Search

Purpose An online randomised experiment found that the labels lumbar sprain, non-specific low back pain (LBP), and episode of back pain reduced perceived need for imaging, surgery and second opinions compared to disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis among 1447 participants with and without LBP. They also reduced perceived seriousness of LBP and increased recovery expectations. Methods In this study we report the results of a content analysis of free-text data collected in our experiment. We used two questions: 1. When you hear the term [one of the six labels], what words or feelings does this make you think of? and 2. What treatment (s) (if any) do you think a person with [one of the six labels] needs? Two independent reviewers analysed 2546 responses. Results Ten themes emerged for Question1. Poor prognosis emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis, while good prognosis emerged for lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Thoughts of tissue damage were less common for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Feelings of uncertainty frequently emerged for non-specific LBP. Twenty-eight treatments emerged for Question2. Surgery emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis compared to lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Surgery did not emerge for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Conclusion Our results suggest that clinicians should consider avoiding the labels disc bulge, degeneration and arthritis and opt for labels that are associated with positive beliefs and less preference for surgery, when communicating with patients with LBP.

What are the effects of diagnostic labels and advice, and interactions between labels and advice, on perceived need for shoulder surgery for rotator cuff disease?2×2 factorial online randomised experiment.People with shoulder pain.Participants read a scenario describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice, and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation stressed that treatment is needed for recovery.Perceived need for surgery (primary outcome), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist; and perceived seriousness of the condition, recovery expectations, impact on work performance and need to avoid work.A total of 2,024 responses (99.8% of 2,028 randomised) were analysed. Labelling as bursitis (versus rotator cuff tear) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -0.5 on a 0-to-10 scale, 98.3% CI -0.7 to -0.2), imaging and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and need to avoid work. Guideline-based advice (versus treatment recommendation) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -1.0, 98.3% CI -1.3 to -0.7), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and recovery expectations. There was little to no evidence of an advice label interaction for any outcome.Labels and advice influenced perceived need for surgery and other secondary outcomes in people with rotator cuff disease, with larger effects for advice. There was evidence of little or no interaction between labels and advice for any outcome, but the additive effect of labels and advice appeared large for some outcomes (eg, perceived need for imaging and perceived seriousness of the condition).ACTRN12621001370897.

Background Patients presenting to Emergency Department (ED) with non-specific low back pain can receive more unnecessary, intensive and costly care than is recommended. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an unprecedented opportunity to examine how health systems prioritise necessary care that provides clear benefits to patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on care of low back pain in the ED. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data on care for low back pain from three public hospitals in Sydney. We included patients diagnosed with spinal conditions who presented between March and May in 2019 and in 2020. Outcomes were the total number of patients presenting with spinal conditions to ED, the proportion diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, and the proportion receiving potentially unnecessary aspects of care (ambulance use, imaging, opioids, hospital admissions). We calculated relative risk with 95% CIs and examined plots with locally weighted smoothed curves. Results Presentations for spinal conditions over a three-month period to three EDs reduced from 694 in 2019 to 475 in 2020 (31% reduction, 95% CI = 26%–37%). The proportion of patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (83% in 2019 vs 86% in 2020), or receiving potentially unnecessary care were similar in 2019 and 2020 (Imaging = 25% vs 25%; Opioids = 54% vs 56%; Admitted = 18% vs 20%; pathology test = 24% vs 23%). The proportion of patients arriving by ambulance was higher during the pandemic; 29% in 2019 vs 41% in 2020 (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.19–1.63). Conclusions ED presentations for low back pain associated with spinal conditions decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of potentially unnecessary aspects of care did not change or increased during the pandemic.

Refereed/Peer-reviewed A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and mal-adaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial’s active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. Perspective: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The first-line treatment consistently recommended for people with low back pain is patient education and advice. Regardless of the duration of low back pain, clinicians should provide education on the benign nature of low back pain, reassurance about the absence of a serious medical condition, and advice to remain active. There is little guidance on how best to provide this care. OBJECTIVE: This Masterclass will draw on recent evidence to explore how physical therapy clinicians could deliver person-centred education and advice to people with low back pain to refine their clinical consultation. DISCUSSION: First, we highlight the potential value of providing validation to acknowledge the distressing experience and consequences of low back pain. Second, we describe a tool to open channels of communication to provide education and advice in a patient-centred and efficient way. Clinicians could consider using the Attitude toward Education and advice for Low back pain Questionnaire to gain an insight into patient attitudes toward education and advice at the outset of a clinical encounter. Finally, we provide options for tailoring patient education and advice to promote self-management of low back pain based on patient attitudes. We present evidence that a positive attitude toward messages about causes rather than messages about physical activity predicts intention to self-manage low back pain. We combine this evidence to suggest a pathway for clinicians to provide education and advice to people with low back pain within the time constraints of a clinical consultation.

