Background and study purpose. Low back pain with no identified underlying cause is categorised as primary musculoskeletal pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain. In April 2021, the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) published updated guidance for the management of primary chronic pain conditions in England. As part of the De-STRESS pain study, we explored the perspectives of GPs on the updated guideline and impact upon clinical practice. Methods and results. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 GPs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison techniques. GPs agreed with the recommendations restricting pharmacological options for pain management and reflected that they now had an expert reference to back-up their decision-making and could use the guidance in potentially difficult conversations with patients. Frustration was expressed by GPs about the lack of alternative options to medication, as the non-pharmacological recommendations were difficult to implement, had lengthy waiting lists, or were unavailable in their locality. Conclusion. Although GPs discussed benefits of the updated NICE guideline in potentially reducing prescriptions of ineffective and potentially harmful medications, frustration about the lack of alternative strategies added to the difficulties encountered in managing people with persistent back pain in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study was funded by Versus Arthritis – grant number 22454; Carolyn A Chew-Graham is part-funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

Background. Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed. Aims. The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice. Methods. A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results. Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions. Conclusion. A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice

Abstract

MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rods are used in the surgical treatment of children with early onset scoliosis. The magnetically controlled lengthening mechanism enables rod distractions without the need for repeated invasive surgery. The CE certification of these devices was suspended in March 2021 due, primarily, to performance evidence gaps in the documents provided by the manufacturer to regulators and notified bodies. MAGEC rods are therefore not permitted for use in countries requiring CE marking. This was a survey of 18 MAGEC rod surgeons in the UK about their perception of the impact of the CE suspension on the clinical management of their patients. Unsurprisingly, virtually all perceived a negative impact, reflecting the complexity of this patient group. Reassuringly, these surgeons are highly experienced in alternative treatment methods.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):155–157.

Aims. Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. Methods. A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had ‘suspected CES’; ‘early CES’; ‘incomplete CES’; or ‘CES with urinary retention’. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss’s kappa. Results. Each of the 100 participants were rated by four medical students, five neurosurgical registrars, and four consultant spinal surgeons. No groups achieved reasonable inter-rater agreement for any of the categories. CES with retention versus all other categories had the highest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.31); minimal agreement). There was no improvement in inter-rater agreement with clinical experience. Across all categories, registrars agreed with each other most often (kappa 0.41), followed by medical students (kappa 0.39). Consultant spinal surgeons had the lowest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.17). Conclusion. Inter-rater agreement for categorizing CES is low among clinicians who regularly manage these patients. CES categories should be used with caution in clinical practice and research studies, as groups may be heterogenous and not comparable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1007–1012

A Core Outcome Set (COS) for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is essential to ensure that the most meaningful outcomes are evaluated and used consistently. Measuring the same outcomes ensures evidence from clinical trials and routine clinical practice of different treatments can be more easily compared and combined, therefore increasing the quality of the evidence base. The SPINE-COS-AYA project aims to develop a gold standard COS which can be used internationally in research and routine clinical practice to evaluate the treatment (surgical and bracing) of AIS. In this qualitative study, the views of adolescents and young adults with AIS (10-25 years of age), their family members and healthcare professionals in a UK region were sought, via interviews, on treatment outcomes. Participants were purposively recruited from a variety of sources including NHS outpatient clinics and social media. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Key findings will be presented, to include potential core outcome domains identified by the different subgroups. The core outcome domains identified in this research programme will subsequently form part of an international consensus survey to agree a COS. In future, if the COS is used by healthcare staff and researchers, it will be easier for everyone, including patients and their families, to assess which treatment works best

