Search

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Randomized trials have examined the efficacy of psychologically informed physical therapy methods including graded activity or graded exposure, cognitive-behavioral-based physical therapy, acceptance and commitment-based physical therapy, and internet-based psychological programs compared to traditional physical therapy approaches for musculoskeletal pain. Summary findings suggest that psychologically informed physical therapy is a promising care model; however, more convincing evidence is needed to support widespread adoption, especially in light of clinician training demands., Psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) blends psychological strategies within a physical therapist's treatment approach for the prevention and management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Several randomized trials have been conducted examining the efficacy of PIPT compared to standard physical therapy on important patient-reported outcomes of disability, physical function, and pain. In this review, we examine recent trials published since 2012 to describe current PIPT methods, discuss implications from findings, and offer future directions. Twenty-two studies, representing 18 trials, were identified. The studied PIPT interventions included (1) graded activity or graded exposure (n = 6), (2) cognitive-behavioral-based physical therapy (n = 9), (3) acceptance and commitment-based physical therapy (n = 1), and (4) internet-based psychological programs with physical therapy (n = 2). Consistent with prior reviews, graded activity is not superior to other forms of physical activity or exercise. In a few recent studies, cognitive-behavioral-based physical therapy had short-term efficacy when compared to a program of standardized exercise. There is a need to further examine approaches integrating alternative strategies including acceptance-based therapies (ie, acceptance and commitment therapy or mindfulness) or internet-based cognitive-behavioral programs within physical therapy. Although PIPT remains a promising care model, more convincing evidence is needed to support widespread adoption, especially in light of training demands and implementation challenges.

Background Low back and neck pain (together, spine pain) are among the leading causes of medical visits, lost productivity, and disability. For most people, episodes of spine pain are self-limited; nevertheless, healthcare spending for this condition is extremely high. Focusing care on individuals at high-risk of progressing from acute to chronic pain may improve efficiency. Alternatively, postural therapies, which are frequently used by patients, may prevent the overuse of high-cost interventions while delivering equivalent outcomes. Methods The SPINE CARE (Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure) trial is a cluster-randomized multi-center pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and healthcare utilization of two interventions for primary care patients with acute and subacute spine pain. The study was conducted at 33 primary care clinics in geographically distinct regions of the United States. Individuals ≥18 years presenting to primary care with neck and/or back pain of ≤3 months' duration were randomized at the clinic-level to 1) usual care, 2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary approach called the Identify, Coordinate, and Enhance (ICE) care model, or 3) Individualized Postural Therapy (IPT), a standardized postural therapy method of care. The trial's two primary outcomes are change in function at 3 months and spine-related spending at one year. 2971 individuals were enrolled between June 2017 and March 2020. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Discussion The SPINE CARE trial will determine the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of two interventions for patients with spine pain presenting to primary care. Trial registration number: NCT03083886