Swiss chiropractic cohort (Swiss ChiCo) pilot study: feasibility for a musculoskeletal cohort study conducted within a nationwide practice-based research network.

PURPOSE: Practice-based research networks are collaborations between clinicians and researchers to advance primary care research. This study aims to assess the feasibility for longitudinal data collection within a newly established chiropractic PBRN in Switzerland. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort feasibility study was performed. PBRN participating chiropractors were asked to recruit patients seeking new conservative health care for musculoskeletal pain from March 28, 2022, to September 28, 2022. Participants completed clinically oriented survey questions and patient-reported outcome measures before the initial chiropractic assessment as well as 1 h, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks thereafter. Feasibility was assessed through a variety of process, resource, and management metrics. Patient clinical outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 76 clinicians from 35 unique primary care chiropractic clinics across Switzerland participated. A total of 1431 patients were invited to participate, of which 573 (mean age 47 years, 51% female) were enrolled. Patient survey response proportions were 76%, 64%, 61%, and 56%, at the 1-h, 2-, 6-, and 12-week survey follow-ups, respectively. Evidence of an association was found between increased patient age (OR = 1.03, 95%CI 1.01-1.04), patient from a German-speaking region (OR = 1.81, 95%CI 1.17-2.86), non-smokers (OR = 1.89, 95%CI 1.13-3.17), and increased pain impact score at baseline (OR = 1.18, 95%CI 1.01-1.38) and response to all surveys. CONCLUSION: The Swiss ChiCo pilot study exceeded its prespecified feasibility objectives. Nationwide longitudinal data capture was highly feasible. Similar to other practice-based cohorts, participant retention remains a challenge. Trial registration Swiss chiropractic cohort (Swiss ChiCo) pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05116020).

Goal setting in people with low back pain attending an education and exercise program (GLA:D Back) and the impact of demographic factors.

BACKGROUND: Individual goal setting is a fundamental element in self-management supportive interventions, serving to guide actions and enhance motivation for engagement. Despite this, little is known about the goals people with back pain have and to what extent these differ across genders, age groups and geographical location. This study aimed to elucidate this by first describing individual goals set by Danish and Canadian participants in a self-management intervention for people with back pain using the ICF framework; then, determining what proportion of these goals met criteria for being specific, measurable, acceptable, and time bound, and finally, by investigating differences between countries, sexes, and age groups. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study conducted August 2018 to June 2020, 394 Danish and 133 Canadian (Alberta Province) participants defined their individual goals of participating in a self-management programme involving patient education and supervised exercises. The goals were linked to the ICF framework. Distribution of goals was compared between countries, sexes, and age groups. RESULTS: Goals most often related to the ICF component of 'Activity and Participation'. The most prevalent goals were "Walking" (DK: 20%; CA: 15%) and "Maintaining a body position" (DK: 17%; CA: 22%). Only few goals differed between populations, age and sex. All elements of SMART goal setting were recorded for 88% of Danish and 94% of Alberta participants. CONCLUSIONS: People with low back pain attending a self-management programme established goals according to the SMART criteria and focused primarily on activity. Goals were similar across countries and showed few differences across sex and age groups. The high number of different goals points to the need for individualised person-centred care.

Similar improvements in patient-reported outcomes for non-specific low back pain patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms following a structured education and exercise therapy program.

BACKGROUND: People with nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) can also experience overlapping symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the impact on treatment outcomes is unknown. This study investigated differences in treatment outcomes for disability, back pain intensity, and leg pain intensity following an education and exercise therapy program for NSLBP patients with and without comorbid LSS symptoms. METHODS: This was a longitudinal analysis of 655 Danish participants in the GLA:D® Back program; an education and exercise therapy program for people with persistent NSLBP. Participants were classified as having comorbid LSS symptoms based on self-report. Linear mixed models were used to assess differences in change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index [0-100]) and back and leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale [0-10]) at 3-, 6-, and 12-months between those with and without LSS symptoms. RESULTS: 28% of participants reported LSS symptoms. No certain differences in change in disability or back pain intensity improvement were observed at any time-point between those with and without LSS symptoms. Participants with LSS symptoms had slightly greater improvement in leg pain intensity at 6- (-0.7, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2) and 12-months (-0.6, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). CONCLUSION: Compared to those without LSS symptoms, patients with persistent NSLBP and LSS symptoms can expect similar improvements in disability and back pain intensity, and slightly greater improvements in leg pain intensity with treatment. Therefore, education and exercise therapy programs designed for NSLBP are likely helpful for those also experiencing LSS symptoms.

