SBT and ÖMPSQ-short questionnaire (n = 329). We used the Spearman's rank correlations to study correlations, cross tabulation and Cohen's kappa to analyze agreement of patient classification. Clinical utility was described as clinician scoring miscalculations and misclassifications of total and/or subscale scores. RESULTS: Completed SBT (9-items) and ÖMPSQ-short (10-items) data were available for 315/329 patients respectively. The statistical correlation for SBT and ÖMPSQ-short total scores was moderately strong (0.62, p < 0.01). In subgroup analyses, the correlations were 0.69 (p < 0.01) for males and 0.57 (p < 0.01) for females. The correlations were lower among older age groups, especially females over 50 years (0.21, p = 0.11). Classification to high or low risk for long-term pain and disability had moderate agreement (κ = 0.42). Observed classification agreement was 70.2%. The SBT had fewer miscalculations (13/315) than the ÖMPSQ-short (54/315). CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between the SBT and the ÖMPSQ-short scores were moderately strong for individuals with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain. SBT seemed to be clinically feasible to use in clinical practice. We therefore suggest that SBT can be used for individuals with both BP and/or NP in primary care settings but it is important to be aware of that SBT's agreement with the ÖMPSQ-short was poor among females aged over 50 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02609750 Registered: November 18, 2015.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581).

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Transcultural adaption and psychometric properties of the STarT Back Screening Tool among Finnish low back pain patients.

PURPOSE: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a 9-item questionnaire designed for screening low back pain (LBP) patients into three prognostic groups for stratified care. The stratified care approach has proven to be clinically more beneficial and cost-effective than the current best physiotherapy practice. The objective of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and study psychometric properties of the SBST among Finnish LBP patients. METHODS: The SBST was translated into Finnish using appropriate translation guidelines. A total of 116 patients were recruited from outpatient clinics. They were asked to fill out two questionnaires within 1-7 days. The first questionnaire set included the SBST, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) and intensities of back and leg pain (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale). The second questionnaire form included the SBST and a question about persistence of symptoms. RESULTS: Some linguistic and cultural differences emerged during the translation process with item 1 ("spread down my legs"), item 2 ("neck and shoulder pain"), item 6 ("worrying thoughts") and item 9 ("bothersome"). The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.78) and of the psychosocial subscale good (0.68). Cronbach's alpha for the psychosocial subscale was 0.55. Spearman's correlation coefficient between SBST total score and BDI was 0.38, ODI 0.39, ÖMPSQ 0.45, intensity of leg pain 0.45 and LBP 0.31. Based on analysis of variance, the SBST discriminated low- and medium-risk groups better than medium- and high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Finnish translation of the SBST is linguistically accurate and has been adapted to the Finnish-speaking population. It showed to be a valid and reliable instrument and comparable with the original English version. Therefore, it may be used in clinical work with Finnish LBP patients.

General Practitioners' and patients' perceptions towards stratified care: a theory informed investigation.

BACKGROUND: Stratified primary care involves changing General Practitioners' (GPs) clinical behaviour in treating patients, away from the current stepped care approach to instead identifying early treatment options that are matched to patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. This article explores the perspectives of UK-based GPs and patients about a prognostic stratified care model being developed for patients with the five most common primary care musculoskeletal pain presentations. The focus was on views about acceptability, and anticipated barriers and facilitators to the use of stratified care in routine practice. METHODS: Four focus groups and six semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 23), and three focus groups with patients (n = 20). Data were analysed thematically; and identified themes examined in relation to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which facilitates comprehensive identification of behaviour change determinants. A critical approach was taken in using the TDF, examining the nuanced interrelationships between theoretical domains. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: Acceptability of clinical decision-making guided by stratified care; impact on the therapeutic relationship; embedding a prognostic approach within a biomedical model; and practical issues in using stratified care. Whilst within each theme specific findings are reported, common across themes was the identified relationships between the theoretical domains of knowledge, skills, professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and goals. Through analysis of these identified relationships it was found that, for GPs and patients to perceive stratified care as being acceptable, it must be seen to enhance GPs' knowledge and skills, not undermine GPs' and patients' respective identities and be integrated within the environmental context of the consultation with minimal disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of taking into account the context of general practice when intervening to support GPs to make changes to their clinical behaviour. Findings will inform further stages of the research programme; specifically, the intervention format and content of support packages for GPs participating in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). This study also contributes to the theoretical debate on how best to encourage clinical behaviour change in general practice, and the possible role of the TDF in that process.