The increasing number of gabapentinoid (pregabalin and gabapentin) harms, including deaths observed across countries is concerning to health-care professionals and policy makers. However, it is unclear if the public shares these concerns. This study aimed to describe posts related to gabapentinoids, conduct a content analysis to identify common themes and describe adverse events or symptoms.Keywords of 'pregabalin' or 'Lyrica' or 'gabapentin' or 'Neurontin' were used to search for related tweets posted by people in the community between 8 March and 7 May 2021. Eligible tweets included a keyword in the post. We extracted de-identified data which included descriptive data of the total number of posts over time; and data on individual tweets including date, number of re-tweets and post content. Data were exported separately for pregabalin- and gabapentin-related tweets. A 20% random sample was used for the thematic analysis.There were 2931 pregabalin-related tweets and 2736 gabapentin-related tweets. Thematic analysis revealed three themes (sharing positive experiences and benefits of taking gabapentinoids, people voicing their negative experiences, and people seeking opinions and sharing information). Positive experiences of gabapentinoids were related to sharing stories and giving advice. This was contrasted to negative experiences including ineffectiveness, withdrawals, side effects and frustration related to cost and insurance coverage. Brain fog was the most common adverse symptom reported. Gabapentinoid-related deaths were only mentioned in three tweets.The increasing public health concern of gabapentinoid-related deaths was not translated to Twitter discussions.

Refereed/Peer-reviewed Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a distressing and disabling pain condition. Many people with CRPS and the health professionals who treat them seek information about the condition via the Internet. The credibility, accuracy and comprehensiveness of online CRPS information remains unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the credibility, accuracy and comprehensiveness of information presented on freely accessible websites that aim to educate people about CRPS. Keyword searches were conducted on the Australian Google site, with 'trustworthy' websites included and critically appraised. Primary outcomes were recognised metrics of credibility (JAMA benchmark credibility criteria) and website accuracy (according to European CRPS guidelines). Comprehensiveness was assessed using the proportion of European CRPS guidelines covered by the websites. In all, 30 websites with 819 recommendations were critically appraised. Five (17%) websites met all credibility criteria; of the recommendations, 349 (43%) were accurate, 252 (31%) were inaccurate and 218 (26%) were unclear. For comprehensiveness, an average of 17% of general guidelines, 15% of therapeutic guidelines and 6% of medication/supplement guidelines were covered. Online information about CRPS available to Australians has low credibility, accuracy and comprehensiveness. Many website recommendations are inaccurate or unclear, and many websites endorse inappropriate treatments. There is an urgent need for accurate and comprehensive sources of CRPS information online.

This observational study evaluated people's attitudes towards educational statements and tested whether this predicted intention to self-manage low back pain (LBP).People with or without LBP who were over 18-years of age and fluent in written English were recruited. Participants completed an online survey asking demographic questions and questions on the presence or absence of LBP, its duration and intensity. We assessed attitude toward educational statements and conducted linear regression analyses to investigate the relationship between attitude toward each statement and intention to self-manage.We recruited 656 participants, n=345(53.6%), with LBP of varying duration. On average, participants had a positive attitude toward all statements except one; participants with chronic LBP had a negative attitude toward a statement relating to the cause of LBP. The effect of attitude on intention to self-manage was dependent on whether someone had LBP and for how long. For example, increased intention to self-manage was predicted by a positive attitude toward educational statements related to staying active [β= 0.22 (CI 0.11 to 0.33] in participants without pain, statements about reassurance [β=0.33 (CI 0.16 to 0.49] for participants with acute or subacute LBP, and statements about the severity of back pain [β= 0.25 (CI 0.18 to 0.33] for participants with chronic LBP.We noted differences in attitude toward educational messages and individuals' intention to self-manage LBP depending on pain duration. Self-management could be encouraged with specific reassurance in people with acute or subacute LBP and education about severity in people with chronic LBP.

IMPORTANCE: Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation. RESULTS: A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, −2.66 [95% CI, −3.24 to −2.07]; P

Question Does feeling reassured after a consultation reduce future disability or healthcare use in people with acute low back pain (LBP)? Design Mediation analysis of a randomised, sham-controlled trial. Participants Two hundred and two people with acute LBP at above average risk (high risk) of developing chronic LBP. Intervention All participants received guideline-based care from their usual clinician. Participants received two additional 1-hour sessions of patient education focused on emphasising the benign nature of LBP or sham patient education that included active listening only. Outcome measures The two primary outcomes for this study were self-reported disability and healthcare use. The mediator was feeling reassured that LBP was not caused by serious illness. Results Data from 194 (96%) participants and 178 (88%) participants were included in the analysis for disability and healthcare use outcome models, respectively. Feeling reassured did not mediate the effect of the intervention on disability (indirect effect −0.23, 95% CI −0.71 to 0.18) or healthcare use (indirect effect 0.00, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.04). Patient education intervention increased feeling reassured (1.14 points, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.85) compared with sham patient education. However, the mediator (ie, feeling reassured) did not reduce disability (−0.20 points, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.19) or healthcare use (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.21). Conclusion Feeling reassured after a consultation did not lead to improvements in disability and healthcare use for people with acute LBP. Clinicians should reflect on the time that they allocate to reassuring their patients and consider reallocating time to other aspects of the consultation that could reduce disability and future healthcare use. Trial registration ACTRN12612001180808, study protocol https://osf.io/4tfaz/ .