Characteristics associated with comorbid lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis: an analysis of 9,136 good life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) participants.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) often co-occurs with knee or hip OA and can impact treatment response. However, it is unclear what participant characteristics may be helpful in identifying individuals with these co-occurring conditions. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore characteristics associated with comorbid symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) enrolled in a primary care education and exercise program. METHODS: Sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, health status measures, and a self-report questionnaire on the presence of LSS symptoms was collected at baseline from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark primary care program for knee and hip OA. Cross-sectional associations between characteristics and the presence of comorbid LSS symptoms were assessed separately in participants with primary complaint of knee and hip OA, using domain-specific logistic models and a logistic model including all characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 6,541 participants with a primary complaint of knee OA and 2,595 participants with a primary complaint of hip OA were included, of which 40% and 50% reported comorbid LSS symptoms, respectively. LSS symptoms were associated with similar characteristics in knee and hip OA. Sick leave was the only sociodemographic variable consistently associated with LSS symptoms. For clinical characteristics, back pain, longer symptom duration and bilateral or comorbid knee or hip symptoms were also consistently associated. Health status measures were not consistently related to LSS symptoms. CONCLUSION: Comorbid LSS symptoms in people with knee or hip OA undergoing a primary care treatment program of group-based education and exercise were common and associated with a similar set of characteristics. These characteristics may help to identify people with co-occurring LSS and knee or hip OA, which can be used to help guide clinical decision-making.

User perspectives on systematic data collection regarding back pain managed in general practice - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a main driver of disability and the most prevalent reason why people in Demark visit a general practitioner (GP). However, little is known about back pain management in primary care. For new strategies to be sustainable and to accommodate the recommendations for evidence-based practice, patients' perspectives are paramount to complement clinical expertise and research evidence. This study aimed to identify recommendations for systematic data collection in a nationwide cohort regarding the management of back pain in general practice from the perspectives of GPs and patients. METHOD: We applied an adapted exploratory sequential design using focus groups and individual interviews. Seven GPs and ten patients with back pain participated, and four focus groups and seventeen individual interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed using abductive reasoning. RESULTS: Both GPs and patients with back pain found that 1) recruitment to a cohort should take place through the GPs, 2) the heterogeneity of patients with back pain and their need for individualized treatment and care should be considered, and 3) data from the cohort should feed into a flowchart or guideline to illustrate a generic patient pathway and visually assist both the patient and GP to obtain an overview and, thus, structure the patient pathway. CONCLUSION: GPs and patients with back pain both considered the nationwide cohort with the overall aim to investigate back pain management as being extremely relevant in relation to improve t the patient pathway. User perspectives should be explored and integrated into health care interventions.

The association between different outcome measures and prognostic factors in patients with neck pain: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health domains like pain, disability, and health-related quality of life are commonly used outcomes for musculoskeletal disorders. Most prognostic studies include only one outcome, and it is unknown if prognostic factors and models may be generic across different outcomes. The objectives of this study were to examine the correlation among commonly used outcomes for neck pain (pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life) and to explore how the predictive performance of a prognostic model differs across commonly used outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an observational prospective cohort study with data from patients with neck pain aged 18-84 years consulting Norwegian chiropractors. We used three different outcomes: pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and health-related quality of Life (EQ-5D). We assessed associations between change in outcome scores at 12-weeks follow-up with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We used multivariable linear regression models to explore differences in explained variance and relationship between predictors and outcomes. RESULTS: The study sample included 1313 patients and 941 (72%) completed follow-up at 12 weeks. The strongest correlation was between NDI and EQ-5D (r = 0.57) while the weakest correlation was between EQ-5D and pain intensity (r = 0.39). The correlation between NDI and pain intensity was moderate (r = 0.53) In the final regression models, the explained variance ranged from adjusted R2 of 0.26 to 0.60, highest with NDI and lowest with pain intensity as outcome. The predictive contributions of the included predictors were similar across outcomes. Among the investigated predictors, pain patterns and the baseline measure of the corresponding outcome measure contributed the most to explained variance across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The highest correlation was found between NDI and EQ-5D and the lowest with pain intensity. The same prognostic model showed highest predictive performance with NDI as outcome and poorest with pain intensity as outcome. These results suggest that we need more knowledge on the reasons for the differences in predictive performance variation across outcomes.