Aims. To determine whether side-bending films in scoliosis are assessed for adequacy in clinical practice; and to introduce a novel method for doing so. Methods. Six surgeons and eight radiographers were invited to participate in four online surveys. The generic survey comprised erect and left and right bending radiographs of eight individuals with scoliosis, with an average age of 14.6 years. Respondents were asked to indicate whether each bending film was optimal (adequate) or suboptimal. In the first survey, they were also asked if they currently assessed the adequacy of bending films. A similar second survey was sent out two weeks later, using the same eight cases but in a different order. In the third survey, a guide for assessing bending film adequacy was attached along with the radiographs to introduce the novel T1-45B method, in which the upper endplate of T1 must tilt ≥ 45° from baseline for the study to be considered optimal. A fourth and final survey was subsequently conducted for confirmation. Results. Overall, 12 (86%) of 14 respondents did not use any criteria to assess the bending film adequacy; the remaining two each described a different invalidated method. In total, 12 (86%) of the respondents felt T1-45B was easy to learn and apply. There was fair to substantial intra-rater reliability (k = 0.25 to 0.88) which improved to fair to almost perfect (k = 0.38 to 0.88) post-introduction of the guide. Inter-rater reliability varied considerably among the rater groups but similarly increased following introduction of the guide (k. S1. = 0.19 to 0.34, k. S2. = 0.33 to 0.43 vs k. S3. = 0.49 to 0.5, k. S4. = 0.35 to 0.43). Conclusion. Many surgeons and radiographers do not assess spinal bending films for adequacy. We propose that the change in the plane of the upper endplate of T1 on side-bending can be used in this evaluation. In the T1-45B method, a change of ≥ 45° on side bending qualifies as an adequate bend effort. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):689–695

Purpose and Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches. Methods and Results. We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks. Conclusion. This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. This study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Purposes of the study and background. Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) is a complex intervention that targets the biopsychosocial nature of low back pain (LBP). The barriers and facilitators to CFT have not previously been researched in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators of CFT in the NHS ahead of a future clinical trial. Methods and results. Participants who had completed a CFT intervention for persistent LBP and physiotherapists who had previously attended a CFT training workshop were recruited. Data were collected using one to one semi-structured interviews and were analysed thematically using framework method. Eight people with LBP and ten physiotherapists consented to participate. The key findings were that UK NHS physiotherapists can be trained to deliver CFT, they valued the training and felt confident to deliver CFT successfully to patients in NHS physiotherapy departments. Peer support and mentorship from a CFT practitioner was necessary for the physiotherapists to sustain changes to their clinical practice. Participants with LBP welcomed CFT as they felt it was beneficial and enabled them to self-manage their LBP and they could recognise the difference between CFT and usual care. The barriers, mainly related to the healthcare system, included short appointment times and poor availability of follow-up appointments. Conclusion. This is the first study to establish the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of CFT in the NHS. The findings of this study were used to inform the planning, design and delivery of a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Introduction. Analgesic drugs are often prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP). Recommendations for non-invasive pharmacological management of LBP from recent clinical practice guidelines were compared with each other and with the best available evidence on drug efficacy. Methods. Guideline recommendations concerning opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants from national primary care guidelines published within the last 3 years were included in this review. For each pharmacotherapy, the most recent systematic review was included as the best available evidence on drug efficacy and common adverse effects were summarized. Results. Eight recent national clinical practice guidelines were included in this review (from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, UK and US). Guidelines are universally moving away from pharmacotherapy due to the limited efficacy and the risk of adverse effects. NSAIDs have replaced paracetamol as the first choice analgesics for LBP in many guidelines. Opioids are considered to be a last resort in all guidelines, but prescriptions of these medications have been increasing over recent years. Only limited evidence exists for the efficacy of antidepressants and anticonvulsants in chronic LBP. Muscle relaxants are one of the analgesics of first choice in the US, but aren't widely available and thus not widely recommended in most other countries. Conclusions. Upcoming guideline updates should shift their focus from pain to function and from pharmacotherapy to non-pharmacologic treatment options. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review has been supported by a program grant of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation

Purpose:. To explore clinicians' perceptions of empathy during musculoskeletal clinical consultations. Background:. Empathy is considered essential to creating a positive experience within healthcare for both the patient and clinician, improving adherence, creating trust and improving patient experience. However, little is known about how clinicians acquire and display empathic communication skills during musculoskeletal consultations. Methods:. In this qualitative study, 11 physiotherapists and 6 students participated in three focus groups, separated by clinical grade. The definition of empathy, its acquisition and impact on clinical practice were discussed, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed. Data were managed using a Framework approach, and key themes identified. Results:. The data from 17 participants comprised 149 minutes of audio recording. Six key themes and 48 sub-themes were identified. Empathy was considered a key component of communication and similarly defined in all three focus groups; however divergence surrounded how it is acquired, the extent it can be taught and whether a clinician's personality influences their career pathway. Experienced clinicians highlighted greater importance and impact of empathic communication in practice than novices, whilst novices considered a lack of time a key barrier in preventing empathic communication. Discussion:. There is a mismatch between the importance attributed to empathic communication in the literature and by clinicians, compared with the time and energy spent acquiring and developing these skills. Conclusion:. Displaying genuine empathy is considered essential to building rapport and optimising non-specific treatment effects in clinical practice, however clinicians need greater awareness and engagement to further these skills for patient benefit