IntroductionSocial media provide promising contemporary platforms for sharing public health information with a broad audience. Before implementation, testing social media campaigns that are intended to engage audiences and initiate behaviour change is necessary. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of a public health campaign to increase people’s confidence in becoming more active despite low back pain in comparison with no intervention.Methods and analysisThis is an online randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups and one control group in a 1:1:1 allocation. People over 18 years of age and fluent in English will be recruited via social media advertising. We developed a social media-based public health campaign to support recommendations for managing low back pain. The interventions are two videos. Participants in the control group will be asked questions about low back pain but will not view either video intervention. The primary outcome will be item 10 of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, which asks participants to rate how confident they would feel to gradually become more active despite pain ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to 6 (completely confident). This outcome will be measured immediately in all participant groups. We will compare group mean of the three arms of the trial using univariate analyses of variance.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We obtained ethical approval from our institutions Human Research Ethics Committee before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000466741).

Recognition of excessive waste and harm in health systems has prompted efforts to reduce low-value care, which has been defined as ‘use of an intervention where evidence suggests it confers no or very little benefit on patients, or risk of harm exceeds likely benefit, or, more broadly, the added costs of the intervention do not provide proportional added benefits’.1 The development and distribution of patient decision aids (and the related practice of shared decision-making) has been advocated as a promising strategy for reducing low-value care. However, this idea has not been scrutinised in the scientific literature nor hypothesised mechanisms of effect fully elucidated. To address this, we offer an analysis of observed and possible effects of patient decision aids that aim to reduce low-value care, conclude that there is not yet compelling evidence that patient decision aids will reduce low-value care and make recommendations that may mitigate potential unintended consequences. Patient decision aids are ‘evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options’.2 3 They can be implemented in a host of different ways and may be designed for self-directed use by patients outside of the healthcare visit or for use by the patient–clinician dyad during the visit.4 According to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration, decision aids should provide detailed information on the positive and negative features of options and assist patients to clarify the personal value of each of these features.5 By definition, and unlike many other patient-directed interventions, decision aids were not intended to encourage or discourage a particular option but rather to facilitate a choice based on a patient’s individual values and goals.6 In keeping with this, demonstrating the effectiveness of a decision aid requires showing that it improves both (1) the quality of the …

Background Community awareness of the harms of overdiagnosis remains low. Objective To evaluate community responses to a public health campaign designed for health service waiting rooms that focuses on the harms of unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Methods We conducted two focus groups of 19 community members with or without low back pain in Sydney, Australia. This study formed the fourth and final stage of the development process of a public health campaign: (a) initial design, (b) expert review and revision, (c) online experiment and (d) community views & revision. We evaluated reactions to components of the campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of overdiagnosis. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to identify main themes. Results Community members reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about overdiagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of overdiagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging. Conclusions Public health campaigns including posters and leaflets displayed in waiting rooms could raise awareness about overuse of diagnostic imaging and the harms of overdiagnosis more broadly. However, negative reactions are possible and must be managed carefully. Patient or public contribution We involved a community participation manager who provided advice on the focus group discussion guide, participant recruitment and manuscript presentation.

ObjectivesTo explore how people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease in terms of words/feelings evoked by the advice and treatment needs.SettingWe performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.Participants2028 people with shoulder pain read a vignette describing someone with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to:bursitis labelplusguideline-based advice, bursitis labelplustreatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear labelplusguideline-based adviceandrotator cuff tear labelplustreatment recommendation. Guideline-based adviceincluded encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information.Treatment recommendationemphasised that treatment is needed for recovery.Primary and secondary outcomesParticipants answered questions about: (1) words/feelings evoked by the advice; (2) treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers developed coding frameworks to analyse responses.Results1981 (97% of 2039 randomised) responses for each question were analysed.Guideline-based advice(vstreatment recommendation) more often elicited words/feelings of reassurance, having a minor issue, trust in expertise and feeling dismissed, and treatment needs of rest, activity modification, medication, wait and see, exercise and normal movements.Treatment recommendation(vsguideline-based advice) more often elicited words/feelings of needing treatment/investigation, psychological distress and having a serious issue, and treatment needs of injections, surgery, investigations, and to see a doctor.ConclusionsWords/feelings evoked by advice for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain whyguideline-based advicereduces perceived need for unnecessary care compared to atreatment recommendation.

