Self‐reported prognostic factors in adults reporting neck or low back pain: An umbrella review

Background: Numerous systematic reviews have attempted to synthesize evidence on prognostic factors for predicting future outcomes such as pain, disability and return‐to‐work/work absence in neck and low back pain populations. Databases and datatreatment: An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted to summarize the magnitude and quality of the evidence for each prognostic factor investigated. Searches were limited to the last 10 years (2008‐11th April 2018, updated 28th September 2020). A two‐stage approach was undertaken: in stage one, data on prognostic factors was extracted from systematic reviews identified from the systematic search that met the inclusion criteria. Where a prognostic factor was investigated in ≥1 systematic review and where 50% or more of those reviews found an association between the prognostic factor and one of the outcomes of interest, it was taken forward to stage two. In stage two, additional information extracted included the strength of association found, consistency of effects and risk of bias. The GRADE approach was used to grade confidence in the evidence. Results: Stage one identified 41 reviews (90 prognostic factors), with 35 reviews (25 prognostic factors) taken forward to stage two. Seven prognostic factors (disability/activity limitation, mental health; pain intensity; pain severity; coping; expectation of outcome/recovery and fear‐avoidance) were judged as having moderate confidence for robust findings. Conclusions: Although there was conflicting evidence for the strength of association with outcome, these factors may be used for identifying vulnerable subgroups or people able to self‐manage. Further research can investigate the impact of using such prognostic information on treatment/referral decisions and patient outcomes

Healthcare resource utilisation and economic burden attributable to back pain in primary care: A matched case-control study in the United Kingdom

Objective Incremental healthcare costs attributed to back pain, and characterisation by patient and clinical factors have rarely been documented. This study aimed to assess annual healthcare resource utilisation and costs associated with back pain in primary care. Methods Using the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD), patients with back pain were identified (study period: 01 January 2006 to 31 December 2015) using diagnostic records and analgesics prescriptions ( n = 133,341), and propensity score matched 1:1 to patients without back pain. The annual incremental costs of back pain associated with consultations and prescriptions were estimated and extrapolated to a national level. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by restricting the study population to the most recent diagnosis of back pain. Variations in cost were assessed stratified by gender, age-groups, deprivation, and comorbidity categories. Results The mean age was 57 years, and 62% were females in both the case and control groups. The total incremental healthcare costs associated with back pain was £32.5 million in 2015 (£35.9 million in 2020), with per-patient cost of £244 (£265 in 2020) per year. On a national level, this translated to an estimated £3.2 billion (£3.5 billion in 2020). Eighty percent of the costs were attributed to consultations; and female gender, older age, higher deprivation, and higher comorbidity were all associated with increased mean healthcare costs of patients with back pain. Conclusion Our findings confirm the substantial healthcare costs attributed to back pain, even with primacy care costs only. The data also revealed significant cost variations across socio-demographic and clinical factors

Acceptability of a vocational advice service for patients consulting in primary care with musculoskeletal pain: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, vocational advisers and patients

Aims: To explore the experiences of GPs, vocational advisors and patients towards a new vocational advice (VA) service in primary care, using qualitative interviews. Methods This study was nested within the Study of Work And Pain (SWAP) cluster randomised controlled trial. The SWAP trial located a VA service within three general practices in Staffordshire. Interviews took place with 10 GPs 12 months after the introduction of the VA service, 4 vocational advisors whilst the VA service was running and 20 patients on discharge from the VA service. The data were analysed using the 'constant comparative' method, which is a variation of grounded theory. Results: The key factors determining the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the VA service from the perspective of the three groups of stakeholders were 1) the timing of referrals to the VA, 2) the perceived lack of patient demand for the service, and 3) role uncertainty experienced by VAs. Conclusions: Early vocational intervention may not be appropriate for all musculoskeletal patients with work difficulties. Indeed, many patients felt they did not require the support of a VA, either because they had self-limiting work difficulties and/or already had support mechanisms in place to return to work. Future VA interventions may be better implemented in a targeted way so that appropriate patients are identified with characteristics which can best be addressed by the VA service

Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for subacromial shoulder conditions:a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: There are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs. Methods: Eight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis. Results: The review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2–6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3–6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up. Conclusion: Current evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others

Development and External Validation of Individualized Prediction Models for Pain Intensity Outcomes in Patients With Neck Pain, Low Back Pain, or Both in Primary Care Settings

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and externally validate multivariable prediction models for future pain intensity outcomes to inform targeted interventions for patients with neck or low back pain in primary care settings.METHODS: Model development data were obtained from a group of 679 adults with neck or low back pain who consulted a participating United Kingdom general practice. Predictors included self-report items regarding pain severity and impact from the STarT MSK Tool. Pain intensity at 2 and 6 months was modeled separately for continuous and dichotomized outcomes using linear and logistic regression, respectively. External validation of all models was conducted in a separate group of 586 patients recruited from a similar population with patients' predictor information collected both at point of consultation and 2 to 4 weeks later using self-report questionnaires. Calibration and discrimination of the models were assessed separately using STarT MSK Tool data from both time points to assess differences in predictive performance.RESULTS: Pain intensity and patients reporting their condition would last a long time contributed most to predictions of future pain intensity conditional on other variables. On external validation, models were reasonably well calibrated on average when using tool measurements taken 2 to 4 weeks after consultation (calibration slope = 0.848 [95% CI = 0.767 to 0.928] for 2-month pain intensity score), but performance was poor using point-of-consultation tool data (calibration slope for 2-month pain intensity score of 0.650 [95% CI = 0.549 to 0.750]).CONCLUSION: Model predictive accuracy was good when predictors were measured 2 to 4 weeks after primary care consultation, but poor when measured at the point of consultation. Future research will explore whether additional, nonmodifiable predictors improve point-of-consultation predictive performance.IMPACT: External validation demonstrated that these individualized prediction models were not sufficiently accurate to recommend their use in clinical practice. Further research is required to improve performance through inclusion of additional nonmodifiable risk factors.</p

Prognostic factors and models for predicting work absence in adults with musculoskeletal conditions consulting a healthcare practitioner: A systematic review

AbstractPurposeIt is difficult to predict which employees, in particular those with musculoskeletal pain, will return to work quickly without additional vocational advice and support, which employees will require this support and what levels of support are most appropriate. Consequently, there is no way of ensuring the right individuals are directed towards the right services to support their occupational health needs. The aim of this review will be to identify prognostic factors for duration of work absence in those already absent and examine the utility of prognostic models for work absence.MethodsEight databases were search using a combination of subject headings and key words focusing on work absence, musculoskeletal pain and prognosis. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data from all eligible studies and assessed risk of bias using the QUIPS or PROBAST tools, an adapted GRADE used to assess the strength of the evidence.To make sense of the data prognostic variables were grouped according to categories from the Disability Prevention Framework and the SWiM framework was utilised to synthesize findings.ResultsA total of 23 studies were included in the review, including 13 prognostic models and a total of 110 individual prognostic factors. Overall, the evidence for all prognostic factors was weak, although there was some evidence that older age and better recovery expectations were protective of future absence and that previous absence was likely to predict future absences. There was weak evidence for any of the prognostic models in determining future sickness absence.ConclusionAnalysis was difficult due to the wide range of measures of both prognostic factors and outcome and the differing timescales for follow-up. Future research should ensure thatconsistent measures are employed and where possible these should be in-line with those suggested by Ravinskaya et al (2023)

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

Perceptions of health professionals towards the management of back pain in the context of work: a qualitative study

Musculoskeletal complaints have a significant impact on work in terms of reduced productivity, sickness absence and long term incapacity for work. This study sought to explore GPs' and physiotherapists' perceptions of sickness certification in patients with musculoskeletal problems