Adherence and characteristics of participants enrolled in a standardised programme of patient education and exercises for low back pain, GLA:D® Back - a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is often long-lasting, and implementation of low-cost interventions to improve care and minimise its burden is needed. GLA:D® Back is an evidence-based programme consisting of patient education and supervised exercises for people with low back pain, which was implemented nationwide in primary care clinics in Denmark. To assess how the intervention was received and factors influencing adherence to the program, we aimed to evaluate participants' adherence to the intervention and identified characteristics related to the completion of GLA:D® Back. Specifically, we investigated: 1) level of attendance of participants enrolled in the programme, and 2) participant-related factors associated with low attendance. METHODS: Primary care clinicians delivered GLA:D® Back, a standardised 10-week programme of 2 educational and 16 supervised exercise sessions, to patients with low back pain. Attendance was defined as low, medium or high based on self-reported number of attended sessions. Additional participant-reported data included demographic characteristics, pain, prognostic risk profiles, self-efficacy, illness-beliefs, function and clinician-reported physical performance tests. Results for high, medium, low, and unknown attendance were reported descriptively. Odds ratios for low attendance compared to medium/high attendance were calculated by including all baseline factors in a mixed-model logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 1730 participants, 52% had high, 23% medium, and 25% low levels of attendance. Level of attendance was not strongly associated with participants' individual factors, but in combination, prediction of low attendance was fair (AUC 0.77; 95% CI 0.74-0.79). The strongest indicator of low attendance was not completing the baseline questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants of a 10-week low back pain programme attended almost all session. Non-response to the baseline questionnaire was strongly associated with low attendance, whereas individual patient characteristics were weakly related to attendance. Not completing baseline questionnaires might be an early indicator of poor adherence in programs for people with persistent low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark decided there was no need for ethical approval (S-20172000-93). The Danish data collection has obtained authorisation from the Danish Data Protection Agency as part of the University of Southern Denmark's institutional authorisation (DPA no. 2015-57-0008 SDU no. 17/30591). The trial was registred at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03570463 .

Effectiveness of a coordinated support system linking public hospitals to a health coaching service compared with usual care at discharge for patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although many people with chronic low back pain (LBP) improve following conservative treatment, one in five will experience worsening symptoms after discharge from treatment and seek health care again. The current LBP clinical care pathway in many health services lacks a well-integrated, systematic approach to support patients to remain physically active and self-manage their symptoms following discharge from treatment. Health coaching can support people to improve physical activity levels and may potentially reduce health care utilisation for LBP. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of introducing a coordinated support system (linking hospital outpatient physiotherapy services to a public health coaching service) at discharge from LBP treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, compared with usual care provided at discharge. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-four adults with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy departments of public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will be individually randomised to a support system (n = 187) or usual care group (n = 187). All participants will receive usual care provided at discharge from treatment. Participants allocated to the support system will also receive up to 10 telephone-based health coaching sessions, delivered by the Get Healthy Service®, over a 6-month period. Health coaches will monitor and support participants to improve physical activity levels and achieve personal health-related goals. The primary outcome is the total number of encounters with hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, at 12 months from baseline. A within-trial economic evaluation will quantify the incremental costs and benefits of the support system from a health system perspective, to support reimbursement decision making. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the effect of a coordinated support system, introduced at discharge from treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP and various health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Innovative community-driven solutions to support people with chronic LBP after discharge from treatment are urgently needed. Study findings will help inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12620000889954 ) on 10/09/2020.

