Search

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, opioid prescriptions have increased in the Netherlands. The Dutch general practitioners' guideline on pain was recently updated and now aims to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk opioid use for non-cancer pain. The guideline, however, lacks practical measures for implementation.OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine practical components for a tool that should assist Dutch primary care prescribers and implements the recently updated guideline to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk use.METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. The practical components for the tool were identified based on systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and Dutch primary care guidelines. Suggested components were divided into Part A, containing components designed to reduce opioid initiation and stimulate short-term use, and Part B, containing components designed to reduce opioid use among patients on long-term opioid treatment. During three rounds, a multidisciplinary panel of 21 experts assessed the content, usability, and feasibility of these components by adding, deleting, and adapting components until consensus was reached on the outlines of an opioid reduction tool.RESULTS: The resulting Part A consisted of six components, namely education, opioid decision tree, risk assessment, agreements on dosage and duration of use, guidance and follow-up, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The resulting Part B consisted of five components, namely education, patient identification, risk assessment, motivation, and tapering.CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic Delphi study, components for an opioid reduction tool for Dutch primary care-givers are identified. These components need further development, and the final tool should be tested in an implementation study.

Objective: To determine consensus among an international, multidisciplinary group of experts regarding definitions of spinal osteoarthritis for research and for clinical practice. Methods: A 15-member, multidisciplinary steering committee generated 117 statements for a 3-round Delphi study. Experts in back pain and/or osteoarthritis were identified and invited to participate. In round 1, participants could propose additional statements for voting. All statements were rated on a 1–9 Likert scale, and consensus was set at ≥70% of respondents agreeing or disagreeing with the statement and <15% of respondents providing the opposite response. Results: In total, 255 experts from 11 different professional backgrounds were invited. From 173 available experts, 116 consented to participate. In round 1, 103 participants completed the survey, followed by 85 of 111 participants in round 2 (77%) and 87 of 101 participants in round 3 (86%). One-third of participants were from Europe (30%), most were male (58%), one-fifth were physical therapists (21%), and over one-third had been in their profession for 11–20 years (35%). Of 131 statements, consensus was achieved for 71 statements (54%): 53 in agreement (75%) and 18 in disagreement (25%). Conclusion: Although there was consensus for statements for definitions of spinal osteoarthritis that were analogous to definitions of osteoarthritis in appendicular joints, a future definition still needs refinement. Importantly, this Delphi highlighted that a future definition should be considered across a spectrum of structural changes and patient symptoms and expressed on a progressive scale.

This is the Abstract of the description in Italian by Francesca Chiarotto and Guglielmo Pellerino of the review Gramsciana: Rivista di studi internazionali su Antonio Gramsci

This study provides an overview on the relationships between exposure to work-related, hand-arm vibration and the occurrence of pre-defined disorders of the hands. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and PsycINFO for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the association between work-related vibration exposure and the occurrence of hand-arm vibration syndrome (including vibration-induced white finger), Dupuytren’s contracture, or hypothenar hammer syndrome. We used a 16-item checklist for assessing risk of bias. We present results narratively, and we conducted random effects meta-analyses if possible. We included 10 studies with more than 24,381 participants. Our results showed statistically significant associations between the exposure to hand-arm vibrations and the occurrence of the selected disorders, with pooled odds ratios ranging between 1.35 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.80) and 3.43 (95% CI: 2.10 to 5.59). Considerable between-study hetereogeneity was observed. Our analyses show that exposure to vibrating tools at work is associated with an increased risk for the occurrence of selected disorders of the hands. Due to the majority of studies being cross-sectional, no firm conclusion is possible regarding causal relationships between vibration exposure and disorder occurrence. Future research should specifically address whether reducing the exposure to hand-held vibrating tools at work reduces the incidence of the disorders of the hands investigated in this systematic review.

Objectives: Our objectives were to identify what and how data relating to the social determinants of health are collected and reported in equity-relevant studies and map these data to the PROGRESS-Plus framework.Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review. We ran two systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase for equity-relevant studies published during 2021. We included studies in any language without limitations to participant characteristics. Included studies were required to have collected and reported at least two participant variables relevant to evaluating individual-level social determinants of health. We applied the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify and organize these data. Results: We extracted data from 200 equity-relevant studies, providing 962 items defined by PROGRESS-Plus. A median of 4 (interquartile range = 2) PROGRESS-Plus items were reported in the included studies. 92% of studies reported age; 78% reported sex/gender; 65% reported educational attainment; 49% reported socioeconomic status; 45% reported race; 44% reported social capital; 33% reported occupation; 14% reported place and 9% reported religion. Conclusion: Our synthesis demonstrated that researchers currently collect a limited range of equity-relevant data, but usefully provides a range of examples spanning PROGRESS-Plus to inform the development of improved, standardized practices.

