Family history tools for primary care are not ready yet to be implemented. A systematic review

Background : Taking the family history helps the doctor in estimating the probability of disease in individual patients. However, significant barriers to obtaining adequate family history information remain. Tools overcoming these barriers might support family physicians in this task.Objective : To review systematically the characteristics of existing family history tools and discuss their potential use in primary care.Methods : Studies were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase and Cinahl from 1 January 2002 until May 2012. All authors independently screened studies and included original research papers on family history tools of which assessment had been performed or was planned. We reviewed diseases for which family history information was collected, study setting, tool design, type of family history collection, presence of risk-assessment and recommendations for management, and assessment (categorized as either validity or benefit).Results : Eighteen family history tools were identified: six generic, two on cardiovascular disease and ten on cancer. The six generic tools were partly tested in primary care (3x), are mainly computerized (4x), rarely include management recommendations for the physician (1x) and were partly validated against a reference standard (genetic counsellor) (3x, plus one planned). Of the five specific tools studied in primary care, none was validated. No family history tool allows electronic transfer of family history information to electronic medical record systems. Use of a family history tool improved identification of patients at risk for disease.Conclusion : Several promising family history tools for primary care have been developed but large-scale implementation cannot be advised yet, based on available validation studies.</p

Pain-related fear at the start of a new low back pain episode.

Previous research supports the fear-avoidance model in explaining chronic low back pain (LBP) disability. The aims of the present study were to determine: (1) whether fear-avoidance model variables are associated already during acute stages of LBP and (2) whether (increases in) pain-related fear are associated with other patient characteristics routinely assessed by the General Practitioner (GP). General practice patients consulting because of a new episode of LBP completed questionnaires on pain-related fear, avoidance, pain and disability. A sample of 247 acute LBP patients (median duration of current episode was 5 days) was collected. Significant associations were found between pain intensity, pain-related fear, avoidance behaviour and disability, but correlations were generally modest. A strong association was found between pain and disability. Pain-related fear was slightly higher in patients reporting low job satisfaction and in those taking bedrest. These results suggest that the fear-avoidance model as it was developed and tested in chronic LBP, might not entirely apply to acute LBP patients. Future research should focus on the transition from acute to chronic LBP and the shifts that take place between fear-avoidance model associations

A new episode of low back pain: Who relies on bed rest?

Bed rest has been shown to be an ineffective treatment for non-specific low back pain (LBP). Despite this, during a new episode of pain some patients still rely on bed rest. Which patients choose bed rest is however unknown. The objectives of the present study were, firstly, to assess characteristics of patients choosing bed rest in (sub)acute pain and secondly to study whether prolonged bed rest in the (sub)acute phase of pain will result in long term disability. A prospective longitudinal cohort study included 282 patients with non-specific LBP for less than 7 weeks. Main outcome measures were duration of bed rest (in three categories) and disability. Results showed that 33% of patients with (sub)acute LBP had bed rest, but only 8% stayed in bed for more than four days. An ordinal regression analysis revealed that behavioural factors (catastrophizing (OR = 1.05 per bed rest category p <0.01)) and fear of injury (OR = 1.05 per category p <0.01) rather than specific pain related factors (pain history (OR = 0.61 per category p = 0.16) and pain intensity (OR = 1.00 per category p = 0.63)) were associated with bed rest. Patients with prolonged bed rest in an early phase of pain were still more disabled after one year (p <0.01). Based on these results we conclude that prolonged bed rest in the early phase of pain is associated with a higher long term disability level. In preventing low back disability, GP screening for catastrophizing and fear of injury in LBP patients who had prolonged bed rest merits consideration

A longitudinal study on the predictive validity of the fear-avoidance model in low back pain

Recently, fear-avoidance models have been quite influential in understanding the transition from acute to chronic low back pain (LBP). Not only has pain-related fear been found to be associated with disability and increased pain severity, but also treatment focused at reducing pain-related fear has shown to successfully reduce disability levels. In spite of these developments, there is still a lack in well-designed prospective studies examining the role of pain-related fear in acute back pain. The aim of the current study was to prospectively test the assumption that pain-related fear in acute stages successfully predicts future disability. Subjects were primary care acute LBP patients consulting because of a new episode of LBP