A conceptual framework for prognostic research.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic research has many important purposes, including (i) describing the natural history and clinical course of health conditions, (ii) investigating variables associated with health outcomes of interest, (iii) estimating an individual's probability of developing different outcomes, (iv) investigating the clinical application of prediction models, and (v) investigating determinants of recovery that can inform the development of interventions to improve patient outcomes. But much prognostic research has been poorly conducted and interpreted, indicating that a number of conceptual areas are often misunderstood. Recent initiatives to improve this include the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. In this paper, we aim to show how different categories of prognostic research relate to each other, to differentiate exploratory and confirmatory studies, discuss moderators and mediators, and to show how important it is to understand study designs and the differences between prediction and causation. MAIN TEXT: We propose that there are four main objectives of prognostic studies - description, association, prediction and causation. By causation, we mean the effect of prediction and decision rules on outcomes as determined by intervention studies and the investigation of whether a prognostic factor is a determinant of outcome (on the causal pathway). These either fall under the umbrella of exploratory (description, association, and prediction model development) or confirmatory (prediction model external validation and investigation of causation). Including considerations of causation within a prognostic framework provides a more comprehensive roadmap of how different types of studies conceptually relate to each other, and better clarity about appropriate model performance measures and the inferences that can be drawn from different types of prognostic studies. We also propose definitions of 'candidate prognostic factors', 'prognostic factors', 'prognostic determinants (causal)' and 'prognostic markers (non-causal)'. Furthermore, we address common conceptual misunderstandings related to study design, analysis, and interpretation of multivariable models from the perspectives of association, prediction and causation. CONCLUSION: This paper uses a framework to clarify some concepts in prognostic research that remain poorly understood and implemented, to stimulate discussion about how prognostic studies can be strengthened and appropriately interpreted.

Confidence, attitudes, beliefs and determinants of implementation behaviours among physiotherapists towards clinical management of low back pain before and after implementation of the BetterBack model of care.

BACKGROUND: Implementing clinical guidelines is challenging. To facilitate uptake, we developed a model of care (BetterBack Model of Care) and an implementation strategy to support management of low back pain in primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiotherapists´ confidence, attitudes and beliefs in managing patients with low back pain before and after a multifaceted implementation of the BetterBack Model of Care. A further aim was to evaluate determinants of implementation behaviours among physiotherapists. METHODS: This clinical trial was an experimental before and after study within a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial. The primary outcome was Practitioner Self-Confidence Scale (PCS), secondary outcomes were the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT) and Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire (DIBQ). Data was analysed using repeated measures ANOVA and pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen physiotherapists answered a questionnaire before, directly after, as well as 3 and 12 months after implementation of the Model of Care. PCS improved over time with a large effect size post implementation (ηp2 = 0.197, p < 0.001). Changes in PABS-PT were only significant after 12 months with higher biopsychosocial orientation, (ηp2 = 0.071, p < 0.01) and lower biomedical orientation, (ηp2 = 0.136, p < 0.001). Directly after the workshop, after 3 and 12 months, physiotherapists had high ratings on all DIBQ domains, (scores > 50) implying that all were potential facilitators of the implementation. However, after 3 months, all domains had significantly decreased except for organisation, social influence and patient expectation domains. However, after 12 months, organisation and social influence domains had significantly decreased while domains such as knowledge, skills and beliefs about capabilities returned to initial levels. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapists´ confidence and biopsychosocial orientation increased after implementation and may have the potential to improve management of low back pain in primary care. The implementation behaviour showed mostly facilitating patterns but changed over time, pinpointing a need to repeatedly monitor these changes. This can inform the need for changes of implementation efforts in different phases and support sustainability strategies. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03147300 3 May 2017, prospectivly registered.

Baseline Characteristics May Help Indicate the Best Choice of Health Care Provider for Back Pain Patients in Primary Care: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Baseline characteristics of patients low back pain differ substantially between care settings, but it is largely unknown whether predictors are of equal importance across settings. The aim of this study was to investigate whether 8 known predictors relate differently to outcomes in chiropractic practice and in general practice and to which degree these factors may be helpful in selecting patients benefiting more from one setting or the other. METHODS: Patient characteristics were collected at baseline, and outcomes of pain intensity (numeric rating scale 0-10) and activity limitation (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire 0-100) after 2, 12, and 52 weeks. Differences in the prognostic strength between settings were investigated for each prognostic factor separately by estimating the interaction between setting and the prognostic factor using regression models. Between-setting differences in outcome in high-risk and low-risk subgroups, formed by single prognostic factors, were assessed in similar models adjusted for a propensity score to take baseline differences between settings into account. RESULTS: Prognostic factors were generally associated more strongly with outcomes in general practice compared with chiropractic practice. The difference was statistically significant for general health, duration of pain, and musculoskeletal comorbidity. After propensity score adjustment, differences in outcomes between settings were insignificant, but negative prognostic factors tended to be less influential in chiropractic practice except for leg pain and depression, which tended to have less negative impact in general practice. CONCLUSION: Known prognostic factors related differently to outcomes in the 2 settings, suggesting that some subgroups of patients might benefit more from one setting than the other.

