Search

BACKGROUND: The first-line contact for patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) can potentially change the disease course. The beliefs and attitudes of healthcare providers (HCPs) can influence LBP management. Although referring patients with LBP to physical therapy is common, the first-line contact for patients with LBP in Saudi Arabia is the primary care physician (PCP). Physical therapy will soon be integrated into primary care; therefore, it is rational to compare physical therapists’ (PTs) beliefs and attitudes regarding LBP with those of PCPs. OBJECTIVE: We compared PCPs’ and PTs’ attitudes and beliefs regarding LBP management. METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional, voluntary response sample research design using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS). Participants were PTs and PCPs practicing in Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: In total, 153 participants completed the PABS (111 PTs and 52 PCPs). PCPs demonstrated significantly higher PABS biomedical subscale scores than did the PTs. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs in Saudi Arabia should receive additional training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach to managing LBP. In this study, the HCPs’ treatment recommendations may not correspond with contemporary clinical guidelines. Research to facilitate the implementation of optimal professional education and training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach is an urgent priority.

To ensure the effective management of patients’ pain, it is important that physiotherapists have a good understanding of the neuroscience behind pain. A major barrier to adequate pain management is that, for patients, there is limited access to clinicians who are knowledgeable about pain. This study examined the level of knowledge regarding pain neurophysiology among physiotherapists currently practicing in Saudi Arabia. Method: The study was a cross-sectional web-based survey that utilized the 12-item Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe levels of knowledge regarding pain neurophysiology and to examine differences in knowledge based on the characteristics of the participating physiotherapists (gender, educational level, experience, practice region, and country where their highest educational level was attained). Results: One hundred and eleven physiotherapists (58.6% male) from various regions and educational backgrounds participated in the study. Out of a maximum Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire score of 12, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) was 6.7 ± 2.2, 90% of physiotherapists scored 9 (75%) or less. None of the examined characteristics of the participants were associated with knowledge. Conclusion: Physiotherapists in Saudi Arabia showed limited knowledge of the neurophysiology of pain, however, this was not related to the personal characteristics that were examined. The continuation of education in modern pain science is recommended for physiotherapists, especially those dealing with patients suffering from chronic pain. Clinical Relevance: The physiotherapists who took part in this study displayed limited knowledge of pain neuroscience, this limited knowledge might suggest the need for a more bio-anatomical approach to pain management. There is a need for tailored medical education to address pain neuroscience knowledge in current physiotherapist practitioners.

Background and objectives: The use of appropriate outcome measures can help guide multidimensional low back pain (LBP) management, elucidate the efficacy/effectiveness of interventions, and inform clinicians when selected targets have been achieved and this can be used for educational or research purposes. Aim: This study aimed to explore and describe the use, attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding patient-reported outcome measures used by healthcare practitioners practising in Saudi Arabia who are frequently involved in the healthcare of individuals with LBP. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional design was undertaken using a web-based survey. An electronic invitation to participate was sent to primary care physicians and physical therapists practising in Saudi Arabia. The survey included three sections: demographic data, a list of the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures with LBP patients, and statements regarding attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about outcome measures. Results: A total of 156 practitioners participated: 45 primary care physicians and 111 physical therapists. The numeric pain rating and visual analogue scales were the outcome measures most frequently reported as being often used by both primary care physicians and physical therapists. The majority of participants reported often using 1–2 patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). While most participants indicated that they were confident at selecting the most appropriate PROM, fewer were familiar with the concept of the minimally important clinical difference. A lack of Arabic versions of PROMs was reported as a barrier to using them to assess pain. Conclusions: This study shows that, although primary care physicians and physical therapists in Saudi Arabia frequently use patient-reported outcome measures in their clinical management of patients with LBP, there is a noticeable gap in the knowledge and use of the multidimensional outcome measures for LBP management among the participants. This highlights a need for professional training on the use of standardised outcome measures related to LBP.

