Development of recommendations for a minimum dataset for Identifying Social factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in pain research

There is increasing recognition of the need for researchers to collect and report data that can illuminate health inequities. In pain research, routinely collecting equity-relevant data has the potential to inform about the generalisability of findings; whether the intervention has differential effects across strata of society; or it could be used to guide population targeting for clinical studies. Developing clarity and consensus on what data should be collected and how to collect it is required to prompt researchers to further consider equity issues in the planning, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of research. The overarching aim of the 'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes' (ISSHOOs) in pain research project is to provide researchers in the pain field with recommendations to guide the routine collection of equity-relevant data. The design of this project is consistent with the methods outlined in the 'Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines' and involves 4 stages: (i) Scoping review; (ii) Delphi Study; (iii) Consensus Meeting; and (iv) Focus Groups. This stakeholder-engaged project will produce a minimum dataset that has global, expert consensus. Results will be disseminated along with explanation and elaboration as a crucial step towards facilitating future action to address avoidable disparities in pain outcomes. </p

Development of recommendations for a minimum dataset for Identifying Social factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in pain research

There is increasing recognition of the need for researchers to collect and report data that can illuminate health inequities. In pain research, routinely collecting equity-relevant data has the potential to inform about the generalisability of findings; whether the intervention has differential effects across strata of society; or it could be used to guide population targeting for clinical studies. Developing clarity and consensus on what data should be collected and how to collect it is required to prompt researchers to further consider equity issues in the planning, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of research. The overarching aim of the 'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes' (ISSHOOs) in pain research project is to provide researchers in the pain field with recommendations to guide the routine collection of equity-relevant data. The design of this project is consistent with the methods outlined in the 'Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines' and involves 4 stages: (i) Scoping review; (ii) Delphi Study; (iii) Consensus Meeting; and (iv) Focus Groups. This stakeholder-engaged project will produce a minimum dataset that has global, expert consensus. Results will be disseminated along with explanation and elaboration as a crucial step towards facilitating future action to address avoidable disparities in pain outcomes. </p

Do health education initiatives assist socioeconomically disadvantaged populations? : a systematic review and meta-analyses

Background: Health education interventions are considered critical for the prevention and management of conditions of public health concern. Although the burden of these conditions is often greatest in socio-economically disadvantaged populations, the effectiveness of interventions that target these groups is unknown. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions in adult disadvantaged populations. Methods: We pre-registered the study on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ek5yg/. We searched Medline, Embase, Emcare, and the Cochrane Register from inception to 5/04/2022 to identify studies evaluating the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions delivered to adults in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Our primary outcome was health related behaviour and our secondary outcome was a relevant biomarker. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Our synthesis strategy involved random-effects meta-analyses and vote-counting. Results: We identified 8618 unique records, 96 met our criteria for inclusion – involving more than 57,000 participants from 22 countries. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. For our primary outcome of behaviour, meta-analyses found a standardised mean effect of education on physical activity of 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.09–0.19), (5 studies, n = 1330) and on cancer screening of 0.29 (95% CI = 0.05–0.52), (5 studies, n = 2388). Considerable statistical heterogeneity was present. Sixty-seven of 81 studies with behavioural outcomes had point estimates favouring the intervention (83% (95% CI = 73%-90%), p < 0.001); 21 of 28 studies with biomarker outcomes showed benefit (75% (95%CI = 56%-88%), p = 0.002). When effectiveness was determined based on conclusions in the included studies, 47% of interventions were effective on behavioural outcomes, and 27% on biomarkers. Conclusions: Evidence does not demonstrate consistent, positive impacts of educational interventions on health behaviours or biomarkers in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Continued investment in targeted approaches, coinciding with development of greater understanding of factors determining successful implementation and evaluation, are important to reduce inequalities in health

Development and measurement properties of the AxEL (attitude toward education and advice for low-back-pain) questionnaire

Introduction: Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain. Methods: We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated. Results: We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1 = 0.92, Factor 2 = 0.91, Factor 3 = 0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1 = 0.71, Factor 2 = 0.73, Factor 3 = 0.79. Conclusion: This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset

The impact of choosing words carefully: an online investigation into imaging reporting strategies and best practice care for low back pain