Overcoming overuse in musculoskeletal health care requires an understanding of its drivers. In this, the third article in a series on "Overcoming Overuse" of musculoskeletal health care, we consider the drivers of overuse under 4 domains: (1) the culture of health care consumption, (2) patient factors and experiences, (3) clinician factors and experiences, and (4) practice environment. These domains are interrelated, interact, and influence the clinician-patient interaction. We map drivers to potential solutions to overcome overuse.

Background Diagnostic labels may influence treatment intentions. We examined the effect of labelling low back pain (LBP) on beliefs about imaging, surgery, second opinion,seriousness, recovery, work, and physical activities. Methods Six-arm online randomized experiment with blinded participants with and without LBP. Participants received one of six labels:‘disc bulge’,‘degeneration’,‘arthritis’,‘lumbar sprain’,‘non-specific LBP’,‘episode of back pain’. The primary outcome was the belief about the need for imaging. Results A total of 1375 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.7 years [18.4 years]; 748 women [54.4%]) were included. The need for imaging was rated lower with the labels‘episode of back pain’(4.2 [2.9]),‘lumbar sprain’(4.2 [2.9]) and‘non-specific LBP’(4.4 [3.0]) compared to the labels‘arthritis’(6.0 [2.9]),‘degeneration’(5.7 [3.2]) and‘disc bulge’(5.7 [3.1]). The same labels led to higher recovery expectations and lower ratings of need for a second opinion, surgery and perceived seriousness compared to‘disc bulge’,‘degeneration’and‘arthritis’. Differences were larger amongst participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care. No differences were found in beliefs about physical activity and work between the six labels. Conclusions ‘Episode of back pain’,‘lumbar sprain’and‘non-specific LBP’reduced need for imaging, surgery and second opinion compared to‘arthritis’,‘degeneration’and‘disc bulge’amongst public and patients with LBP as well as reducing the perceived seriousness of LBP and enhancing recovery expectations. The impact of labels appears most relevant amongst those at risk of poor outcomes (participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care).

We aimed to determine, in those who present to the ED with low back pain (LBP): (i) the prevalence of four key diagnostic categories, (ii) trends in lumbar imaging from 2015 to 2019 and (iii) the effect of a new model of care on lumbar imaging in the ED.We conducted a retrospective analysis of routinely collected medical data of four tertiary hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We analysed ED presentations for LBP between January 2012 and October 2019. Outcomes were the prevalence of four key diagnostic categories of LBP and use of lumbar imaging. We examined trends in lumbar imaging over time and used interrupted time series analysis to determine the impact of model of care implementation on imaging use.There were 31 168 presentations for LBP of which 64.5% were non-specific LBP, 27.2% were problems beyond the spine, 5.3% were LBP with neurological signs and 2.3% were serious spinal conditions. 28.9% received lumbar imaging; use did not change substantially between 2012 and 2019. Patients diagnosed with serious spinal conditions were more likely to receive imaging (59%) than those diagnosed with non-specific LBP (29%). Implementation of a state-wide model of care in November 2016 did not appear to influence imaging use.Most presentations to the ED for LBP are for non-specific LBP. Around 2% will have specific spinal pathology. Use of imaging in those diagnosed with non-specific LBP remains high and was unaffected by implementation of a state-wide model of care.

To compare and contrast the diagnostic codes for spinal causes of low back pain (LBP) in 3 disease classification systems (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10, International Classification of Primary Care [ICPC]-2 PLUS and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms - Australia [SNOMED CT-AU]) and consider how well they are aligned with the diagnostic approach recommended in contemporary clinical practice guidelines for LBP.This was a descriptive study which included 3 disease classification systems: ICD-10, ICPC-2 PLUS and SNOMED CT-AU. Two independent authors extracted relevant LBP codes from each system and mapped the codes to 3 guideline-endorsed categories of spine-related diagnoses for LBP (specific spinal pathology, radicular syndromes, and non-specific LBP) and the various clinical conditions (sub-categories) within each of the 3 categories.ICD-10, ICPC-2 PLUS, and SNOMED CT-AU had 126, 118 and 100 codes for LBP, respectively. All systems provided codes that would cover the 3 guideline-endorsed categories of spine-related diagnoses for LBP. On the basis of contemporary guidelines, the authors developed lists of discrete sub-categories of specific spinal pathology (56 sub-categories), radicular syndromes (7 sub-categories), and non-specific LBP (10 sub-categories). Each of the classification systems was then mapped against these sub-categories to tally redundancy and determine exhaustiveness. However, no system covered all 73 sub-categories of LBP, and within each system, there was substantial redundancy with up to 22 codes for the same clinical condition.LBP diagnostic codes used in popular disease classification systems are out of touch with current approaches to diagnosis, as reflected in contemporary LBP guidelines. Our findings suggest these disease classification systems need revision, but precisely how they should be revised is unclear.

Objective To evaluate the knowledge, skills and barriers to evidence-based practice and the impact of evidence-based practice training for physical therapy clinicians. Methods Physical therapists from a health district in Sydney, Australia were invited to participate. The primary outcome was the Assessing Competency in Evidence-based Medicine scale (range 0-15; 15 is high knowledge and skill) to quantify knowledge and skills. The secondary outcomes were the four subscales of the BARRIERS scale (range 1-4; 4 is high barrier) to quantify barriers. Outcomes were collected at baseline and post an evidence-based practice training program (flipped classroom approach that addressed the core competencies for teaching evidence-based practice) of 3 months duration. Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Register (ACTRN12619000038190). Results 104 participants completed baseline data and 94 completed post-training data. The mean score for the Assessing Competency in Evidence-based Medicine scale for knowledge and skills at baseline was 9.5 (standard deviation 1.6). The mean BARRIERS subscale scores at baseline were: Healthcare Provider 1.9 (0.5); Research 2.2 (0.5); Setting 2.6 (0.5); and Presentation 2.6 (0.5). On average, training increased the Assessing Competency in Evidence-based Medicine scale score by 0.1 points (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 0.5) and reduced barriers by -0.1 (-0.2 to 0.0; Setting subscale) to -0.2 (-0.3 to -0.1; Healthcare Provider subscale). Conclusions Physical therapists have knowledge and skill in evidence-based practice that is comparable to other allied health professionals, medical students and medical doctors, and encountered barriers to using high-quality clinical research to guide practice. Training did not change knowledge and skills but did reduce barriers.

Refereed/Peer-reviewed Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is pain that has persisted for greater than three months. It is common and burdensome and represents a significant proportion of primary health presentations. For the majority of people with CLBP, a specific nociceptive contributor cannot be reliably identified, and the pain is categorised as 'non-specific'. Exercise therapy is recommended by international clinical guidelines as a first-line treatment for non-specific CLBP. Aim: This comprehensive review aims to synthesise and appraise the current research to provide practical, evidence-based guidance concerning exercise prescription for non-specific CLBP. We discuss detailed initial assessment and being informed by patient preferences, values, expectations, competencies and goals. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) using broad search terms from January 2000 to March 2021, to identify the most recent clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on exercise for CLBP. Results/Discussion: Systematic reviews show exercise is effective for small, short-term reductions in pain and disability, when compared with placebo, usual care, or waiting list control, and serious adverse events are rare. A range of individualised or group-based exercise modalities have been demonstrated as effective in reducing pain and disability. Despite this consensus, controversies and significant challenges remain. Conclusion: To promote recovery, sustainable outcomes and self-management, exercise can be coupled with education strategies, as well as interventions that enhance adherence, motivation and patient self-efficacy. Clinicians might benefit from intentionally considering their own knowledge and competencies, potential harms of exercise and costs to the patient. This comprehensive review provides evidence-based practical guidance to health professionals who prescribe exercise for people with non-specific CLBP.

Background Few studies have investigated the effects of waiting room communication strategies on health-care behavior. Objective We aimed to determine the effect of a waiting room communication strategy, designed to raise awareness of potential harms of unnecessary imaging, on lumbar imaging rates in the emergency department (ED). Methods We conducted a controlled experimental study with a replicated time series design. The design included a 6-week run-in time. Following this there were alternating 1-week intervention and control periods. The intervention group received a communication strategy describing the potential harms of unnecessary imaging for low back pain, shown on a 55” LCD screen positioned in the ED waiting room. The communication strategy was designed by a creative innovation agency and included five digital posters and a patient leaflet. The control group received standard messaging for the waiting room at the time, shown on the same 55” LCD screen, and access to the patient leaflet. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of people presenting to ED with low back pain who received at least one lumbar imaging test, measured using routinely collected ED data. Secondary patient-reported outcomes (patient satisfaction and awareness of campaign messages) were collected from a sample of people presenting for any condition who responded to a text-message-based survey. Results For the imaging outcome, 337 people presenting to ED with low back pain were included over a 4-month period (intervention n = 99; control n = 238). All had available data on lumbar imaging. Use of lumbar imaging was 25% in those exposed to the communication strategy [95% confidence interval (CI) = 18% to 35%] compared with 29% in those exposed to the standard waiting room messaging [95% CI = 23% to 35%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.41]. For the patient-reported outcomes, 349 patients presenting to ED for any condition responded to the survey (intervention n = 170; control n = 179; response rate = 33%). There was uncertain evidence that the intervention increased awareness of the communication strategy leaflet (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 0.90 to 4.47). Other measures did not suggest between-group differences in patient satisfaction or awareness of the campaign messages. Conclusion A communication strategy displayed in the ED waiting room may slightly reduce the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive lumbar imaging, although there is uncertainty due to imprecision. The campaign did not appear to increase awareness of campaign messages or affect patient satisfaction in a sample of patients presenting to the ED for any reason. Larger studies should investigate whether simple, low-cost waiting room communication strategies can raise awareness of unnecessary healthcare and influence health-care quality. Trial registration ACTRN12620000300976, 05/03/2020

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.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of spinal cord stimulators for people with low back pain, with or without leg pain.