Faris Alodiabi,1 Ahmed Alhowimel,2 Mazyad Alotaibi,2 Dalyah Alamam,1 Julie M Fritz3 1College of Applied Medical Sciences, Health Rehabilitation Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Health and Rehabilitation Science, Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USACorrespondence: Faris AlodiabiCollege of Applied Medical Sciences, Health Rehabilitation Sciences, King Saud University, 22480, Riyadh 11495, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaTel +966 14676176Fax +966 14676162Email falodaibi@KSU.EDU.SAAim: To explore awareness of the diagnostic criteria and management of fibromyalgia (FM) among physical therapists practicing in Saudi Arabia.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically among musculoskeletal physical therapists. It was designed based on the research literature relevant to FM and reviewed by two rheumatologists for accuracy and comprehension. The survey included two sections: participants’ demographic information and questions related to FM. The data were described using absolute and relative frequencies.Results: A total of 234 physical therapists accepted the invitation to participate in the study, and 52 were excluded for not satisfying the inclusion criteria or not completing the survey. Responses were received from March to May 2020; only 118 (65%) respondents completed the FM section. The average age of the participants was 31.2 (SD=6.9) years, and 36% were females. Eighty percent reported seeing fewer than five patients with FM in the past year; 51% acquired FM-related knowledge through self-learning; half reported having little to no confidence in their FM assessments and management; and less than 20% were familiar with common diagnostic criteria and management guidelines for FM.Conclusion: Participating physical therapists showed little awareness of or confidence in the assessment and management of patients with FM; moreover, their awareness was not supported by their adherence to recent FM guidelines. Despite the common practice of referring patients with FM for physical therapy, there are many misconceptions about FM. This study highlights the need for educational programs to provide up-to-date evidence in undergraduate and postgraduate education.Keywords: fibromyalgia, physical therapy, awareness, knowledge, Saudi Arabia

Objectives. To examine the interrater and intrarater reliability and construct validity of the Pain Behaviour Scale during standard physical performance tests in people with chronic low back pain and to confirm the test-retest reliability of the physical performance tests in this population. The Pain Behaviour Scale (PaBS) is an observational scale that was recently designed to uniquely measure both the presence and severity of observed pain behaviours. Methods. Twenty-two participants with chronic low back pain were observed during performance of five physical performance tests by two raters. Pain behaviours were assessed using the Pain Behaviour Scale. The Visual Analogue Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index were used to measure pain and disability, respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographic features of participants. Reliability was analyzed using ICCs. Rater agreement was analyzed using the weighted Cohen’s kappa. Correlations between PaBS, self-reported measures, and physical performance tests were calculated using Pearson’s product-moment correlations. Results. The PaBS demonstrated excellent interrater (ICC2,1 = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0) and intrarater (ICC3,1 = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.0) reliability. Component physical performance tests (i.e., time and distance) demonstrated good test-retest (0.6–1.0) reliability. Perfect agreement in the reporting of pain behaviours was found (95–100%). Correlations between pain behaviour severity and pain intensity (r = 0.6) and disability (r = 0.6) were moderate. Moderate correlations were found between pain behaviours and physical performance tests in sit to stand (r = 0.5), trunk flexion (r = 0.4), timed up and go (r = 0.4), and 50-foot walk (r = 0.4). Conclusion. The Pain Behaviour Scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the presence and severity of pain behaviour, and the physical performance tests are reliable tests.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major health problem. Identifying prognostic factors is essential for identifying people at risk of developing CLBP-related disability. PURPOSE To examine associations between CLBP-related disability at 12-month follow-up and individual, psychosocial and physical factors at baseline, as well as treatment-related factors between baseline and 12-month follow-up among a Saudi population. Additionally, associations between pain intensity and general perceived efficacy (GPE) at 12 months were examined with the aforementioned factors. DESIGN A prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS One hundred Saudi participants over 18 years with a history of LBP greater than 3 months' duration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome variable was CLBP-related disability measured by the Arabic Oswestry disability index. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity over the prior week measured by the VAS and the participant's global perceptions of recovery (general perceived efficacy [GPE]) at 12 months. METHODS At baseline (n=115), participants completed questionnaires covering demographics, disability, pain intensity, back beliefs, fear avoidance, psychological distress, and physical activity. They performed standardized physical performance tests, including assessment of pain behaviors using a pain behavior scale. After 12 months, participants (n=100) completed questionnaires on disability, pain intensity, GPE and provided treatment-related information during the previous year. Predictors of disability, pain, and GPE were explored using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS The prognostic model for moderate-severe CLBP-related disability at 12 months explained 53.0% of the variance. Higher pain intensity, higher fear-avoidance work, and older age predicted higher disability. Having no additional somatic symptoms predicted lower disability. Pain intensity at 12-month follow-up was explained by higher disability at baseline, while not being in paid employment appeared protective (25.7% of variance explained). As univariate associations were weak between predictor variables and GPE, multivariate analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSION The study results supported the multifactorial nature of CLBP and reported an important prognostic model in the Saudi population.