Background Low back pain clinical practice guidelines consistently recommend against the routine ordering of spinal imaging; however, imaging is frequently requested in primary care, without evidence of benefit. Imaging reports frequently identify degenerative features which are likely to be interpreted as ‘abnormal’, despite their high prevalence in symptom-free individuals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether post-imaging back-related perceptions are influenced by providing prior information about normal findings, and to compare the effect of receiving imaging results with best practice care (without imaging). The impact of introducing novel, ‘enhanced’ reporting strategies was also explored. Methods This study was a simulated-patient, randomised, multiple-arm experiment. Patient scenarios were presented to volunteer healthy adult participants via an online survey. In the scenarios, ‘virtual’ patients with low back pain were randomised to one of three groups. Group 1 received imaging and was pre-informed about normal findings. Group 2 received imaging (without pre-information). Group 3 received best practice care: quality information without imaging. Group 1 was further divided to receive either a standard report, or an ‘enhanced’ report (containing altered terminology and epidemiological information). The primary outcome was back-related perceptions (BRP), a composite score derived from three numeric rating scale scores exploring perceptions of spinal condition, recovery concerns and planned activity. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction and kinesiophobia. Results Full data were available from 660 participants (68% female). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant effect of group after controlling for baseline BRP scores $(F(2,74)=10.4,p\lt 0.001,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.04)$ F 2 , 74 = 10 . 4 , p < 0 . 001 , η p 2 = . 04 . Pairwise comparisons indicated that receiving best practice care resulted in more positive BRPs than receiving imaging results, and receiving prior information about normal findings had no impact. Enhanced reporting strategies also positively impacted BRPs $(F(1,275)=13.06,p\lt 0.001,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.05)$ F 1 , 275 = 13 . 06 , p < 0 . 001 , η p 2 = . 05 . Significant relationships between group allocation and both satisfaction $(F(2,553)=7.5,p=0.001,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.03)$ F 2 , 553 = 7 . 5 , p = 0 . 001 , η p 2 = . 03 and kinaesiophobia $(F(2,553)=3.0,p=0.050,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.01)$ F 2 , 553 = 3 . 0 , p = 0 . 050 , η p 2 = . 01 were found, with statistically significant pairwise comparisions again in favour of best-practice care. Conclusion Intervention strategies such as enhanced reporting methods and the provision of quality information (without imaging) have the potential to improve the outcome of patients with recent-onset LBP and should be further considered by primary care providers

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

Abstract Background Low 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 text Multifaceted 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. Conclusion This 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

The role of the social determinants of health in outcomes of surgery for low back pain: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLow back pain is a major cause of morbidity and disability worldwide and is responsible for vast societal impact. Rates of surgical intervention for lumbar spine disorders continue to rise but poor outcomes remain common. Understanding how the social determinants of health (SDH) influence spinal surgical outcomes stands to inform appropriately tailored care practices and lead to better patient outcomes.PURPOSETo determine the relationships between the SDH and pain, opioid use, disability and work absenteeism following lumbar spine surgery.STUDY DESIGNSystematic review and narrative synthesis.METHODSWe searched Embase, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2020. Studies eligible for inclusion involved participants receiving lumbar spine surgery and investigated the relationship between at least one SDH and post-surgical pain, opioid use, disability or work absenteeism. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies and used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to organize a narrative synthesis of findings.RESULTSRelevant data was extracted from twenty-three studies involving 30,987 adults from 12 countries. A total of 107 relationships between the SDH and post-surgical outcomes were evaluated, 67 in multivariate analyses. Education was investigated in 23 analyses (14 studies): 70% revealed significant independent relationships between lower education and poorer outcomes. Socioeconomic status was investigated in nine analyses (four studies): 67% revealed independent relationships between lower socioeconomic status and poorer outcomes. Gender was investigated in 40 analyses (22 studies): indications that male versus female sex was associated with poorer outcomes were equivocal. Place of residence, race/ethnicity, and social capital were infrequently investigated.CONCLUSIONSLow educational attainment and low-income status are clear independent contributors to poorer outcomes following lumbar spine surgery. Occupational factors and work context are likely to be influential. Further research is critical to guide best-practice spinal surgery through a health equity lens.STUDY REGISTRATIONPROSPERO registration number CRD4201501577

Development and measurement properties of the AxEL (attitude toward education and advice for low-back-pain) questionnaire

Introduction: Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain. Methods: We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated. Results: We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1=0.92, Factor 2=0.91, Factor 3=0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1=0.71, Factor 2=0.73, Factor 3=0.79. Conclusion: This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset

We are all in this together - whole of community pain science education campaigns to promote better management of persistent pain.

Persistent pain is a major public health issue - estimated to affect a quarter of the world’s population. Public understanding of persistent pain is based on outdated biomedical models, laden with misconceptions that are contrary to best evidence. This understanding is a barrier to effective pain management. Thus, there have been calls for public health-based interventions to address these misconceptions. Previous pain focussed public education campaigns have targeted pain beliefs and behaviours that are thought to promote recovery, such as staying active. However, prevailing pain-related misconceptions render many of these approaches counter-intuitive, at best. Pain Science Education improves understanding of ‘how pain works’ and has been demonstrated to improve pain and disability outcomes. Extending Pain Science Education beyond the clinic to the wider community seems warranted. Learning from previous back pain-focussed and other public health educational campaigns could optimise the potential benefit of such a Pain Science Education campaign. Pain Science Education-grounded campaigns have been delivered in Australia and the UK and show promise, but robust evaluations are needed before any firm conclusions on their population impact can be made. Several challenges exist going forward. Not least is the need to ensure all stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of Pain Science Education public messaging campaigns. Furthermore, it is crucial that campaigns are undertaken through a health equity lens, incorporating underrepresented communities to ensure that any intervention does not widen existing health inequalities associated with persistent pain