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is being rapidly adopted by the Italian physiotherapy community, although a knowledge gap persists at clinical level with consequent lack of integration of EBP into ground roots practice. Teaching of EBP during the Bachelor of Science (BSc) undergraduate course in physiotherapy likely has a vital role to play in the spread of knowledge, providing a grounding in the fundamental concepts of EBP. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of EBP educational content in Italian BSc courses in physiotherapy. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study during which characteristics of EBP teaching in BSc degree courses of physiotherapy in Italy were collected from institutional websites during the period May to September 2021 with an update in August 2022. We used the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for our manuscript.Results: Forty-two physiotherapy BSc degree programs were retrieved, accounting for all the BSc delivered in the 2021–2022 academic year. Fourteen of these (33.3%) did not report EBP content. Northern universities provided EBP content in 16 out of 18 (88%) degree courses. Central Italian universities provided EBP content in 6 out of 9 (66.6%) degree courses. Southern universities delivered EBP content in 3 out of 9 (33.3%) degree courses. The universities of Sicily and Sardinia provided EBP content in 2 out of 5 (40%) degree courses. The degree courses taught in public universities were more likely to contain EBP material (25 out of 37, 67.4%), compared to those taught within the private system (3 out of 5, 60%). Conclusions: The prevalence of EBP content within physiotherapy BSc degree programs in Italy can be considered suboptimal, with both regional differences and according to the system (public vs private). The results of this study could be used as a stimulus fo

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences regarding the number of treatment sessions, costs, and outcomes (including relapses) between a regular payment-per-session system and the recently introduced product payment system in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Dutch physical therapy practices in primary care over a 2-year period. PARTICIPANTS: 16,103 patients with low back pain (LBP). INTERVENTION: The new product payment system is compared with the regular payment-per-session system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, disability, recovery, number of physical therapy sessions, therapy duration, costs (per episode), and LBP relapse. RESULTS: At baseline, we found greater pain and disability scores associated with an increased risk profile in both payment systems. With regard to the payment systems, we found greater costs (€283.8 vs €210.8) and a greater percentage of relapse (4.5% vs 2.8%) for the product payment system compared with the payment-per-session system. Comparing the 2 payment systems within each risk strata, we found no significant differences, except for a decrease in pain in the medium-risk stratum. Concerning the therapy characteristics, we found that in the payment-per-session group, the therapy took 6 days longer for low-risk patients (median 27 vs 21 days) and 7 days shorter for high-risk patients (median 42 vs 49 days) compared with the product payment group. Moreover, the mean number of sessions in the payment-per-session group was greater for low-risk patients (5.4 vs 4.8 sessions) and lower for high-risk patients (7.7 vs 8.1 sessions) compared with the payment-per-session group. Finally, the costs were significantly greater in all strata of the product payment group compared with the payment-per-session group. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 payment systems are largely comparable regarding patient outcomes, therapy duration, and treatment sessions. Both the average cost per patient per LBP episode and the number of relapses in the product paymen

Question: What are the smallest worthwhile effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for people with acute and chronic low back pain (LBP)? What is the smallest worthwhile effect of individualised exercise for people with chronic LBP compared with no intervention? Design: Benefit-harm trade-off study. Participants: Participants were recruited by advertisement on social media and included if they were English-speaking adults in Australia who had non-specific LBP. Outcome measure: Pain intensity. Results: A total of 116 people with acute LBP and 230 people with chronic LBP were recruited. For acute LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs additional to no intervention was a 30% (IQR 10 to 40%) reduction in pain intensity. For chronic LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs additional to no intervention was a 27.5% (IQR 10 to 50%) reduction in pain intensity. For chronic LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of exercise additional to no intervention was a 20% (IQR 10 to 40%) reduction in pain intensity. There were small associations between baseline pain, duration of pain and level of exercise and the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs for acute LBP. There were no other clear associations. Conclusions: For people with LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of exercise and NSAIDs additional to no intervention is approximately a 20 to 30% reduction in pain. These results can inform the interpretation of the effects of NSAIDs and exercise in randomised trials and meta-analyses, incorporating consumers’ perspectives. Further research on comparisons between different interventions and on other core LBP outcomes may inform decision-making. Registration: OSF osf.io/3erjx/.

