A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of prospective cohort studies in low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence implicating psychological factors in the development of chronicity in low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The biopsychosocial model is gaining acceptance in low back pain, and has provided a basis for screening measurements, guidelines and interventions; however, to date, the unique contribution of psychological factors in the transition from an acute presentation to chronicity has not been rigorously assessed. METHODS: A systematic literature search was followed by the application of three sets of criteria to each study: methodologic quality, quality of measurement of psychological factors, and quality of statistical analysis. Two reviewers blindly coded each study, followed by independent assessment by a statistician. Studies were divided into three environments: primary care settings, pain clinics, and workplace. RESULTS: Twenty-five publications (18 cohorts) included psychological factors at baseline. Six of these met acceptability criteria for methodology, psychological measurement, and statistical analysis. Increased risk of chronicity (persisting symptoms and/or disability) from psychological distress/depressive mood and, to a lesser extent, somatization emerged as the main findings. Acceptable evidence generally was not found for other psychological factors, although weak support emerged for the role of catastrophizing as a coping strategy. CONCLUSION: Psychological factors (notably distress, depressive mood, and somatization) are implicated in the transition to chronic low back pain. The development and testing of clinical interventions specifically targeting these factors is indicated. In view of the importance attributed to other psychological factors (particularly coping strategies and fear avoidance) there is a need to clarify their role in back-related disability through rigorous prospective studies

Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulation: Previous theories

Objectives: When the clinical efficacy of spinal manipulative treatment for spinal pain has been assessed, high-velocity low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) manipulation and mobilization have been regarded as clinical interventions giving identical and equivalent biologic effects. The objective of this review is to critically discuss previous theories and research of spinal HVLAT manipulation, highlighting reported neurophysiologic effects that seem to be uniquely associated with cavitation of synovial fluid. Data Source: The biomedical literature was searched for research and reviews on spinal manipulation. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were used to help find relevant articles. Study Selection: All articles relevant to the objectives were selected. Data Extraction: All available data were used. Data Synthesis: The main hypotheses for lesions that respond to HVLAT manipulation were critically discussed: (1) release of entrapped synovial folds or plica, (2) relaxation of hypertonic muscle by sudden stretching, (3) disruption of articular or periarticular adhesions, and (4) unbuckling of motion segments that have undergone disproportionate displacements. Results: There appear to be 2 separate modes of action from zygapophyseal HVLAT manipulation. Intraarticular "mechanical" effects of zygapophyseal HVLAT manipulation seem to be absolutely separate from and irrelevant to the occurrence of reported "neurophysiologic" effects. Cavitation should not be an absolute requirement for the mechanical effects to occur but may be a reliable indicator for successful joint gapping. Conclusions: It is hoped that identification of these unique neurophysiologic effects will provide enough theoretical reason for HVLAT manipulation and mobilization to be assessed independently as individual clinical interventions

Promoting critical thinking in health care: phronesis and criticality.

This paper explores the notion of 'expert' health care practitioner in the context of critical thinking and health care education where scientific rather than philosophical inquiry has been the dominant mode of thought. A number of factors have forced a reappraisal in this respect: the challenge brought about by the identification of complex ethical issues in clinical situations; medicine's 'solving' of many of the simple health problems; the recognition that uncertainty is a common and perhaps innate feature of clinical practice; debate about the concepts of illness and disease; plus insights from psychology, sociology and medical anthropology. Together these have prompted alternative ways of thinking which have the aim of identifying the best rather than the right decision (where best equates to good and right equates to correct in the sense of true or approved). It is argued that phronesis adds a necessary corrective dimension to modern Western medicine's over-emphasis on techne and is one of the factors that differentiates novice from expert practitioner. However, this attracts certain conflicts of interest: phronesis can only be gained and assessed from experience of praxis; agencies with legitimate interests in medicine such as government and professional registering bodies require more substantive criteria

Patients' satisfaction with osteopathic and GP management of low back pain in the same surgery.

Chronic low back patients reported their satisfaction with the treatment they received for back pain from GPs and osteopaths practising in the same surgery. Although levels of satisfaction were high for all treatments, patients reported significantly higher scores for satisfaction with the osteopathic treatment. The difference was stronger for aspects of care/communication and competence, and weaker for satisfaction with efficacy. These findings are discussed in reference to patients' expectations, novelty, time spent with patients, number of visits, and patients' age

Communication between general and manipulative practitioners: A survey

A survey of general practitioners (GPs) in the south of England was undertaken to determine their understanding and communication needs in referring patients to practitioners of manipulation. Eighty-six out of 309 GPs replied to a postal questionnaire (28 response). The results suggest that, while routine communication is important for improving understanding, GPs appear to have a preference for disciplines of which they have personal experience. The majority of responders favoured receiving a report on one side of A5 paper when the patient completes treatment. This should contain the nature of treatment and advice given and an indication of its outcome. Those who desired an initial report wanted it to contain a summary of the nature of the problem, a brief history, a summary of relevant findings from the examination, any investigations and a prognosis. Many GPs commented that they were more comfortable in referring to physiotherapists because they felt they had a better understanding of the treatment involved. Furthermore, chiropractic and osteopathic terminologies were reported to be confusing more often than physiotherapy terminology. Bearing in mind the potential bias in responses due to its geographical limitations and low response rate, this study provides useful indicators for manipulative and GPs who wish to work more closely together. (C) 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd

Interpretation bias in responses to ambiguous cues in pain patients

Pain patients and control subjects responses to ambiguous cues were compared in two separate investigations. In the first, pain patients, control subjects and physiotherapists were asked to produce a list of spontaneous associations to ambiguous cues (such as terminal and growth). To control for mood effects the experiment was repeated with three more groups: Pain patients, osteophats and a control group. Measures of anxiety and depression were incorporated in the analysis. Results indicate that pain patients systematically produce more pain related associations than the other groups, and that this effect is independent of anxiety and depression levels. The discussion concentrates on the implications of these findings both for the theory of pain processing and for clinical interventions. © 1994