A statement of the purposes of the study and background:. Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care. A summary of the methods used and the results:. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments. A conclusion:. The NICE guidelines for managing LBP in primary care are one, relatively peripheral, influence on clinical decision-making among GPs, chiropractors, acupuncturists, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and nurses. When revised, these guidelines could be made more clinically relevant by: ensuring guideline terminology reflects clinical practice terminology; dispelling the image of guidelines as rigid and prohibiting patient-centred care; providing opportunities for clinicians to engage in experiential learning about guideline-recommended therapies; and commissioning guideline-recommended treatments for NHS patients

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Purpose of the study and background. The biopsychosocial (BPS) model is now widely implemented in clinical practice. Most research on manual therapists' attitudes regarding psychosocial (PS) factors and NSLBP is from the physiotherapy profession. There is currently no literature available to understand how osteopaths integrate those factors with patients presenting with NSLBP. The University College of Osteopathy students being the future of the profession and receiving an accredited BPS teaching warranted the need for an investigation about their attitudes towards PS factors and NSLBP. Methods and results. A qualitative research design with elements of grounded theory was used. Nine final year UCO students were recruited and interviewed at the UCO teaching centre. Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously through the constant comparative method of analysis. Three main themes emerged from the data analysis: 1) Definition and interpretation of PS factors towards LBP; 2) Assessment and management of PS factors; 3) Competence and difficulties towards PS factors. Conclusion. The level of understanding was homogeneous amongst the participants on the understanding of PS factors and their role in a NSLBP presentation. They assessed for PS factors throughout the case history and tend to rely on their instincts. Two types of strategies towards the PS factors management were identified. However, lack of clinical experience and lack of training on the management of PS factors were identified as the main barriers encountered by students when treating patient with NSLBP. No conflict of interest. No funding

Background. Routine imaging (radiography, CT, MRI) provides no health benefits for low back pain (LBP) patients and is not recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Whether imaging leads to increased costs, healthcare utilization or absence from work is unclear. Purpose. To systematically review if imaging in patients with LBP increases costs, leads to higher health care utilization or increases absence from work. METHODS. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs), comparing imaging versus no imaging on targeted outcomes were extracted from medical databases until October 2017. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of the body of evidence was determined using GRADE methodology. Results. Moderate quality evidence (1 RCT; n=421) supports that direct costs increase for patients undergoing radiography. Low quality evidence (3 OSs; n=9535) supports that early MRI leads to a large increase in costs. Moderate quality evidence (2 RCTs, 6 OSs; n=19392) supports that performing MRI, radiography or CT is associated with increased healthcare utilization. Two RCTs (n=667) showed no significant differences between radiography or MRI groups compared with no imaging groups on absence from work. However, the results of two observational studies (n=7765) did show significantly greater absence from work in the imaging groups compared to the no imaging-groups. Conclusions. Imaging in LBP is associated with higher medical costs and increased healthcare utilisation. There are indications that it also leads to higher absence from work. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Background. The rate of subsidence for lumbar fusion surgery is variable from 7- 89%. Subsidance can affect the outcome of surgery by compramising alignment, foraminal height and stability. Modic changes have been shown to affect the stiffness and strength of the vertebral end plate and shown to affect both fusion rates and clinical outcome. Ongoing laboratory investigations into the material properties of the degenerate lumbar spine show modic changes affect the end plate and trabecular bone mechanics. This study aims to bridge this basic science research into clinical practice. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all patients in two tertiary spinal centres who have undergone lumbar interbody fusion with the implantation of a ‘cage’ over the past 6 years were analysed by two independent spinal surgeons. Pre-operative MRI findings were correlated with post-operative interbody cage subsidence after 1 year. Results. A total of 108 Interbody cages were included. Comparison of demographics did not reveal and significant between group variations. Comparison made between those displaying no modic changes and those displaying any of the three modic change types revealed a significantly higher subsidence rate in those displaying modic changes (p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that Type 2 modic changes (n=27) had a significantly higher subsidence rate (p=0.002). Those displaying type 3 modic changes (n=7) did not have any incidents of subsidence. Conclusions. Type 2 modic changes are associated with a higher rate of Lumbar interbody cage subsidence in this study. Those displaying type 3 changes seem to be protected from interbody cage subsidence. No Conflict of Interest. Funding: Produced as part of a research grant from the Gwen Fish Trust and Action Arthritis

