Advancing practice for back pain through stratified care (STarT Back)

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is common, however research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments over the last two decades conclude either no or small differences in the average effects of different treatments. One suggestion to explain this is that patients are not all the same and important subgroups exist that might require different treatment approaches. Stratified care for LBP involves identifying subgroups of patients and then delivering appropriate matched treatments. Research has shown that stratified care for LBP in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs and increase the efficiency of health-care delivery in the UK. The challenge now is to replicate and evaluate this approach in other countries health care systems and to support services to implement it in routine clinical care.ResultsThe STarT Back approach to stratified care has been tested in the National Health Service, within the UK, it reduces unnecessary overtreatment in patients who have a good prognosis (those at low risk) yet increases the likelihood of appropriate healthcare and associated improved outcomes for those who are at risk of persistent disabling pain. The approach is cost-effective in the UK healthcare setting and has been recommended in recent guidelines and implemented as part of new LBP clinical pathways of care. This approach has subsequently generated international interest, a replication study is currently underway in Denmark, however, some lessons have already been learnt. There are potential obstacles to implementing stratified care in low-and-middle-income settings and in other high-income settings outside of the UK, however, implementation science literature can inform the development of innovations and efforts to support implementation of stratified care.ConclusionsThe STarT Back approach to stratified care for LBP is a promising method to advance practice that has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK. Over time, further evidence for both the effectiveness and the adaptations needed to test and implement the STarT Back stratified care approach in other countries is needed

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

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

Rationale, design and methods of the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP): a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain (ISRCTN 52269669)

Background Musculoskeletal pain is a major contributor to short and long term work absence. Patients seek care from their general practitioner (GP) and yet GPs often feel ill-equipped to deal with work issues. Providing a vocational case management service in primary care, to support patients with musculoskeletal problems to remain at or return to work, is one potential solution but requires robust evaluation to test clinical and cost-effectiveness. Methods/Design This protocol describes a cluster randomised controlled trial, with linked qualitative interviews, to investigate the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into general practice, to provide a structured approach to managing work related issues in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain who are absent from work or struggling to remain in work. General practices (n = 6) will be randomised to offer best current care or best current care plus a vocational advice service. Adults of working age who are absent from or struggling to remain in work due to a musculoskeletal pain problem will be invited to participate and 330 participants will be recruited. Data collection will be through patient completed questionnaires at baseline, 4 and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported work absence at 4 months. Incremental cost-utility analysis will be undertaken to calculate the cost per additional QALY gained and incremental net benefits. A linked interview study will explore the experiences of the vocational advice service from the perspectives of GPs, nurse practitioners (NPs), patients and vocational advisors. Discussion This paper presents the rationale, design, and methods of the Study of Work And Pain (SWAP) trial. The results of this trial will provide evidence to inform primary care practice and guide the development of services to provide support for musculoskeletal pain patients with work-related issues. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52269669

Examining Committed Action in Chronic Pain:Further Validation and Clinical Utility of the Committed Action Questionnaire

Psychosocial treatments for chronic pain conditions, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, have highlighted minimizing pain avoidance behaviors and increasing engagement in valued activities as key treatment targets. In terms of salient processes within Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, committed action is considered essential to the pursuit of a meaningful life, as it entails a flexible persistence over time in living consistently with one's values. To date, however, only 1 study has examined the association between measures of committed action and important aspects of pain-related functioning. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the reliability of the Committed Action Questionnaire (CAQ) in a sample of 149 chronic pain patients, perform a confirmatory analysis of its factor structure, and examine how CAQ scores uniquely account for variance in functioning. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for a 2-factor model, and regression analyses, which examined the cross-sectional direct effects of the 2 subscales on health-related functioning, indicated that the CAQ accounted for significant variance in functioning after controlling for relevant covariates. Overall, these findings provide further support for the CAQ as a measure of adaptive functioning in those with longstanding pain. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents additional evidence for the reliability and validity of the CAQ with chronic pain patients. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the 2-factor model, with both subscales demonstrating significant associations with multiple facets of health- and pain-related functioning

A randomised clinical trial of subgrouping and targeted treatment for low back pain compared with best current care. The STarT Back Trial Study Protocol

Back pain is a major health problem and many sufferers develop persistent symptoms. Detecting relevant subgroups of patients with non-specific low back pain has been highlighted as a priority area for research, as this could enable better secondary prevention through the targeting of prognostic indicators for persistent, disabling symptoms. We plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to establish whether subgrouping using a novel tool, combined with targeted treatment, is better than best current care at reducing long-term disability from low back pain

Implementing change in physiotherapy: professions, contexts and interventions

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report findings from qualitative interviews with physiotherapists to demonstrate why even minor changes to clinical work resulting from the introduction of new interventions, are often difficult to implement. The paper seeks to illustrate how some of the obstacles to implementing change were managed by physiotherapists. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 32 qualitative interviews with participating physiotherapists were conducted, 12 interviews prior to the introduction of the new system, and 20 afterwards. The interviews were coded and analysed thematically. Findings – The findings reveal a number of perceived limitations of current management of low back pain and identify key themes around convergence with the new approach, such as willingness by physiotherapists to adopt the new approach, the perception of benefits to adopting the new approach, as well as some difficulty in adjusting to it. The authors refer to the positive and negative elements as “soft” and “hard” disruption. The adoption of the new approach is explored with reference to the “situated” dimensions of physiotherapy practice and normalisation process theory. Research limitations/implications – The study raises the need to conduct future observational research to support the interview findings. Originality/value – The study describes the “situated” components of physiotherapy work, which have received limited research attention. The value of the study lies less in its ability to explain specifically why physiotherapists adopted or rejected the new system, but in describing the conditions and consequences of change that might be translated to other professions, contexts and interventions