Back Pain In General Practice Research Articles

An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial

SummaryThis feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain.PurposeApproximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care.MethodsThe study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen’s kappa.ResultsThis study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively.ConclusionsThis article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study.Trial registrationISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

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

BackgroundBack 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.MethodWe 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.ResultsBoth 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.ConclusionGPs 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.

Therapeutic management of low back pain in general practice.

Low back pain is one of the most frequent causes of consultation of the General Practitioner (GP). The purpose of the present study is to analyze the therapeutic management of low back pain, in relation to pain intensity, in the primary care setting and to assess its impact on the patient's quality of life. From the computerized medical records of 65 GPs, all working in the Salerno province (South of Italy), data concerning non-cancer subjects affected by low back or sciatica pain, over 18 years, who consulted the GP in the period between February 1, 2015 and January 31, 2016, were extracted. Pain intensity and quality of life were reported using the 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and the EQ-5D instruments, respectively. A total of 2555 subjects were identified: 28.7% reported mild pain (NRS 0-3), 55.6% moderate pain (NRS 4-6) and 15.7% severe pain (NRS 7-10). Only 35% of patients received a prescription for pain therapy (24.5% in mild pain; 34.1% in moderate pain and 57.1% in severe pain); non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in monotherapy were the most prescribed therapeutic category regardless of pain intensity (61.1% in mild pain, 65.1% in moderate pain and 57.6% in severe pain, p=0.099), followed by strong opioids (17.2%, 15.3% and 24.5%, p=0.011). Overall, mean value for EQ-5D utility was 0.44 (0.61 in mild pain, 0.47 in moderate pain, 0.22 in severe pain). The results of this study highlight that low back pain is a highly debilitating condition, probably still under-treated or inadequately treated by the GP.

The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial

BackgroundEffective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world’s most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control).Methods and findingsThis pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI −0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices.ConclusionsFindings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP.Trial registrationACTRN12616000888460

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

BackgroundLow 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 textMultifaceted 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Requirements for implementing online information material for patients with low back pain in general practice: an interview study

Objective: To identify general practitioners’ (GPs) barriers and facilitators regarding the use of health information technology (HIT) in the treatment of patients with low back pain (LBP).Design: A qualitative study employing a participatory design approach, with an inductive analytical thematic approach utilising semi-structured interviews. Empirical data was analysed using the qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) Nvivo.Setting: General practices in Denmark.Subjects: Eight interviews were conducted with an average duration of 60 min. The interviewees were GPs from different geographical settings and different organisational structures, varying in age and professional interests.Main outcome measures: Barriers and facilitators for future use of the HIT application for patients with LBP.Results: Through the inclusion of healthcare professionals in the design process, this study found that in order for GPs to recommend a HIT application it is essential to target the application towards their patients. Furthermore, GPs required that the HIT application should support patient self-management. Additionally, the content of the HIT application should support the initiated treatment and it should be easy for GPs to recommend the HIT application. Finally, healthcare professionals need to be involved in the design process.Conclusion: When designing health IT applications for patients with LBP in general practice it is important to include both patients and GPs in the design process. GPs would be more willing to recommend a HIT application that: applies content in line with frequently used recommendations; targets patients; supports patients’ self-management; and supports the patients’ needs.KEY POINTSOnline information is currently applied in general practice to some patients with low back painOnline information cannot replace the GP, but can rather be a bonding tool between the patient and the GPIt is important to address both GP and patient barriers to applying new technology and to consider the literacy levelParticipatory methods could play a central role in the future development of online information material