Background: As management of chronic pain continues to be suboptimal, there is a need for tools that support frequent, longitudinal pain self-reporting to improve our understanding of pain. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of daily pain self-reporting using a smartphone-based pain manikin. Methods: For this prospective feasibility study, we recruited adults with lived experience of painful musculoskeletal condition. They were asked to complete daily pain self-reports via an app for 30 days. We assessed feasibility by calculating pain report completion levels, and investigated differences in completion levels between subgroups. We assessed acceptability via an end-of-study questionnaire, which we analysed descriptively. Results: Of the 104 participants, the majority were female (n = 87; 84%), aged 45-64 (n = 59; 57%), and of white ethnic background (n = 89; 86%). The mean completion levels was 21 (± 7.7) pain self-reports. People who were not working (odds ratio (OR) = 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.52-2.23) were more likely, and people living in less deprived areas (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97) and of non-white ethnicity (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.57) were less likely to complete pain self-reports than their employed, more deprived and white counterparts, respectively. Of the 96 participants completing the end-of-study questionnaire, almost all participants agreed that it was easy to complete a pain drawing (n = 89; 93%). Conclusion: It is feasible and acceptable to self–report pain using a smartphone–based manikin over a month. For its wider adoption for pain self–reporting, the feasibility and acceptability should be further explored among people with diverse socio–economic and ethnic backgrounds.

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is one of the leading worldwide causes of disability. The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) parameter has been proposed to find a threshold of clinical relevance. Specific values of the SWE have been calculated in patients with cLBP for pain intensity, physical functioning and time to recovery for physiotherapy compared with no intervention. Our objectives are 1) To evaluate how authors have interpreted the clinical relevance of the effect of physiotherapy compared to no-intervention on pain, physical functioning and time to recovery; 2) To reinterpret the clinical relevance of these between-group differences based on the available SWE estimates; 3) To evaluate, for descriptive purposes, whether the studies are adequately powered or underpowered considering the published SWE values and a power threshold of 80%. A systematic search in Medline, PEDro, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL will be conducted. We will search for RCT investigating the effectiveness of physiotherapy as compared to no interventions in people with cLBP. We will compare the authors' interpretation of results for clinical relevance with their results to determine if they meet their a-priori definitions. Then, we will perform a re-interpretation of the between-group differences based on SWE values published for cLBP.

Background: Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what social needs categories are included in published Social Needs Screening Tools that have been developed for use in primary care settings, and how these social needs are screened. Methods: We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories. Results: We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92–94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been ‘validated’; 16 reported ‘partial’ validation; 12 reported that the tool was ‘not validated’ and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal osteoarthritis is difficult to study and diagnose, partly due to the lack of agreed diagnostic criteria. This systematic review aims to give an overview of the associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis in patients with low back pain to make a step towards agreed diagnostic criteria.DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 29, 2021 to identify observational studies in adults that assessed the association between selected clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the quality of evidence was graded using an adaptation of the GRADE approach.RESULTS: After screening 7902 studies, 30 met the inclusion criteria. High-quality evidence was found for the longitudinal association between low back pain (LBP) intensity, and both disc space narrowing and osteophytes, as well as for the association between LBP-related physical functioning and lumbar disc degeneration, the presence of spinal morning stiffness and disc space narrowing and for the lack of association between physical functioning and Schmorl's nodes.CONCLUSIONS: There is high- and moderate-quality evidence of associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. However, the majority of the studied outcomes had low or very low-quality of evidence. Furthermore, clinical and methodological heterogeneity was a serious limitation, adding to the need and importance of agreed criteria for spinal osteoarthritis, which should be the scope of future research.

QUESTION: Can existing post-treatment prognostic models for predicting neck pain recovery (primarily in terms of disability and secondarily in terms of pain intensity and perceived improvement) be externally validated and updated at the end of the treatment period and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up in a new Dutch cohort of people with neck pain treated with guideline-based usual care physiotherapy?DESIGN: External validation and model updating in a new prospective cohort of three previously developed prognostic models.PARTICIPANTS: People with (sub)acute neck pain and registered for primary care physiotherapy treatment.OUTCOME MEASURES: Recovery of disability, pain intensity, and perceived recovery at 6 and 12 weeks and at the end of the treatment period.RESULTS: Discriminative performance (c-statistic) of the disability model at 6 weeks was 0.73 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.77) and reasonably well calibrated after intercept recalibration. The disability model at 12 weeks and at the end of the treatment period showed discriminative c-statistic performance values of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.73) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.72), respectively, and was well calibrated. Pain models and perceived recovery models did not reach acceptable performance. Cervical mobility added value to the disability models and pain catastrophising to the disability and pain models at 6 weeks.DISCUSSION: Broad external validation of the disability model was successful in people with (sub)acute neck pain and clinicians may use this model in clinical practice with reasonable accuracy. Further research is required to assess the disability model's clinical impact and generalisability, and to identify additional valuable model predictors.REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/a6r3k/.

