Current management of pregnancy-related low back pain: a national cross-sectional survey of UK physiotherapists.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related low back pain (LBP) is very common. Evidence from a systematic review supports the use of exercise and acupuncture, although little is known about the care received by women with pregnancy-related back pain in the UK. OBJECTIVE: To describe current acupuncture and standard care management of pregnancy-related LBP by UK physiotherapists. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of physiotherapists with experience of treating women with pregnancy-related LBP from three professional networks of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. METHODS: In total, 1093 physiotherapists were mailed a questionnaire. The questionnaire captured respondents' demographic and practice setting information, and experience of managing women with pregnancy-related back pain, and investigated the reported management of pregnancy-related LBP using a patient case vignette of a specific, 'typical' case. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 58% (629/1093). Four hundred and ninety-nine physiotherapists had experience of treating women with pregnancy-related LBP and were included in the analysis. Most respondents worked wholly or partly in the UK National Health Service (78%). Most respondents reported that they treat patients with pregnancy-related LBP in three to four one-to-one treatment sessions over 3 to 6 weeks. The results show that a range of management strategies are employed for pregnancy-related LBP, and multimodal management is common. The most common reported treatment was home exercises (94%), and 24% of physiotherapists reported that they would use acupuncture with the patient described in the vignette. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first robust data on the management of pregnancy-related LBP by UK physiotherapists. Multimodal management is common, although exercise is the most frequently used treatment for pregnancy-related LBP. Acupuncture is used less often for this patient group

Neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain patients: What is the evidence of prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis in primary care? A systematic review of the literature.

This systematic review synthesizes literature describing prevalence, characteristics and prognosis of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) patients with neuropathic pain in primary care and/or similar settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and used by independent reviewers to screen citations for eligibility. The initial search yielded 24,948 citations; after screening 12 studies were included. Neuropathic pain was identified by case ascertainment tools (n=5), by clinical history with examination (n=4), and by LBLP samples assumed neuropathic (n=3). Neuropathic pain prevalence varied from 19% to 80%. There was consistent evidence for higher back-related disability (n=3), poorer health-related quality of life (n=2) and some evidence for more severe depression (n=2), anxiety (n=3) and pain intensity (n=4) in patients with neuropathic pain. Results were less consistent when cases were identified through clinical history plus examination than those identified using case ascertainment tools. Prognosis (n=1) of LBLP patients with neuropathic pain was worse compared to those without, in all outcomes (leg pain intensity, leg and back-related disability, self-reported general health) except back pain intensity. No studies described prognostic factors. This systematic review highlights the evidence gap in neuropathic pain in LBLP in primary care, especially with respect to prognosis. PERSPECTIVE: Patients with low back-related leg pain may have neuropathic pain. This systematic review emphasises the paucity of evidence describing the characteristics and prognosis of neuropathic pain in this patient population. Future research investigating prognosis of these patients with neuropathic pain is likely to contribute to better understanding and management

General Practitioners' and patients' perceptions towards stratified care: a theory informed investigation

Background Stratified primary care involves changing General Practitioners’ (GPs) clinical behaviour in treating patients, away from the current stepped care approach to instead identifying early treatment options that are matched to patients’ risk of persistent disabling pain. This article explores the perspectives of UK-based GPs and patients about a prognostic stratified care model being developed for patients with the five most common primary care musculoskeletal pain presentations. The focus was on views about acceptability, and anticipated barriers and facilitators to the use of stratified care in routine practice. Methods Four focus groups and six semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 23), and three focus groups with patients (n = 20). Data were analysed thematically; and identified themes examined in relation to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which facilitates comprehensive identification of behaviour change determinants. A critical approach was taken in using the TDF, examining the nuanced interrelationships between theoretical domains. Results Four key themes were identified: Acceptability of clinical decision-making guided by stratified care; impact on the therapeutic relationship; embedding a prognostic approach within a biomedical model; and practical issues in using stratified care. Whilst within each theme specific findings are reported, common across themes was the identified relationships between the theoretical domains of knowledge, skills, professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and goals. Through analysis of these identified relationships it was found that, for GPs and patients to perceive stratified care as being acceptable, it must be seen to enhance GPs’ knowledge and skills, not undermine GPs’ and patients’ respective identities and be integrated within the environmental context of the consultation with minimal disruption. Conclusions Findings highlight the importance of taking into account the context of general practice when intervening to support GPs to make changes to their clinical behaviour. Findings will inform further stages of the research programme; specifically, the intervention format and content of support packages for GPs participating in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). This study also contributes to the theoretical debate on how best to encourage clinical behaviour change in general practice, and the possible role of the TDF in that process

Item response theory evaluation of the biomedical scale of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale.

OBJECTIVES: The assessment of health care professionals' attitudes and beliefs towards musculoskeletal pain is essential because they are key determinants of their clinical practice behaviour. The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) biomedical scale evaluates the degree of health professionals' biomedical orientation towards musculoskeletal pain and was never assessed using item response theory (IRT). This study aimed at assessing the psychometric performance of the 10-item biomedical scale of the PABS scale using IRT. METHODS: Two cross-sectional samples (BeBack, n = 1016; DABS; n = 958) of health care professionals working in the UK were analysed. Mokken scale analysis (nonparametric IRT) and common factor analysis were used to assess dimensionality of the instrument. Parametric IRT was used to assess model fit, item parameters, and local reliability (measurement precision). RESULTS: Results were largely similar in the two samples and the scale was found to be unidimensional. The graded response model showed adequate fit, covering a broad range of the measured construct in terms of item difficulty. Item 3 showed some misfit but only in the DABS sample. Some items (i.e. 7, 8 and 9) displayed remarkably higher discrimination parameters than others (4, 5 and 10). The scale showed satisfactory measurement precision (reliability > 0.70) between theta values -2 and +3. DISCUSSION: The 10-item biomedical scale of the PABS displayed adequate psychometric performance in two large samples of health care professionals, and it is suggested to assess group-level professionals degree of biomedical orientation towards musculoskeletal pain