The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major health issue associated with considerable health loss and societal costs. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the management of LBP; however, GP care has not been shown to be the most cost-effective approach unless exercise and behavioural counselling are added to usual care. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP has been developed to assist GPs to manage LBP by empowering exploration and management of psychosocial barriers to recovery and provision of evidence-based care and information. The aim of the Low Back Pain in General Practice (LBPinGP) trial is to explore whether patients with LBP who receive care from GPs trained in the FREE approach have better outcomes than those who receive usual care.Methods/designThis is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the FREE approach with usual care for LBP management with investigator-blinded assessment of outcomes. GPs will be recruited and then cluster randomised (in practice groups) to the intervention or control arm. Intervention arm GPs will receive training in the FREE approach, and control arm GPs will continue to practice as usual. Patients presenting to their GP with a primary complaint of LBP will be allocated on the basis of allocation of the GP they consult. We aim to recruit 60 GPs and 275 patients (assuming patients are recruited from 75% of GPs and an average of 5 patients per GP complete the study, accounting for 20% patient participant dropout). Patient participants and the trial statistician will be blind to group allocation throughout the study. Analyses will be undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome will be back-related functional impairment 6 months post-initial LBP consultation (interim data at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months), measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary patient outcomes include pain, satisfaction, quality of life, days off from work and costs of care. Secondary GP outcomes include beliefs about pain and impairment, GP confidence, and actual and reported clinical behaviour. Health economic and process evaluations will be conducted.DiscussionIn the LBPinGP trial, we will investigate providing an intervention during the first interaction a person with back pain has with their GP. Because the FREE approach is used within a normal GP consultation, if effective, it may be a cost-effective means of improving LBP care.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000888460. Registered on 6 July 2016.

Efficacy of paracetamol, diclofenac and advice for acute low back pain in general practice: design of a randomized controlled trial (PACE Plus)

BackgroundLow back pain is common and associated with a considerable burden to patients and society. There is uncertainty regarding the relative benefit of paracetamol and diclofenac and regarding the additional effect of pain medication compared with advice only in patients with acute low back pain. This trial will assess the effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. Furthermore, this trial will assess the additional effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo compared with advice only for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks.MethodsThe PACE Plus trial is a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care, with a follow-up of 12 weeks. Patients with acute low back pain aged 18–60 years presenting in general practice will be included.Patients are randomized into four groups: 1) Advice only (usual care conforming with the clinical guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners); 2) Advice and paracetamol; 3) Advice and diclofenac; 4) Advice and placebo. The primary outcome is low back pain intensity measured with a numerical rating scale (0–10). Secondary outcomes include compliance to treatment, disability, perceived recovery, costs, adverse reactions, satisfaction, sleep quality, co-interventions and adequacy of blinding.Between group differences for low back pain intensity will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. An economic evaluation will be performed using a cost-effectiveness analysis with low back pain intensity and a cost-utility analysis with quality of life. Explorative analyses will be performed to assess effect modification by predefined variables.Ethical approval has been granted. Trial results will be released to an appropriate peer-viewed journal.DiscussionThis paper presents the design of the PACE Plus trial: a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care that will assess the effectiveness of advice only, paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain.Trial registrationDutch Trial Registration NTR6089, registered September 14th, 2016. Protocol: Version 4, June 2016.

Economic evaluation of an implementation strategy for the management of low back pain in general practice.

In connection with the publication of a clinical practice guideline on the management of low back pain (LBP) in general practice in Denmark, a cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. In this trial, a multifaceted guideline implementation strategy to improve general practitioners' treatment of patients with LBP was compared with a usual implementation strategy. The aim was to determine whether the multifaceted strategy was cost effective, as compared with the usual implementation strategy. The economic evaluation was conducted as a cost-utility analysis where cost collected from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years were used as outcome measures. The analysis was conducted as a within-trial analysis with a 12-month time horizon consistent with the follow-up period of the clinical trial. To adjust for a priori selected covariates, generalised linear models with a gamma family were used to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years. Furthermore, both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results showed that costs associated with primary health care were higher, whereas secondary health care costs were lower for the intervention group when compared with the control group. When adjusting for covariates, the intervention was less costly, and there was no significant difference in effect between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to uncertainty. In conclusion, the multifaceted implementation strategy was cost saving when compared with the usual strategy for implementing LBP clinical practice guidelines in general practice. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in effect, and the estimate was sensitive to uncertainty.