Patient decision aids are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. Research shows that patient decision aids increase knowledge, accuracy of risk perceptions, alignment of care with patient values and preferences, and patient involvement in decision making. Some patient decision aids can reduce the use of invasive and potentially low-value procedures. On this basis, clinical practice guidelines and international organisations have begun to recommend the use of patient decision aids and shared decision making as a strategy to reduce medical overuse. Although patient decision aids hold promise for improving healthcare, there are fundamental issues with patient decision aids that need to be addressed before further progress can be made. The problems with patient decision aids are: (1) Guidelines for developing patient decision aids may not be sufficient to ensure developers select the best available evidence and present it appropriately; (2) Biased presentation of low-certainty evidence is common and (3) Biased presentation of low-certainty evidence is misleading, and could inadvertently support, low-value care. We explore these issues in the article and present a case study of online patient decision aids for musculoskeletal pain. We suggest ways to ensure patient decision aids help patients understand the evidence and, where possible, support high-quality care.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTObjectiveTo better understand the characteristics of, and requirements for, lay summaries by reviewing journals, global health organisations, professional medical associations and multi-disciplinary organisations, consumer advocacy groups and funding bodies.DesignUsing a scoping review methodology, we searched the websites of each identified data source to determine if they require, suggest, or refer to lay summaries. Two reviewers extracted lay summary writing instructions from eligible data sources from Australia, USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand. Data sources were linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases.Main Outcome MeasuresUsing an inductive approach, we identified characteristics of lay summaries and lay summary writing instructions and extracted data on these characteristics. These characteristics are lay summary formats, audience, requirements, authorship and labels, and elements of lay summary writing instructions (e.g. word count/length). We also noted who was expected to write the lay summaries, whether they were mandatory or optional, and the terms used for to denote them.ResultsThe websites of 526 data sources were searched. Of these, 124 published or mentioned lay summaries and 108 provided writing instructions. For lay summaries, most were in journals, written by the author of the published paper, and only half were mandatory. Thirty-three distinct labels for a lay summary were identified, the most common being “graphical abstract”, “highlights” and “key points”. From the lay summary writing instructions, the most common elements for written lay summaries referred to: structure (86%), content (80%) and word count/length (74%). The least common elements were readability (3%), use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations (24%), and wording (29%). The target audience was unclear in 68 of 108 (63.0%) of lay summary instructions.DiscussionAlthough we identified over 100 sources provided instructions for writing lay summaries, very few provided instructions related to readability, use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations, and wording. Some instructions provided structured formats via subheadings or questions to guide content, but not all. Only half mandated the use of lay summaries.ConclusionFor lay summaries to be effective, writing instructions should consider the intended audience, ideally incorporating consumer input into their development. Presently, lay summaries are likely to be inaccessible to many consumers, written at a high reading level, with jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Ideally, all research articles will have an accompanying lay summary. Mandatory lay summaries, however, are of limited value without clear and thorough instructions to guide authors.Public and patient involvement statementPatients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research study.Protocol and registrationWe conducted a scoping review using methods outlined in the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and information in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual for scoping reviews. A protocol for this study was completed prior to data analysis and is on Open Science Framework.

This is the first article in a series on “Overcoming Overuse” in musculoskeletal health care.Overuseis the use of services that are unlikely to improve patient outcomes, result in more harm than benefit, and would not be desired by an informed patient. The Overcoming Overuse series explores the myriad ways diagnostic tests and treatments are overused in musculoskeletal health care, and proposes ways to ensure patients receive appropriate care. We focus on strategies to promote guideline-concordant care in rehabilitation practice and strategies to overcome overuse.

Lumbar spine fusion is a common procedure associated with a high cost burden and risk of serious complications. We aimed to summarise systematic reviews on the effectiveness of lumbar spine fusion for most diagnoses. We found no high-quality systematic reviews and the risk of bias of the randomised controlled trials in the reviews was generally high. The available evidence does not support a benefit from spine fusion compared to non-operative alternatives for back pain associated with degeneration. The available evidence does not support a clinical benefit from spine fusion compared to non-operative treatment or stabilisation without fusion for thoracolumbar burst fractures. Benefits of spine fusion compared to non-operative treatment for isthmic spondylolisthesis are unclear (one trial at high risk of bias). Surgical intervention for metastatic carcinoma of the spine associated with spinal cord compromise improves mobility and neurological outcome (based on a single trial). Better evidence is required to determine more accurately the effectiveness of spine fusion surgery for all indications. Patients contemplating spinal fusion should be fully informed about the evidence base for their particular problem, including the relative potential benefits and harms of fusion compared with non-operative treatments.