Background and objectives. Numerous approaches are recommended for the management of non-specific neck pain (NS-NP). However, the extent to which approaches are used is unclear. This survey investigated current UK physiotherapists' measurement and management of patients with NS-NP. Methods and results. Physiotherapists were invited to participate in an online survey if they were practicing in the UK and had experience of managing NS-NP. 2101 responses were received. Analysis of the results indicated the overall popularity of active treatment approaches with 84% and 61% of respondents employing exercise and patient education respectively. 48% of respondents reported using a multimodal approach (that is, combination of exercise and manual therapy with/without patient education). Over a third of respondents reported not using outcome measures (OMs) for NS-NP. Of the two-thirds who reported using OMs, the majority reported using pain and range of motion measures. Physical and functional limitations, psychological distress, and quality of life constructs, which are frequently associated with NS-NP, were rarely measured. Conclusion. The active interventions most frequently used in the management of NS-NP were supported by moderate to strong evidence but a variety of other commonly used approaches have limited, unclear or no evidence of efficacy. Multimodal treatment approaches that are supported by strong evidence of efficacy are less commonly used. Physiotherapists in the UK are inadequately evaluating NS-NP. Research and guidelines are needed to reduce the use of ineffective interventions, promote the use of multimodal care and develop high quality outcome measures that are relevant and feasible for use in clinical practice. Keywords. Health, survey, neck pain, non-specific, rehabilitation. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: None

Background and purpose of the study. Patients with sciatica experience high levels of disability and poor outcomes and treatment has demonstrated, at best, only modest success. To be effective, management strategies must be informed by patients' perceptions about ‘what matters’ about experiencing this condition. The aim of this paper is to explore the lived experience of sciatica and to consider the implications for clinical practice. Methods and results. In this qualitative study, based on the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis, 14 participants with a clinical presentation of sciatica of likely nerve root origin were purposively recruited from an NHS, Primary Care Musculoskeletal Service in the UK. Individual, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a framework approach and analysed thematically. Sciatica was experienced as a protracted journey of acute exacerbations of uncontrolled and incapacitating symptoms that were overwhelming and difficult to make sense of. Adversely affecting almost all aspects of life, participants struggled to maintain their physical, functional and financial independence; their important relationships; social networks and the roles and activities that provided joy and purpose. The impact of sciatica was a ‘life on hold’; an altered sense of self and an uncertain future. For three participants, the experience of sciatica was sufficiently distressing for them to contemplate suicide. Conclusions. This paper reveals the severity and devastating impact of the symptoms and effects of sciatica. Important practice and research implications have been identified regarding managing symptoms and the need to align treatment strategies with patients' complex and multifaceted needs. Conflicts of interest: None. Funding acknowledgements: This study was funded by an NIHR Masters in Clinical Research Fellowship awarded to CR. LR is funded, in part, by an NIHR Senior Clinical Lecturer award (Round 3)

Background and purpose of the study. Uncertainty remains regarding the optimal method of diagnosing sciatica. Clinical guidelines currently recommend that investigations be used only when they are likely to change management. In clinical practice, considerable variation can occur between patient and clinician, regarding the perceived importance of investigations such as MRI scans. The aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of investigations and to consider the impact of concordance between clinical presentation and investigation findings. Methods and results. In this qualitative study, based on the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis, 14 participants with a clinical presentation of sciatica of likely nerve root origin, who had recently undergone investigations, were purposively recruited from an NHS, Primary Care Musculoskeletal Service in the UK. Individual, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a framework approach and analysed thematically. Although patients reported wanting investigations to understand the cause of symptoms and inform management, access to them was difficult and protracted. When investigations revealed potentially relevant findings, patients experienced relief, validation, empowerment and decisive decision-making. Disappointment emerged, however, regarding treatment waiting times and options, and long-term prognosis. When investigations failed to identify relevant findings, patients were unable to make sense of their symptoms, move forward in their management or relinquish their search to identify the cause. Conclusion. This study provides the first reported in-depth interpretation of patients' experience of undergoing investigations for sciatica. Important policy and practice implications have been identified for investigation referral criteria; shared-decision-making; information sharing; aligning expectations and managing disappointment. No conflicts of interest. This study was funded by an NIHR Masters in Clinical Research Fellowship awarded to CR. LR is funded, in part, by an NIHR Senior Clinical Lecturer award (Round 3)