Are Pain Intensity and Pain Related Fear Related to Functional Capacity Evaluation Performances of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain?

Introduction: Pain related fear and pain intensity have been identified as factors negatively influencing Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) performances in patients with CLBP. Conflicting results have been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to analyze the relationships between pain intensity and pain-related fear on the one hand, and performances during an FCE on the other hand in two samples of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: Two cross sectional observation studies were performed with two samples of patients with CLBP (study 1: n = 79; study 2: n = 58). Pain related fears were operationally defined as the score on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in study 1, and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) in study 2. Pain intensity was measured with a Numeric Rating Scale in both studies. Avoidance behavior observed during FCE was in both studies operationally defined as the unwillingness to engage in high intensity performance levels of three different functional activities: high intensity lifting, prolonged standing in a forward bend position, and fast repetitive bending at the waist. Results: A total of 25 correlations between pain and pain related fear, and performance variables were calculated, out of which 7 were significant (p < 0.05). The strength of these significant correlations ranged from r = −0.23 to r = −0.50. Multivariate linear regression analyses revealed non-significant relationships in most instances. Pain and pain related fear contributed little if any to these models. Conclusions: The relation between pain and pain related fear and FCE performance is weak or non-existent in patients with CLBP

Seroprevalence of hepatitis B and C viral co-infections among children infected with human immunodeficiency virus attending the paediatric HIV care and treatment center at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>With increased availability of antibiotics and antifungal agents hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections are becoming a cause for significant concern in HIV infected children. We determined the seroprevalence and risk factors for HBV and HCV among HIV infected children aged 18 months to 17 years, attending the Paediatric HIV Care and Treatment Center (CTC) at Muhimbili National Hospital (MNH) in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Investigations included; interviews, physical examination and serology for HBsAg, IgG antibodies to HCV and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. HIV serostatus and CD4 counts were obtained from patient records.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>167 HIV infected children, 88(52.7%) males and 79(47.3%) females were enrolled. The overall prevalence of hepatitis co-infection was 15%, with the seroprevalence of HBV and HCV being 1.2% and 13.8%, respectively. Hepatitis virus co-infection was not associated with any of the investigated risk factors and there was no association between HBV and HCV. Elevated ALT was associated with hepatitis viral co-infection but not with ART usage or immune status.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The high seroprevalence (15%) of hepatitis co-infection in HIV infected children attending the Paediatrics HIV CTC at the MNH calls for routine screening of hepatitis viral co-infection and modification in the management of HIV infected children.</p

An integrated care program to prevent work disability due to chronic low back pain: a process evaluation within a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the past decade, a considerable amount of research has been carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of innovative low back pain (LBP) interventions. Although some interventions proved to be effective, they are not always applied in daily practice. To successfully implement an innovative program it is important to identify barriers and facilitators in order to change practice routine. Because usual care is not directly aimed at return to work (RTW), we evaluated an integrated care program, combining a patient-directed and a workplace-directed intervention provided by a multidisciplinary team, including a clinical occupational physician to reduce occupational disability in chronic LBP patients. The aims of this study were to describe the feasibility of the implementation of the integrated care program, to assess the satisfaction and expectations of the involved stakeholders and to describe the needs for improvement of the program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eligible for this study were patients who had been on sick leave due to chronic LBP. Data were collected from the patients, their supervisors and the involved health care professionals, by means of questionnaires and structured charts, during 3-month follow-up. Implementation, satisfaction and expectations were investigated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 40 patients who were eligible to participate in the integrated care program, 37 patients, their supervisors and the health care professionals actually participated in the intervention. Adherence to the integrated care program was in accordance with the protocol, and the patients, their supervisors and the health care professionals were (very) satisfied with the program. The role of the clinical occupational physician was of additional value in the RTW process. Time-investment was the only barrier for implementation reported by the multidisciplinary team.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The implementation of this program will not be influenced by any flaws in its application that are related to the program itself, or to the adherence of patients with chronic LBP and their health care professionals.</p> <p>This program is promising in terms of feasibility, satisfaction and compliance of the patients, their supervisors and the health care professionals. Before implementation on a wider scale, the communication and the information technology of the program should be improved.</p> <p>Trials Registration</p> <p>[ISRCTN28478651]</p

The clinical features of the piriformis syndrome: a systematic review

Piriformis syndrome, sciatica caused by compression of the sciatic nerve by the piriformis muscle, has been described for over 70 years; yet, it remains controversial. The literature consists mainly of case series and narrative reviews. The objectives of the study were: first, to make the best use of existing evidence to estimate the frequencies of clinical features in patients reported to have PS; second, to identify future research questions. A systematic review was conducted of any study type that reported extractable data relevant to diagnosis. The search included all studies up to 1 March 2008 in four databases: AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Medline. Screening, data extraction and analysis were all performed independently by two reviewers. A total of 55 studies were included: 51 individual and 3 aggregated data studies, and 1 combined study. The most common features found were: buttock pain, external tenderness over the greater sciatic notch, aggravation of the pain through sitting and augmentation of the pain with manoeuvres that increase piriformis muscle tension. Future research could start with comparing the frequencies of these features in sciatica patients with and without disc herniation or spinal stenosis

Motor control or graded activity exercises for chronic low back pain? A randomised controlled trial

Background: Chronic low back pain remains a major health problem in Australia and around the world. Unfortunately the majority of treatments for this condition produce small effects because not all patients respond to each treatment. It appears that only 25-50% of patients respond to exercise. The two most popular types of exercise for low back pain are graded activity and motor control exercises. At present however, there are no guidelines to help clinicians select the best treatment for a patient. As a result, time and money are wasted on treatments which ultimately fail to help the patient

Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?

Copyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied interventions and approaches. Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient. An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention. Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed

Protocol for the Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (CINS) trial: A randomized controlled multicenter trial of a brief intervention (BI) versus a BI plus cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) versus nutritional supplements for patients with long-lasting muscle and back pain

Background: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial, and cost efficient treatments for low back pain, when offered at 8-12 weeks, compared with treatment as usual. However, about 30% of the patients do not return to work. The European Guidelines for treatment of chronic low back pain recommends Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), but conclude that further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CBT for chronic low back pain. Methods/Design: The aim of the multicenter CINS trial (Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements) is to compare the effectiveness of 4 different interventions; Brief Intervention, Brief Intervention and CBT, Brief Intervention and nutritional supplements of seal oil, and Brief Intervention and nutritional supplements of soy oil. All participants will be randomly assigned to the interventions. The nutritional supplements will be tested in a double blind design. 400 patients will be recruited from a population of chronic low back pain patients that have been sick listed for 2-10 months. Four outpatient clinics, located in different parts of Norway, will participate in recruitment and treatment of the patients. The Brief Intervention is a one session cognitive, clinical examination program based on a non-injury model, where return to normal activity and work is the main goal, and is followed by two booster sessions. The CBT is a tailored treatment involving 7 sessions, following a detailed manual. The nutritional supplements consist of a dosage of 10 grams of either soy or seal oil (capsules) per day for 3 months, administered in a double blind design. All patients will be followed up with questionnaires after 3, 6 and 12 months, while sick leave data will be collected up to at least 24 months after randomization. The primary outcome of the study is sick leave and will be based on register data from the National Insurance Administration. Secondary outcomes include self-reported data on disability, pain, and psychological variables. Conclusions: To our knowledge, the CINS trial will be the largest, randomized trial of psychological and nutritional interventions for chronic low back pain patients to date. It will provide important information regarding the effectiveness of CBT and seal oil for chronic low back pain patients

Expectations, perceptions, and physiotherapy predict prolonged sick leave in subacute low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Brief intervention programs for subacute low back pain (LBP) result in significant reduction of sick leave compared to treatment as usual. Although effective, a substantial proportion of the patients do not return to work. This study investigates predictors of return to work in LBP patients participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing a brief intervention program (BI) with BI and physical exercise.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Predictors for not returning to work was examined in 246 patients sick listed 8-12 weeks for low back pain. The patients had participated in a randomized controlled trial, with BI (n = 122) and BI + physical exercise (n = 124). There were no significant differences between the two intervention groups on return to work. The groups were therefore merged in the analyses of predictors. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for non return to work at 3, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At 3 months of follow-up, the strongest predictors for not returning to work were pain intensity while resting (OR = 5.6; CI = 1.7-19), the perception of constant back strain when working (OR = 4.1; CI = 1.5-12), negative expectations for return to work (OR = 4.2; CI = 1.7-10), and having been to a physiotherapist prior to participation in the trial (OR = 3.3; CI = 1.3-8.3). At 12 months, perceived reduced ability to walk far due to the complaints (OR = 2.6; CI = 1.3-5.4), pain during activities (OR = 2.4; CI = 1.1-5.1), and having been to a physiotherapist prior to participation in the trial (OR = 2.1; CI = 1.1-4.3) were the strongest predictors for non return to work. At 24 months age below 41 years (OR = 2.9; CI = 1.4-6.0) was the only significant predictor for non return to work.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It appears that return to work is highly dependant on individual and cognitive factors. Patients not returning to work after the interventions were characterized by negative expectations, perceptions about pain and disability, and previous physiotherapy treatment. This is the first study reporting that previous treatment by physiotherapists is a risk factor for long-term sick leave. This has not been reported before and is an interesting finding that deserves more scrutiny.</p

Influence of an outpatient multidisciplinary pain management program on the health-related quality of life and the physical fitness of chronic pain patients

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10 to 20 percent of the population is suffering from chronic pain. Since this represents a major contribution to the costs of the health care system, more efficient measures and interventions to treat these patients are sought. RESULTS: The development of general health and physical activity of patients with chronic pain was assessed in an interdisciplinary outpatient pain management program (IOPP). 36 patients with an average age of 48 years were included in the IOPP. Subjective assessment of well-being was performed at five time points (baseline, post intervention and 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter) by using standardized questionnaires. The study focused on the quality of life survey Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, which is a validated instrument with established reliability and sensitivity. In addition, the patients participated in physical assessment testing strength, power, endurance, and mobility. Prior to therapy a substantial impairment was found on different levels. Marked improvements in the psychological parameters were obtained by the end of the program. No success was achieved with regard to the physical assessments. CONCLUSION: Although many different studies have evaluated similar programs, only few of them have attained positive results such as improvements of general quality of life or of physical strength. Often no difference from the control group could be detected only some months after the intervention. In the present study no significant persistent improvement of well-being occurred. Possible reasons are either wrong instruments, wrong selection of patients or wrong interventions