What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention.

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause-eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem.

Back beliefs in patients with low back pain: a primary care cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Back Belief Questionnaire (BBQ) measures beliefs about negative consequences of back pain. The aim of this study was to describe the back beliefs of a large clinical population with low back pain (LBP), to investigate the associations between back beliefs and patient characteristics when care-seeking, and between on-going pain and back beliefs at follow up. METHODS: Patients aged over 18, consulting with LBP with or without radicular pain of all symptom durations, were recruited from chiropractic clinics. The BBQ was completed on the first visit and at 3- and 12-month follow-ups. Sociodemographic- and symptom-related questions were answered at baseline. A BBQ sum score was calculated at all three time points, and linear regression was used to analyse the cross-sectional association between baseline patient characteristics and BBQ scores. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test differences in BBQ scores for patients with and without on-going LBP at 3- and 12-months follow up. RESULTS: The baseline population consisted of 2295 participants. The median BBQ sum scores at baseline, 3 and 12 months had interquartile ranges of 33 [29-36], 33 [29-37], and 31 [27-35] respectively. Patient characteristics and symptoms were associated with baseline BBQ scores (p < 0.05), but most association were weak. The strongest association was with severe disability (4.0 points (95% CI 3.3-4.6) lower BBQ than no disability). Negative beliefs were related to more severe LBP at baseline and with on-going pain at follow up. CONCLUSION: At a population level, back beliefs were generally positive and relatively constant over time, but misconceptions about a poor prognosis were common. Studies exploring individual patterns of back beliefs and associations with clinical outcomes over time are recommended.

GLA:D® Back: implementation of group-based patient education integrated with exercises to support self-management of back pain - protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Reassuring patient education and exercise therapy are widely recommended interventions for back pain in clinical guidelines. However, many patients are offered non-guideline endorsed options, and strategies for effective implementation of guideline-based care have not yet been developed. This protocol outlines the evaluation of a strategy for nationwide implementation of standardised patient education and exercise therapy for people with persistent or recurrent back pain in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. The strategy and the evaluation were planned using the framework of the Behaviour Change Wheel. METHODS: The main activity of the implementation strategy is a two-days course for physiotherapists and chiropractors in delivering patient education and exercise therapy that is aimed at supporting patient self-management. This comes with ready-to-use patient education materials and exercise programs. The clinical intervention is a group-based program consisting of two sessions of patient education and 8 weeks of supervised exercises. The program uses a cognitive-behavioural approach and the aim of the exercise component is to restore the patient's ability and confidence to move freely. The implementation process is evaluated in a dynamic process monitoring the penetration, adoption and fidelity of the clinical intervention. The clinical intervention and potential effect mechanisms will be evaluated at the patient-level using measures of knowledge, skills, beliefs, performance, self-efficacy and success in self-management. The education of clinicians will be evaluated via clinician-level outcomes, including the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, the Practitioner Confidence Scale, and the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire. Effects at a national level will be investigated via data from national registries of health care utilisation and sick-leave. DISCUSSION: This implementation-effectiveness study is designed to evaluate the process of implementing an evidence-based intervention for back pain. It will inform the development of strategies for implementing evidence-based care for musculoskeletal pain conditions, it will enhance the understanding of mechanisms for developing patient self-management skills, and it will demonstrate the outcomes that are achievable in everyday clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03570463 . Registered 27 June 2018.