Introduction There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0–100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. Results We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0–100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0–100 scale). Conclusion Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

An online randomised experiment found that the labels lumbar sprain, non-specific low back pain (LBP), and episode of back pain reduced perceived need for imaging, surgery and second opinions compared to disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis among 1447 participants with and without LBP. They also reduced perceived seriousness of LBP and increased recovery expectations.In this study we report the results of a content analysis of free-text data collected in our experiment. We used two questions: 1. When you hear the term [one of the six labels], what words or feelings does this make you think of? and 2. What treatment (s) (if any) do you think a person with [one of the six labels] needs? Two independent reviewers analysed 2546 responses.Ten themes emerged for Question1. Poor prognosis emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis, while good prognosis emerged for lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Thoughts of tissue damage were less common for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Feelings of uncertainty frequently emerged for non-specific LBP. Twenty-eight treatments emerged for Question2. Surgery emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis compared to lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Surgery did not emerge for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain.Our results suggest that clinicians should consider avoiding the labels disc bulge, degeneration and arthritis and opt for labels that are associated with positive beliefs and less preference for surgery, when communicating with patients with LBP.

Background Imaging for low back pain is widely regarded as a target for efforts to reduce low-value care. Objective We aimed to estimate the prevalence of the overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging in patients presenting with low back pain to the emergency department (ED). Methods This was a retrospective chart review study of five public hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia, in 2019–20. We reviewed the clinical charts of consecutive adult patients who presented with a complaint of low back pain and extracted clinical features relevant to a decision to request lumbar imaging. We estimated the proportion of encounters where a decision to request lumbar imaging was inappropriate (overuse) or where a clinician did not request an appropriate and informative lumbar imaging test when indicated (underuse). Results Six hundred and forty-nine patients presented with a complaint of low back pain, of which 158 (24.3%) were referred for imaging. Seventy-nine (12.2%) had a combination of features suggesting that lumbar imaging was indicated according to clinical guidelines. The prevalence of overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging was 8.8% (57 of 649 cases, 95% CI 6.8–11.2%) and 4.3% (28 of 649 cases, 95% CI 3.0–6.1%), respectively. Thirteen cases were classified as underuse because the patients were referred for uninformative imaging modalities (e.g. referred for radiography for suspected cauda equina syndrome). Conclusion In this study of emergency care, there was evidence of not only overuse of lumbar imaging but also underuse through failure to request lumbar imaging when indicated or referral for an uninformative imaging modality. These three issues seem more important targets for quality improvement than solely focusing on overuse.

Patient education is recommended as first-line care for low back pain (LBP), although its efficacy for providing clinically meaningful reductions in disability has been questioned. One way to improve treatment effects is to identify and improve targeting of treatment mechanisms. We conducted a pre-planned causal mediation analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of patient education for patients with acute LBP. 202 patients who had fewer than six-weeks’ duration of LBP and were at high-risk of developing chronic LBP completed two, one-hour treatment sessions of either intensive patient education, or placebo patient education. 189 participants provided data for the outcome self-reported disability at three-months and the mediators, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, and back beliefs at one-week post treatment. This causal mediation analysis found that pain catastrophizing (mediated effect, -0.64; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -1.31 to -0.15) and back beliefs (mediated effect, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.02) partly explained the effect of patient education on disability but pain self-efficacy did not (mediated effect, -0.40; 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28). Considering the mediator-outcome relationship, patient education would need to induce an 8 point difference on the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (0-60); an 11 point difference on the back beliefs questionnaire (9-45); and a 21 point difference on the pain catastrophizing scale (0-52) to achieve a minimally clinically important difference of 2 points on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24). PERSPECTIVE Understanding the mechanisms of patient education can inform how this treatment can be adapted to provide clinically meaningful reductions in disability. Our findings suggest that adapting patient education to better target back beliefs and pain self-efficacy could result in clinically meaningful reductions in disability whereas the role of pain catastrophizing in acute LBP is less clear.

Objective Low back pain is the leading contributor to the global disability burden. The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) recommend patient-centred care to stem the cost of low back pain. One way to enhance patient-centred care is by better understanding what is relevant for people with low back pain. Exploring social media posts about low back pain could offer this insight and provide valuable information for health care professionals to facilitate active participation in patient-centred care. Methods We used an inductive content analysis method. In the form of social media posts, data on Twitter and Instagram were collected from June to August 2018. The posts were geo-targeted to Australia. We recorded the number of status broadcasts that contained a low back pain keyword and responses. We developed a codebook to describe the data and applied it to identify low back pain themes. Results We analysed 768 posts containing 457 status broadcasts and 311 responses. Almost half (49%) of status broadcasts about low back pain seemed to seek validation. Expressing sympathy (31%) was the most common response to a status broadcast about low back pain. There were no public responses to 76% of status broadcasts about low back pain. Our analysis yielded two core themes, “hear my pain” and “I feel for you". Conclusions Posts about low back pain on social media often seem to suggest that the person posting is seeking validation. Responses typically express sympathy or a shared experience; yet, there is no response to most social media posts about low back pain.