Defining trajectories in older adults with back pain presenting in general practice.

although back pain is a frequently recurring disorder, the course of back pain remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to identify different trajectories in older adults with back pain who presented in general practice and to determine which baseline characteristics are associated with these trajectories. the BACE study is a prospective cohort study including 675 patients (aged>55 years) with back pain who consulted a general practitioner; patients were followed for 3 years. Latent class growth analysis was used to identify different trajectories in back pain severity measured at eight different time points. A multinomial regression analysis was used to assess variables associated with membership of an identified trajectory. using the different indices of fit and the usefulness of the different trajectories in clinical practice, a 3-class cubic model was determined to be the best model. The three trajectories were defined as 'low pain trajectory', 'high pain trajectory' and 'intermediate pain trajectory'. Baseline variables associated with a higher chance of being in the intermediate or high trajectory were: female gender, higher body mass index, chronic back pain, more disability, lower scores on the SF-36 physical summary scale, and negative expectations of recovery. three different back pain trajectories were identified in older adults presenting with back pain in general practice. Various baseline characteristics were associated with a higher chance of being in the high or intermediate back pain trajectory. These characteristics might help identify patients at risk for a less favourable outcome.

Radiating low back pain in general practice: Incidence, prevalence, diagnosis, and long-term clinical course of illness

Objective. The aim of this study was to calculate the incidence and prevalence of radiating low back pain, to explore the long-term clinical course of radiating low back pain including the influence of radiculopathy (in a subsample of the study population) and non-radiating low back pain thereon, and to describe general practitioners’ (GPs’) treatment strategies for radiating low back pain. Design. A historic prospective cohort study. Setting. Dutch general practice. Subjects. Patients over 18 years of age with a first episode of radiating low back pain, registered by the ICPC code L86. Main outcome measures. Incidence and prevalence, clinical course of illness, initial diagnoses established by the GPs, and treatment strategies. Results. Mean incidence was 9.4 and mean prevalence was 17.2 per 1000 person years. In total, 390 patients had 1193 contacts with their GPs; 50% had only one contact with their GP. Consultation rates were higher in patients with a history of non-radiating low back pain and in patients with a diagnosis of radiculopathy in the first five years. In this study's subsample of 103 patients, L86 episodes represented radiculopathy in 50% of cases. Medication was prescribed to 64% of patients, mostly NSAIDs. Some 53% of patients were referred, mainly to physiotherapists and neurologists; 9% of patients underwent surgery. Conclusion. Watchful waiting seems to be sufficient general practice care in most cases of radiating low back pain. Further research should be focused on clarifying the relationship between radicular radiating low back pain, non-radicular radiating low back pain, and non-radiating low back pain.

Study protocol of an economic evaluation of an extended implementation strategy for the treatment of low back pain in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundIn Denmark, guidelines on low back pain management are currently being implemented; in association with this, a clinical trial is conducted. A health economic evaluation is carried out alongside the clinical trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of an extended implementation strategy to increase the general practitioners’ adherence to the guidelines. In addition to usual dissemination, the extended implementation strategy is composed of visits from a guideline facilitator, stratification tools, and feedback on guideline adherence. The aim of this paper is to provide the considerations on the design of the health economic evaluation.Methods/designThe economic evaluation is carried out alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial consisting of 60 general practices in the North Denmark Region. An expected 1,200 patients between the age of 18 and 65 years with a low back pain diagnosis will be enrolled. The economic evaluation comprises both a cost-effectiveness analyses and a cost-utility analysis. Effectiveness measures include referral to secondary care, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-5L, and disability measured by the Roland Morris disability questionnaire. Cost measures include all relevant additional costs of the extended implementation strategy compared to usual implementation. The economic evaluation will be performed from both a societal perspective and a health sector perspective with a 12-month time horizon.DiscussionIt is expected that the extended implementation strategy will reduce the number of patients referred to secondary care. It is hypothesised that the additional upfront cost of extended implementation will be counterbalanced by improvements in clinical practice and patient-related outcomes, thereby rendering the extended implementation strategy cost-effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01699256Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0140-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Analgesic use in older adults with back pain: the BACE study.