Integrating Mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions and the highest contributor to disability in the world. It is characterized by frequent relapses leading to additional care-seeking. Engagement in leisure physical activity is associated with lower recurrences and better prognosis and potentially reduced care-seeking. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a patient-centred physical activity intervention, supported by health coaching and mobile health, to reduce care-seeking, pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain after treatment discharge. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Sixty-eight participants were recruited from four public outpatient physiotherapy departments and the general community in Sydney. The intervention group received a physical activity information booklet, plus one face-to-face and 12 telephone-based health coaching sessions. The intervention was supported by an internet-based application and an activity tracker (Fitbit). Control group (standard care) received the physical activity information booklet and advice to stay active. Feasibility measures included recruitment rate, intervention compliance, data completeness, and participant satisfaction. Primary outcomes were care-seeking, pain levels and activity limitation. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6-month follow-up and weekly for 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety potential participants were invited over 15 months, with 68 agreeing to take part (75%). Overall, 903 weekly questionnaires were answered by participants from a total of 1107 sent (89%). Participants were largely satisfied with the intervention (mean = 8.7 out of 10 on satisfaction scale). Intervention group participants had a 38% reduced rate of care-seeking (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.18, p = 0.14, using multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression analysis) compared to standard care, although none of the estimates was statistically significant. No between groups differences were found for pain levels or activity limitation. CONCLUSION: The health coaching physical activity approach trialed here is feasible and well accepted by participants and may reduce care-seeking in patients with low back pain after treatment discharge, although further evaluation with an adequately powered trial is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Trial Registry ACTRN12615000189527 . Registered prospectively on 26-02-2015.

National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy.

PURPOSE: To summarise recommendations about 20 non-surgical interventions for recent onset (<12 weeks) non-specific low back pain (LBP) and lumbar radiculopathy (LR) based on two guidelines from the Danish Health Authority. METHODS: Two multidisciplinary working groups formulated recommendations based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were based on evidence, and four on consensus. Management of LBP and LR should include information about prognosis, warning signs, and advise to remain active. If treatment is needed, the guidelines suggest using patient education, different types of supervised exercise, and manual therapy. The guidelines recommend against acupuncture, routine use of imaging, targeted treatment, extraforaminal glucocorticoid injection, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and opioids. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are based on low to moderate quality evidence or on consensus, but are well aligned with recommendations from international guidelines. The guideline working groups recommend that research efforts in relation to all aspects of management of LBP and LR be intensified.

GLA:D® Back group-based patient education integrated with exercises to support self-management of back pain - development, theories and scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend that people with back pain be given information and education about their back pain, advice to remain active and at work, and exercises to improve mobility and physical activity. Guidelines, however, rarely describe how this is best delivered. The aim of this paper is to present the development, theories, and underlying evidence for 'GLA:D Back' - a group education and exercise program that translates guideline recommendations into a clinician-delivered program for the promotion of self-management in people with persistent/recurrent back pain. METHODS: GLA:D Back, which included a rationale and objectives for the program, theory and evidence for the interventions, and program materials, was developed using an iterative process. The content of patient education and exercise programs tested in randomised trials was extracted and a multidisciplinary team of expert researchers and clinicians prioritised common elements hypothesised to improve back pain beliefs and management skills. The program was tested on eight people with persistent back pain in a university clinic and 152 patients from nine primary care physiotherapy and chiropractic clinics. Following feedback from the clinicians and patients involved, the working version of the program was created. RESULTS: Educational components included pain mechanisms, pain modulation, active coping strategies, imaging, physical activity, and exercise that emphasised a balance between the sum of demands and the individual's capacity. These were operationalised in PowerPoint presentations with supporting text to aid clinicians in delivering two one-hour patient education lectures. The exercise program included 16 supervised one-hour sessions over 8 weeks, each comprising a warm-up section and eight types of exercises for general flexibility and strengthening of six different muscle groups at four levels of difficulty. The aims of the exercises were to improve overall back fitness and, at the same time, encourage patients to explore variations in movement by incorporating education content into the exercise sessions. CONCLUSION: From current best evidence about prognostic factors in back pain and effective treatments for back pain, research and clinical experts developed a ready-to-use structured program - GLA:D® Back - to support self-management for people with persistent/recurrent back pain.

National clinical guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset neck pain or cervical radiculopathy.

PURPOSE: To summarise recommendations about 21 selected non-surgical interventions for recent onset (<12 weeks) non-specific neck pain (NP) and cervical radiculopathy (CR) based on two guidelines from the Danish Health Authority. METHODS: Two multidisciplinary working groups formulated recommendations based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twelve recommendations were based on evidence and nine on consensus. Management should include information about prognosis, warning signs, and advise to remain active. For treatment, guidelines suggest different types of supervised exercise and manual therapy; combinations of exercise and manual therapy before medicine for NP; acupuncture for NP but not CR; traction for CR; and oral NSAID (oral or topical) and Tramadol after careful consideration for NP and CR. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are based on low-quality evidence or on consensus, but are well aligned with recommendations from guidelines from North America. The working groups recommend intensifying research relating to all aspects of management of NP and CR.

