Room for improvement: a randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative interviews on space, place and treatment delivery.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare-oriented design in hospitals can promote better clinical outcomes. Creating optimal facilities may increase treatment effects. We investigated the influence of the treatment room on effects of exercise therapy. METHODS: In a mixed-method randomised controlled double-blind trial, middle-aged individuals reporting knee or hip pain performed 8 weeks of exercise therapy in (1) a newly built physically enhanced environment, (2) a standard environment or (3) were waitlisted, receiving no intervention. Participants and therapists were blind to study aim. Primary outcome was participants' Global Perceived Effect (GPE; seven-point Likert scale). Six nested focus group interviews with participants (n=25) and individual interviews with therapists (n=2) explored experiences of the environments. RESULTS: 42 people exercised in the physically enhanced environment, 40 in the standard environment, 21 were waitlisted. Contrary to our hypothesis, the treatment response seemed greater in the standard environment for GPE (0.98, 95% CI0.5 to 1.4) than for the physically enhanced environment (0.37, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.9), between-group difference (0.61, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.3) did not reach statistical significance (p=0.07). Waitlist group reported no improvement (-0.05 95% CI -0.5 to 0.4). In interviews, participants from the standard environment expressed greater social cohesion and feeling at home. Qualitative themes identified; reflection, sense of fellowship and transition. Secondary patient-reported outcomes and qualitative findings supported the primary finding, while improvements in muscle strength and aerobic capacity did not differ between exercise groups. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the physical environment contributes to treatment response. Matching patients' preferences to treatment rooms may improve patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02043613.

Digital Support Interventions for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of disability and is ranked as the most burdensome health condition globally. Self-management, including components on increased knowledge, monitoring of symptoms, and physical activity, are consistently recommended in clinical guidelines as cost-effective strategies for LBP management and there is increasing interest in the potential role of digital health. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to synthesize and critically appraise published evidence concerning the use of interactive digital interventions to support self-management of LBP. The following specific questions were examined: (1) What are the key components of digital self-management interventions for LBP, including theoretical underpinnings? (2) What outcome measures have been used in randomized trials of digital self-management interventions in LBP and what effect, if any, did the intervention have on these? and (3) What specific characteristics or components, if any, of interventions appear to be associated with beneficial outcomes? METHODS: Bibliographic databases searched from 2000 to March 2016 included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER and TRoPHI, Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index. Reference and citation searching was also undertaken. Search strategy combined the following concepts: (1) back pain, (2) digital intervention, and (3) self-management. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols or completed RCTs involving adults with LBP published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool. An independent third reviewer adjudicated on disagreements. Data were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Of the total 7014 references identified, 11 were included, describing 9 studies: 6 completed RCTs and 3 protocols for future RCTs. The completed RCTs included a total of 2706 participants (range of 114-1343 participants per study) and varied considerably in the nature and delivery of the interventions, the duration/definition of LBP, the outcomes measured, and the effectiveness of the interventions. Participants were generally white, middle aged, and in 5 of 6 RCT reports, the majority were female and most reported educational level as time at college or higher. Only one study reported between-group differences in favor of the digital intervention. There was considerable variation in the extent of reporting the characteristics, components, and theories underpinning each intervention. None of the studies showed evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: The literature is extremely heterogeneous, making it difficult to understand what might work best, for whom, and in what circumstances. Participants were predominantly female, white, well educated, and middle aged, and thus the wider applicability of digital self-management interventions remains uncertain. No information on cost-effectiveness was reported. The evidence base for interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of LBP remains weak.

Can you be a manual therapist without using your hands?

BACKGROUND: To align with current best practices, manual therapists have refined their treatment options to include exercise and pain education for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In this commentary, we suggest that manual therapists should also add telehealth to their toolbox. Thus, we aim to discuss the use of telehealth by manual therapists caring for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. MAIN BODY: Telehealth can be delivered to the patient in different modes, such as real-time clinical contact or asynchronously. Platforms vary from websites and smartphone apps to virtual reality systems. Telehealth may be an effective approach, especially for improving pain and function in people with musculoskeletal pain, and it has the potential to reduce the individual and socioeconomic burden of musculoskeletal conditions. However, the certainty of evidence reported in systematic reviews is often low. Factors such as convenience, flexibility, undivided attention from the clinician, user-friendly platforms, goal setting, and use of evidence-based information are all enablers for telehealth use and improving patients' knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-management. Barriers to widening the use of telehealth in musculoskeletal care include the reliability of technology, data privacy issues, difficult to build therapeutic alliance, one-size-fits-all approaches, digital health literacy, and payment models. CONCLUSION: We suggest that practitioners of manual medicine make telehealth part of their clinical toolbox where it makes sense and where there is evidence that it is beneficial for people who seek their care.

Convergent and Discriminative Validity of the PROMIS Physical Function 4 Questionnaire for Assessing Pain-related Disability in Low Back Pain Patients Seeking Chiropractic Care.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate construct validity by examining the convergent and discriminative validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function 4a (PROMIS-PF4) questionnaire in low back pain (LBP) patients seeking care from Danish chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is often used to assess physical functioning in LBP. However, it consists of 24 items, which is time consuming to complete in clinical practice. The PROMIS-PF4 questionnaire has only four items and may be more applicable for clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with LBP seeking care from chiropractors in Denmark completed the PROMIS-PF4, RMDQ, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back screening tool, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) in advance of their first appointment with the chiropractor. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients between the PROMIS-PF4 and RMDQ and NPRS, respectively. Discriminative validity of the PROMIS-PF4 was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) when plotting the PROMIS-PF4 t score against a reference case for RMDQ; NPRS; and high and low risk groups using the STarT Back screening tool. RESULTS: Among 356 patients the PROMIS-PF4 questionnaire had strong convergent validity with the RMDQ ( r =-0.76) and moderate convergent validity with the NPRS ( r =-0.42). The PROMIS-PF4 had good and acceptable discriminative validity for disability (AUC=0.88) and high risk of persisting disability (AUC=0.72), and poor or no discriminative validity for pain intensity (AUC=0.66) and low-risk of persisting disability (AUC=0.26), respectively. CONCLUSION: As hypothesized, for convergent validity the PROMIS-PF4 has stronger correlation with the RMDQ than the NPRS and good discriminative validity for identifying patients with pain-related disability and at high risk of persisting disability but not for identifying pain intensity or low-risk of persisting disability. Consequently, the PROMIS-PF4 has adequate construct validity for measuring pain-related disability in an LBP population in chiropractic care.