Older patients with back pain are more likely to visit their general practitioner (GP) and are more likely to be prescribed analgesics. To assess analgesic use in older adults with back pain in general practice. The BACE study in the Netherlands is a prospective cohort study. Patients (aged >55 years) with back complaints were recruited when consulting their GP or shortly thereafter. Measurements took place at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. For medication use, patients were asked if they had used any medication for their back pain in the previous 3 months and, if so, to specify the medication name, dosage used, frequency of usage, and whether the medication was prescribed or purchased over the counter. Of the 1,402 patients who were approached to enter the study, 675 were included. Of these patients, 484 (72%) reported medication use at baseline. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (57%) were more often used than paracetamol (49%). Paracetamol was mostly obtained over the counter (69%), and NSAIDs were mostly obtained by prescription (85%). At baseline, patients with severe pain (numerical rating scale score ≥7) used more paracetamol, opioids, and muscle relaxants. Patients with chronic pain (back pain >3 months) used more paracetamol, while patients with a shorter duration of pain used more NSAIDs. During follow-up there was an overall decline in medication use; however, at 3- and 6-month follow-up, 36% and 30% of the patients, respectively, still used analgesics. In these older adults consulting their GP with back pain, 72% used analgesics at baseline. Despite a decrease in medication use during follow-up, at 3 and 6 months a considerable proportion still used analgesics.

Patients' experiences of the management of lower back pain in general practice: use of diagnostic imaging, medication and provision of self-management advice.

Lower back pain is prevalent in the general community. Guidelines recommend against the use of diagnostic imaging unless 'red flags' are present that may indicate a potentially serious cause. This paper reports on a cross-sectional electronic survey to investigate self-reported experiences of lower back pain management among Australian general practice patients. Of the 872 participants, 551 (63%) reported that they had experienced lower back pain in the past 12 months. Approximately 40% of patients who had experienced lower back pain reported that they had consulted their general practitioner (GP) regarding this issue. Among those who sought general practice care, 67% reported being referred for diagnostic imaging. Those who received imaging were more likely to have been prescribed medication by their GP, but received self-management advice at the same rate as those who had not been referred. Rates of self-reported referral for diagnostic imaging were higher than expected, given the low prevalence of potentially serious causes for lower back pain reported in the international literature. However, it remains unclear whether this is due to poor guideline adherence by GPs or lack of specificity in the red flags identified in guidelines. Findings suggest the need for improvements in the provision of evidence-based self-management advice.

Epidemiological Study for Evaluation of Etiology and Risk Factors in Patients with Low Back Pain