How can latent trajectories of back pain be translated into defined subgroups?

BACKGROUND: Similar types of trajectory patterns have been identified by Latent Class Analyses (LCA) across multiple low back pain (LBP) cohorts, but these patterns are impractical to apply to new cohorts or individual patients. It would be useful to be able to identify trajectory subgroups from descriptive definitions, as a way to apply the same definitions of mutually exclusive subgroups across populations. In this study, we investigated if the course trajectories of two LBP cohorts fitted with previously suggested trajectory subgroup definitions, how distinctly different these subgroups were, and if the subgroup definitions matched with LCA-derived patterns. METHODS: Weekly measures of LBP intensity and frequency during 1 year were available from two clinical cohorts. We applied definitions of 16 possible trajectory subgroups to these observations and calculated the prevalence of the subgroups. The probability of belonging to each of eight LCA-derived patterns was determined within each subgroup. LBP intensity and frequency were described within subgroups and the subgroups of 'fluctuating' and 'episodic' LBP were compared on clinical characteristics. RESULTS: All of 1077 observed trajectories fitted with the defined subgroups. 'Severe episodic LBP' was the most frequent pattern in both cohorts and 'ongoing LBP' was almost non-existing. There was a clear relationship between the defined trajectory subgroups and LCA-derived trajectory patterns, as in most subgroups, all patients had high probabilities of belonging to only one or two of the LCA patterns. The characteristics of the six defined subgroups with minor LBP were very similar. 'Fluctuating LBP' subgroups were significantly more distressed, had more intense leg pain, higher levels of activity limitation, and more negative expectations about future LBP than 'episodic LBP' subgroups. CONCLUSION: Previously suggested definitions of LBP trajectory subgroups could be readily applied to patients' observed data resulting in subgroups that matched well with LCA-derived trajectory patterns. We suggest that the number of trajectory subgroups can be reduced by merging some subgroups with minor LBP. Stable levels of LBP were almost not observed and we suggest that minor fluctuations in pain intensity might be conceptualised as 'ongoing LBP'. Lastly, we found clear support for distinguishing between fluctuating and episodic LBP.

Latent class analysis derived subgroups of low back pain patients - do they have prognostic capacity?

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. One statistical technique that is increasingly being used is Latent Class Analysis as it performs subgrouping based on pattern recognition with high accuracy. Previously, we developed two novel suggestions for subgrouping patients with low back pain based on Latent Class Analysis of patient baseline characteristics (patient history and physical examination), which resulted in 7 subgroups when using a single-stage analysis, and 9 subgroups when using a two-stage approach. However, their prognostic capacity was unexplored. This study (i) determined whether the subgrouping approaches were associated with the future outcomes of pain intensity, pain frequency and disability, (ii) assessed whether one of these two approaches was more strongly or more consistently associated with these outcomes, and (iii) assessed the performance of the novel subgroupings as compared to the following variables: two existing subgrouping tools (STarT Back Tool and Quebec Task Force classification), four baseline characteristics and a group of previously identified domain-specific patient categorisations (collectively, the 'comparator variables'). METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study of 928 patients consulting for low back pain in primary care. The associations between each subgroup approach and outcomes at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months, and with weekly SMS responses were tested in linear regression models, and their prognostic capacity (variance explained) was compared to that of the comparator variables listed above. RESULTS: The two previously identified subgroupings were similarly associated with all outcomes. The prognostic capacity of both subgroupings was better than that of the comparator variables, except for participants' recovery beliefs and the domain-specific categorisations, but was still limited. The explained variance ranged from 4.3%-6.9% for pain intensity and from 6.8%-20.3% for disability, and highest at the 2 weeks follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Latent Class-derived subgroups provided additional prognostic information when compared to a range of variables, but the improvements were not substantial enough to warrant further development into a new prognostic tool. Further research could investigate if these novel subgrouping approaches may help to improve existing tools that subgroup low back pain patients.