Evaluation of a risk-stratification strategy to improve primary care for low back pain: the MATCH cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous options for treating back pain and the increasing healthcare resources devoted to this problem, the prevalence and impact of back pain-related disability has not improved. It is now recognized that psychosocial factors, as well as physical factors, are important predictors of poor outcomes for back pain. A promising new approach that matches treatments to the physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery, the STarT Back risk stratification approach, improved patients' physical function while reducing costs of care in the United Kingdom (UK). This trial evaluates implementation of this strategy in a United States (US) healthcare setting. METHODS: Six large primary care clinics in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State were block-randomized, three to receive an intensive quality improvement intervention for back pain and three to serve as controls for secular trends. The intervention included 6 one-hour training sessions for physicians, 5 days of training for physical therapists, individualized and group coaching of clinicians, and integration of the STarT Back tool into the electronic health record. This prognostic tool uses 9 questions to categorize patients at low, medium or high risk of persistent disabling pain with recommendations about evidence-based treatment options appropriate for each subgroup. Patients at least 18 years of age, receiving primary care for non-specific low back pain, were invited to provide data 1-3 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 months and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. The primary outcomes are back-related physical function and pain severity. Using an intention to treat approach, intervention effects on patient outcomes will be estimated by comparing mean changes at the 2 and 6 month follow-up between the pre- and post-implementation periods. The inclusion of control clinics permits adjustment for secular trends. Differences in change scores by intervention group and time period will be estimated using linear mixed models with random effects. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization and adherence to clinical guidelines. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the first randomized trial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of implementing risk stratification with matched treatment options for low back pain in a United States health care delivery system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02286141. Registered November 5, 2014.

Validation of the German version of the STarT-Back Tool (STarT-G): a cohort study with patients from primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Current research emphasizes the high prevalence and costs of low back pain (LBP). The STarT Back Tool was designed to support primary care decision making for treatment by helping to determine the treatment prognosis of patients with non-specific low back pain. The German version is the STarT-G. The cross-cultural translation of the tool followed a structured and widely accepted process but to date it was only partially validated with a small sample. The aim of the study was to test the psychometric properties construct validity, discriminative ability, internal consistency and test-retest-reliability of the STarT-G and to compare them with values given for the original English version. METHODS: A consecutive cohort study with a two-week retest was conducted among patients with non-specific LBP, aged 18 to 60 years, from primary care practices. Questionnaires were collected before the first consultation, and two weeks later by post, using the following reference standards: the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychometric properties examined included the tool's discriminative abilities, whether the psychosocial subscale was one factor, internal consistency, item redundancy, test-retest reliability and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: There were 228 patients recruited with a mean age of 42.2 (SD 11.0) years, and 53 % were female. The areas under the curve (AUC) for discriminative ability ranged from 0.70 (STarT-G Subscale - Pain Catastrophizing Scale; CI95 0.63, 0.78) to 0.77 (STarT-G Total - Composite reference standard, CI95 0.60, 0.94). Factor loadings ranged from 0.49 to 0.74. Cronbach's alpha testing the internal consistency and redundancy for the total/subscale scores were α = 0.52/0.55 respectively. The STarT-G test-retest reliability Kappa values for the total/subscale scores were 0.67/0.68 respectively. No floor or ceiling effects were present. CONCLUSIONS: The STarT-G shows acceptable psychometric properties although not in exact agreement with the original English version. The items previously regarded as a psychosocial subscale may be better seen as an index of different individual psychosocial constructs. The relevance of using the tool at the point of consultation should be further examined.