Introduction To study the epidemiology, etiology and risk factors among patients with low back pain. In addition, it includes evaluation of efficacy of protocol suggested by American College of Physician (ACP) and American Pain Society (APS) 2007 in Indian population. Finally, to develop a possible protocol for India, in managing patients with low back pain. Materials and Methods Epidemiology of patients with low back pain which includes demographic variables such as age, gender, education, occupational history, body mass index (BMI), diet habits, smoking, alcohol intake, comorbid conditions, life style factors, family history, and finally psychosociological factors by fear avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ) were recorded. Focused history, examination, stratification, and further evaluation were done in accordance with protocol as suggested by ACP/APS 2007. Each patient was followed up monthly for 6 months to assess the outcome of stratification and treatment modalities advised. However, apart from pharmacological therapy, exercise therapy alone was used in both acute and chronic cases. Transition among stratified groups was evaluated. Results [Table: see text] Total number of patients evaluated were 506. Mean age of presentation was 41.15 ± 11.21 years in females and 39.13 ± 12.76 years in males. Most common age group involved were 36 to 40 years. Gender distribution shows that females were 52.6% and males were 47.4%. Literates were 68.4%. Occupation involving prolonged sitting account for majority of cases with 45.3%. Prolonged static posture such as sitting at work period, bending, and lifting activities were significantly ( p < 0.05) associated with low back pain. However, no association was found with BMI, diet habits, smoking, life style factors. Mean FABQ score was more among chronic group compared with acute group but scores in patients with progression from acute to chronic were not significant. Etiology includes nonspecific back pain in 51.9%, intervertebral disc prolapse in 23.1%, spondylolisthesis in 10.4%, spinal canal stenosis in 4.7%, osteoporotic fractures in 3.7%, tuberculosis and inflammatory spondyloarthritis in 2.1% each, tumor conditions account for 1.3%, and finally 0.1% pyogenic discitis. Total 82.6% among category I, 100% of category II, 95.3% among category III were correctly identified based on approach used by protocol. However, the transition among categories was significant; 5.3% were lost to follow-up. Outcome analysis shows that 88.7% were symptom free and 11.3% had recurrence rate at the end of 6 months. Conclusion Low back pain continues to be an enormous social, psychological and financial problem with many speculated risk factors with none being convincible till time. From the present study, epidemiological profile of Indian population was depicted. Etiological diagnosis in low back pain patients still includes nonspecific back pain, a leading cause with 51.9%. However, it is a diagnosis of exclusion. Risk factor analysis shows that prolonged static postures at work place, activities involving bending and lifting were found to be statistically significant. In addition, using FABQ in assessment of psychosocial factors in low back pain is necessary and helpful in managing patients. However, the efficacy needs to be further evaluated. Regarding the evaluation of guidelines and its applicability, it is not advisable to use in Indian population. However, it forms a blueprint on which modifications such as investigating to rule out tuberculosis and spondylolisthesis in Indian population will be helpful before labeling any case as nonspecific back pain. Disclosure of Interest None declared References Solomen L, Warwide D, Nayagam S. Apley's System of Orthopedics and Fractures. 9th ed. London, UK: Hodder Arnold Publication; 2010:974 Secer M, Nacar OA, Muradov MJ, et al. Nonspecific low back pain in a group of young adult men. Turk Neurosurg 2011;21(2):135–139 Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al; Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(7):478–491 Sharma SC, Singh R, Sharma AK, Mittal R. Incidence of low back pain in workage adults in rural North India. Indian J Med Sci 2003;57(4):145–147 Hult L. Cervical, dorsal and lumbar spinal syndromes; a field investigation of a non-selected material of 1200 workers in different occupations with special reference to disc degeneration and so-called muscular rheumatism. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1954;17:1–102 Nachemson AI. The lumber spine, an orthopaedic challenge. Spine 1976;11:59–71 Borenstein DG. A clinician's approach to acute low back pain. Am J Med 1997;102(Suppl 1A):16S-22S Deyo RA, Rainville J, Kent DL. What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain? JAMA 1992;268(6):760–765 Deyo RA, Bass JE. Lifestyle and low-back pain. The influence of smoking and obesity. Spine 1989;14(5):501–506 Jones GT, Johnson RE, Wiles NJ, et al. Predicting persistent disabling low back pain in general practice: a prospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 2006;56(526):334–341

Management of low back pain in general practice - is it of acceptable quality: an observational study among 25 general practices in South Tyrol (Italy).

BackgroundThere are several guidelines dealing with the management of low back pain (LBP), but only few studies on the quality of care provided within General Practices as judged against those guidelines.The objective of this study is to analyse the management of LBP in Italian General Practice and compare it with guideline recommendations.MethodsIn this observational study, all patients visiting their General Practitioners (GPs) for treatment of LBP within a 8-week period were monitored for at least four weeks with regard to symptoms and diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Management of LBP was judged by pre-defined quality indicators based on guideline recommendations.ResultsTwenty-five of 114 eligible GPs participated in the study, representing a total of 43,012 registered patients. Of the 475 patients complaining of LBP and monitored for four weeks, 55.8% were diagnosed as having acute lumbar pain, 13.5% chronic lumbar pain, 17.1% acute sciatica, and 12.6% chronic sciatica; 76.0% underwent no technical investigations, 21.7% underwent x-rays, 5.5% MRI and 4% CT scans; 20.4% were referred to secondary care; 93.3% of all patients received some medication. In those receiving a medication, in 88.3% it was an NSAID, in 6.3% Paracetamol, in 10.4% Paracetamol combined with Codeine, and in 9% a muscle relaxants. When physiotherapy was prescribed (17,1%), it was mostly massage. Hardly more than 50% of GPs (partially) followed locally established guidelines, while the remainder seemed not to follow guidelines at all.ConclusionsOur study reveals gross deviations of GP management of LBP from current guidelines and points to two different types of deviators: those who partially follow guidelines, and those who do not follow them at all. Further research should evaluate whether these two types of deviation are best addressed by different foci of education, i.e. on knowledge versus attitudes, respectively.