BACKGROUND: Culture and ethnicity influence how people communicate about their pain. This makes it challenging to develop pain self-report tools that are acceptable across ethnic groups.OBJECTIVE: We aimed to inform the development of cross-culturally acceptable digital pain self-report tools by better understanding the similarities and differences between ethnic groups in pain experiences and self-reporting needs.METHODS: Three web-based workshops consisting of a focus group and a user requirement exercise with people who self-identified as being of Black African (n=6), South Asian (n=10), or White British (n=7) ethnicity were conducted.RESULTS: Across ethnic groups, participants shared similar lived experiences and challenges in communicating their pain to health care professionals. However, there were differences in beliefs about the causes of pain, attitudes toward pain medication, and experiences of how stigma and gender norms influenced pain-reporting behavior. Despite these differences, they agreed on important aspects for pain self-report, but participants from non-White backgrounds had additional language requirements such as culturally appropriate pain terminologies to reduce self-reporting barriers.CONCLUSIONS: To improve the cross-cultural acceptability and equity of digital pain self-report tools, future developments should address the differences among ethnic groups on pain perceptions and beliefs, factors influencing pain reporting behavior, and language requirements.

Background: Back pain is common among older adults resulting in the high societal and economic burden of persistent pain and disability. Pain medications are frequently prescribed for back pain, especially among older patients, but the efficacy of analgesics on back pain in this patient population remains under debate. In the present study, we investigated the outcomes (i.e. pain intensity and disability) of pain medication use in older people with back pain participating in a prospective cohort study. Methods: A total of 669 patients aged >55 years consulting a general practitioner for a new episode of back complaints were included in this study. The association between pain medication use and outcomes (pain intensity and disability) was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Results: Pain medication users were observed to experience more pain and disability at baseline compared with non-users. At 3-month follow-up, patients from all subgroups (e.g. pain medication users versus non-users) improved over time. Yet medication users had higher pain intensity and poorer disability scores compared with non-users. Patients who de-escalated or stopped pain medication had lower pain and disability than non-users. When comparing different types of medications (i.e. paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids), none of the groups showed better scores regarding pain and disability in users compared with non-users. Opioid users displayed the highest levels of pain and disability. Conclusions: In the present study, although patients who de-escalated or stopped analgesics had less pain and disability, pain medication overall does not result in better outcomes in older people with back pain. Significance: Older patients taking pain medication did not report better outcomes than the ones who did not, except for those who de-escalated or stopped pain medication. Caution should be taken in prescribing pain medication for older patients with back pain in primary care.

This systematic review updates a previous systematic review on work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for elbow disorders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and PsycINFO were searched for studies on associations between work-related physical or psychosocial risk factors and the occurrence of elbow disorders. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Results of studies were synthesized narratively. We identified 17 new studies and lateral epicondylitis was the most studied disorder (13 studies). Five studies had a prospective cohort design, eight were cross-sectional and four were case-control. Only one study had no items rated as high RoB. Combined physical exposure indicators (e.g. physical exertion combined with elbow movement) were associated with the occurrence of lateral epicondylitis. No other consistent associations were observed for other physical and psychosocial exposures. These results prevent strong conclusions regarding associations between work-related exposures, and the occurrence of elbow disorders.

This study provides an overview of the relationships between exposure to work-related hand-arm vibration and the occurrence of pre-defined disorders of the hands. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and PsycINFO for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the association between work-related vibration exposure and the occurrence of hand-arm vibration syndrome (including vibration-induced white finger), Dupuytren’s contracture, or hypothenar hammer syndrome. We used a 16-item checklist for assessing the risk of bias. We present results narratively, and we conducted random effects meta-analyses if possible. We included 10 studies with more than 24,381 participants. Our results showed statistically significant associations between the exposure to hand-arm vibrations and the occurrence of the selected disorders, with pooled odds ratios ranging between 1.35 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.80) and 3.43 (95% CI: 2.10 to 5.59). Considerable between-study heterogeneity was observed. Our analyses show that exposure to vibrating tools at work is associated with an increased risk for the occurrence of selected disorders of the hands. Due to the majority of studies being cross-sectional, no firm conclusion is possible regarding causal relationships between vibration exposure and disorder occurrence. Future research should specifically address whether reducing exposure to hand-held vibrating tools at work reduces the incidence of the disorders of the hands investigated in this systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and non-recommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Pre-specified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short-term (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.66; confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.97) and long-term (SMD 0.73; CI 0.31 to 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD 0.95; CI 0.48 to 1.42) and long-term (SMD 0.65; CI 0.23 to 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (e.g., muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain.