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

Background. Disability is an important multifaceted construct. Identifying sources of disability could help optimise patient care. The aim of this study was to test an approach that not only estimates severity of disability, but also identifies the source(s) of this disability. Methods. An online survey was used to collect data from a convenience sample, recruited via email and social media invitations. Two generic measures of disability, the 8-item Universal Disability Index (UDI8) and Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) were used to estimate the prevalence and severity of disability in this sample. Non-zero UDI8 item responses generated conditional sub-questions, in which participants could attribute their activity limitations to one or more sources (pain, fatigue, worry, mood, and other). This allowed for a decomposition of UDI8 scores into source components. Results. 403 participants enrolled; 334 completed all UDI8 and GARS items. Of these, 85.3% (285/334) reported at least one restricted activity via the UDI8, while 43.4% (145/334) reported some reduced independence via the GARS. Disability severity increased with age until approximately 40 years, after which it decreased gradually. Pain component scores were high in all individuals with higher and lower disability severity, whereas fatigue component scores were highest in individuals reporting higher disability severity. Worry, mood, and other component scores were not high at any level of disability severity. Conclusions. This approach should be used to identify the prevalence, severity and sources of disability in the general population and in specific patient groups. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained

Background. A cornerstone in treating low back pain (LBP) is the provision of information to patients, and the internet is increasingly being used as a source of health information delivery. However, the effect of and satisfaction with online information have been questioned. Purpose. To develop a multi-item instrument to measure an index score of satisfaction with online information for patients with LBP. Methods. The conceptualization of this patient reported outcome is modelled on the assumption of a formative model. The first draft of the questionnaire was developed based on a previous published interview study of 15 patients and evaluated for face validity by seven experts. The second draft of the questionnaire was pilot-tested in 20 patients to optimize content validity. Patients were recruited from a rehabilitation center and from social media. Results. An eight-item questionnaire was developed after assessing content and face validity. The items were related to design, readability, customization, credibility, usability, and coping. A labelled categorical scale was used for response options. Each item is scored from 0–3, where 0 indicates not at all satisfied, 1 indicates little satisfaction, 2 indicates some satisfaction, and 3 indicates very satisfied giving an overall index score between 0 and 24 points. Conclusion. An eight-item questionnaire measuring satisfaction with an index score from 0–24 points has been developed. The OPSI questionnaire is now being tested for construct validity, reproducibility and interpretation on 150 patients with LBP. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Funded by the Novo Nordic Foundation (NNF17OC0024422)

Purpose of study. To evaluate implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme in clinical practice within the National Health Service (NHS). Background. The BeST programme is a group Cognitive Behavioural Approach (CBA) for people with persistent (≥6 weeks) low back pain (LBP). This intervention has been shown to be clinically and cost-effective in a large pragmatic trial. To aid implementation of the BeST programme, an online training intervention (iBeST) was developed. Methods. iBest was promoted through marketing activities (e.g. conferences, social media, evidence briefs) prior to release and launched in March 2016 for NHS health care professionals. Impact of iBeST is being evaluated by measuring number enrolled, course completion, implementation intention, clinical delivery, perceived competence, attitudes/beliefs towards LBP, knowledge and satisfaction. Data is collected at pre and post-training, 4 months and 12 months after course completion. A service evaluation is also being conducted to measure clinical impact. Patients taking part in the BeST programme as part of routine treatment complete questionnaires at baseline, post-treatment, 3 months and 12 months after the programme to assess pain, disability, recovery, satisfaction and usefulness of BeST. Results. 881 clinicians have enrolled on iBeST and 260 have completed training (target: 250). 28 NHS sites are delivering the BeST programme. 385 and 290 participants have provided baseline and post treatment data respectively (target: 400). Data collection is ongoing. Conclusion. Implementation is challenging but iBeST has been well received by NHS clinicians and we plan to report further results of the impact and service evaluation. Conflict of interest: None. Source of funding: This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Background to the study:. The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to measure effectiveness of care, and supporting patient management is being advocated increasingly. PROMs data are often collected using hard copy questionnaires. New technology enables electronic PROM data collection. Purpose of the study:. To identify patient and practitioner perceived opportunities and challenges to implementing electronic PROM data capture as part of the process for developing a PROM phone and online app. Methods:. Interviews were undertaken with patients (N=18), and clinicians (N=46). Patients and clinicians were recruited through practice advertisement, in printed healthcare media, social media, and professional networks. Semi-structured interviews were used. Data were analysed using the Framework approach. Themes, sub-themes, and models were developed from the analysed data. Results:. Patient themes included relevance of data collection, data protection, and confidentiality. Practitioner themes included issues around patient engagement, and relevance to clinical practice. Overall patients were more enthusiastic than clinicians about using PROMs in practice. They welcomed the opportunity to provide feedback, and were prepared to use technology to achieve this. In contrast, clinicians reported concerns that patients would not want to complete PROMs, or may be unable to use electronic devices to achieve this. Other clinicians noted that this was a professional demand and part of reflective practice. Conclusion:. The patients' enthusiasm to contribute data and the clinicians' paternalistic views were contrasting and suggests a greater need for patient centred communication