Characteristics of older patients with back pain in general practice: BACE cohort study

Although back pain is common among older people, limited information is available about the characteristics of these patients in primary care. Earlier research suggests that the severity of back symptoms increases with older age. Patients aged >55 years visiting a general practitioner with a new episode of back pain were included in the BACE study. Information on patients' characteristics, characteristics of the complaint and physical examination were derived from the baseline measurement. Cross-sectional differences between patients aged >55-74 and ≥75 years were analysed using an unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test or a chi-square test. A total of 675 back pain patients were included in the BACE study, with a median age of 65 (interquartile range 60-71) years. Patients aged >55-74 years had a mean disability score (measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire) of 9.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.8] compared with 12.1 (SD 5.5) in patients aged ≥75 years (p ≤ 0.01). The older group reported more additional musculoskeletal disorders and more often had low bone quality (based on ultrasound measurement of the heel) than patients aged >55-74 years. Average back pain severity over the previous week showed no difference (p = 0.11) between the age groups, but severity of back pain at the moment of filling in the questionnaire was higher (p = 0.03) in the older age group. In this study, older back pain patients reported more disabilities and co-morbidity. However, the clinical relevance of these differences for the course of the back pain episode in older patients remains a subject for further research.

IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT): Cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol

BackgroundEvidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting.AimThis study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation.Methods/DesignThis study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).

Low back pain in general practice: cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychosocial intervention versus usual care

An intervention that can prevent low back pain (LBP) becoming chronic, may not only prevent great discomfort for patients, but also save substantial costs for the society. Psychosocial factors appear to be of importance in the transition of acute to chronic LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of an intervention aimed at psychosocial factors to usual care in patients with (sub)acute LBP. The study design was an economic evaluation alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, conducted from a societal perspective with a follow-up of 1 year. Sixty general practitioners in 41 general practices recruited 314 patients with non-specific LBP of less than 12 weeks’ duration. General practitioners in the minimal intervention strategy (MIS) group explored and discussed psychosocial prognostic factors. Usual care (UC) was not protocolized. Clinical outcomes were functional disability (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire), perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (EuroQol). Cost data consisted of direct and indirect costs and were measured by patient cost diaries and general practitioner registration forms. Complete cost data were available for 80% of the patients. Differences in clinical outcomes between both the groups were small and not statistically significant. Differences in cost data were in favor of MIS. However, the complete case analysis and the sensitivity analyses with imputed cost data were inconsistent with regard to the statistical significance of this difference in cost data. This study presents conflicting points of view regarding the cost-effectiveness of MIS. We conclude that (Dutch) general practitioners, as yet, should not replace their usual care by this new intervention.

‘You feel so hopeless’: A qualitative study of GP management of acute back pain

Abstract Background Biopsychosocial management of non-specific back pain in general practice has been problematical, with frequent inappropriate referral for imaging and secondary care interventions and lack of self-confidence in the ability to provide evidence-based care. Aims To examine GP attitudes to managing back pain as a biopsychosocial problem in order to inform future educational strategies that may improve practice. Methods Twenty-one GPs from separate practices within the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area (UK) participated in telephone interviews leading to the development of vignettes to refine the theoretical framework for subsequent focus group interviews about evidence-based back pain management. Transcripts were analysed thematically. Results There were 5 main emergent themes. These were generally negative and dominated by concerns about doctor–patient interaction. They included feelings of frustration, mismatches of perceptions in the doctor–patient relationship, problems in relation to time, challenges and discord between stakeholders in the process (for example, over sickness certification) and a lack of resources for education, awareness and local services to refer to. Psychosocial aspects of the actual care process were rarely raised. Participants favoured education that is multidisciplinary, in small group format and involves the participation of patients. Conclusions This study illustrates the difficulties that GPs may have in applying the relevant evidence for the successful management of back pain. A desire to avoid conflict in the relationship with patients explained much of the problem of implementing evidence in general practice. This indicates a need for insightful educational strategies that involve active GP participation.