The challenge of overuse raises important questions for those in the business of musculoskeletal health care. What is the right number of physical therapy visits for a given condition? Can a practice provide "less" but still be profitable? In this, the editorial on overcoming overuse of musculoskeletal health care, we consider the economic drivers of overuse in the private sector. We propose actions that could support small business leaders to overcome overuse and build profitable, high-quality services.

ObjectiveDelayed prescribing is a promising strategy to manage patient requests for unnecessary tests and treatments. The purpose of this study was to explore general practitioner (GP) and patient views of three communication tools (Overdiagnosis Leaflet, Dialogue Sheet and ‘Wait-and-see’ Note) to support delayed prescribing of diagnostic imaging.DesignQualitative study.SettingPrimary and emergency care in Sydney, Australia.Participants16 GPs and 14 patients with recent episode of low back pain.OutcomeViews on the tools to delay diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Data were collected using a combination of focus groups and individual interviews.AnalysisTwo researchers independently performed a thematic analysis, and the author team reviewed and refined the analysis.ResultsGP participants responded positively to the Overdiagnosis Leaflet. The Dialogue Sheet and ‘Wait-and-see’ Note raised several concerns about patient pushback, adding to time pressure and being overwhelmed with hard-to-find paper resources. GPs preferred to communicate verbally the reasons to delay an imaging test. For patients, the reactions to the tools were more positive. Patients valued written information and a signed agreement to delay the test. However, patients expressed that a strong desire for diagnostic imaging would likely over-ride any effect of written advice to delay the test. The term ‘false alarm’ to describe overdiagnosis was poorly understood by patients.ConclusionsGPs and patients agreed that a leaflet about overdiagnosis could support a delayed prescribing approach to imaging for low back pain. The Dialogue Sheet and ‘Wait-and-see’ Note were acceptable to patients but not to GPs.

ObjectiveOveruse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.DesignA qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method.ResultsWe included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients’ expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence).ConclusionClinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017076047.

BackgroundOveruse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department is a well-recognised healthcare challenge. Studies to date have not provided robust evidence that available interventions can reduce overuse. For an intervention aimed at reducing imaging to be effective, insight into how both patients and clinicians view lumbar imaging tests is essential.AimTo explore factors that might influence overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department.MethodsParticipants were recruited from three hospitals in Sydney, Australia between April and August 2019. We conducted focus groups and/or interviews with 14 patients and 12 clinicians. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using framework analysis by a team of four researchers with diverse backgrounds.ResultsPatients described feeling that the decision about lumbar imaging was made by their Emergency Department clinician and reported little involvement in the decision-making process. Other potential drivers of lumbar imaging overuse from the patients’ perspective were strong expectations for lumbar imaging, a reluctance to delay receiving a diagnosis, and requirements from third parties (eg, insurance companies) to have imaging. Emergency Department clinicians suggested that the absence of an ongoing therapeutic relationship, and the inability to manage perceived patient pressure could drive overuse of lumbar imaging. Suggested protective factors included: involving patients in the decision, ensuring clinicians have the ability to explain the reasons to avoid imaging and collaborative approaches to care both within the Emergency Department and with primary care.Conclusion and key findingsWe found several factors that could contribute to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department. Solutions to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department could include: (1) strategies to involve patients in decisions about imaging; (2) training and support to provide thorough and well explained clinical assessment for low back pain; and (3) systems that support collaborative approaches to care.

Objective To review and assess the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain. Study Design and Setting Systematic review of trials of physical therapy interventions to prevent or treat low back pain (of any duration or type) in participants of any age indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Existing PEDro scale ratings were used to evaluate methodology quality. Results This review identified 2215 trials. The majority of trials were for adults (n=2136, 96.4%), low back pain without specific aetiology (n=1863, 84.1%), and chronic duration (n=947, 42.8%). The quality of trials improved over time, however most were at risk of bias. Less than half of the trials concealed allocation to intervention (n=813, 36.7%), used intention-to-treat principles (n=778, 35.1%), blinded assessors (n=810, 36.6%), participants (n=174, 7.9%) and therapists (n=39, 1.8%). These findings did not vary by type of therapy. Conclusion The majority of trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to simple methodological features, such as allocation concealment and the reporting of intention-to-treat effects, would improve the quality of trials testing physical therapy interventions for low back pain.