Background. Mobile apps have shown promise in helping people to self-manage conditions like chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, it is unclear who benefits most, why, and under what circumstances. This limits our understanding of how to maximize the potential of mobile app technology. Aim. This study aimed to test and refine programme theories about how mobile apps support people to self-manage CLBP in a real-world setting. The theories were based on a previously published realist review. Methods. A realist evaluation was conducted using one-to-one realist interviews by telephone with participants who had used the Curable app to self-manage their CLBP for three months. The interviews were guided by programme theories from the realist review. Analysis of the interviews used abductive and retroductive logic to create chains of inferences, which were then developed into context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). These CMOCs offered causal explanations about who might benefit from a mobile app to self-manage CLBP, why and in what circumstances. Results. Ten interviews were conducted (nine with people with CLBP who trialled the app and one with a founding member of Curable LLC). Twenty CMOCs were created that identified key mechanisms such as agency, control and reassurance that interact with contextual factors such as acceptance, internal capacity, and a biopsychosocial approach to pain management. These factors influence whether a person with CLBP will benefit from a mobile app for self-management. Conclusions. Twenty CMOCs were created to support three programme theories centering around concepts of empowerment, burden of care, and timing. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. R Hunter's work was supported by the Inverness and Highland City-Region Deal Studentship Award [2018]. Presented at: 13th Congress of the European Pain Federation (EFIC), September 2023, Budapest, Hungary

Purpose and background. Although clinical guidelines recommend that low back pain (LBP) is best managed in primary or community care, in the UK and globally, LBP accounts for around 4% of emergency department (ED) attendances. Organising and delivering healthcare to be safe, effective, and acceptable requires hearing patients’ perspectives; this study therefore aimed to explore patients’ experiences of attending the ED for LBP. Methods and results. This was a multisite qualitative interview study with 47 adults (aged 23–79 years) who, in the past six weeks, had attended one of four UK NHS emergency departments for LBP (all types and durations). Purposive sampling was used to gain variation in the recruiting site, and LBP and demographic characteristics. Data were collected using individual, semi-structured, telephone interviews (median 45mins). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. We identified significant variation in patients’ experiences of ED care for LBP, which we argue reflects contrasting cultures of ED care. We present three cultures, emergency screening only, ‘cynicism and neglect’, and ‘kindness’; these cultures differ in how they navigate the tension between the ED remit and patients’ perceived needs of care. We draw on Bourdieu's notions of field and habitus and professional identity theory to help explain these findings. Conclusion. Our findings suggest unwarranted variation in ED care for LBP. Implications include the need for urgent access to primary and community care and clarity about best practice managing LBP in the ED; best practice guidance and strategies to implement this should be informed by notions of culture and professional identity. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Low back pain (LBP), a leading cause of chronic disability, is associated with high and disproportionate socioeconomic costs. Clinical assessment and triage via the NHS 111 service aims to reduce pressure on the urgent and emergency care system. Studies show that many attend the emergency department (ED) against advice, when they could be better managed elsewhere. The aim of this research was to explore how patients with LBP perceive and interact with NHS 111, and how this may have influenced their decision to attend ED. Methods and Results. This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional, qualitative dataset of 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) purposively sampled with LBP, who attended 1 of 4 EDs in the UK in 2021, (during the pandemic). The participants took part in online, semi-structured interviews, mean duration 45-minutes (range 23–156 minutes), within six weeks of their ED visit. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Three key themes were identified: purpose, process and performance. The themes showed mixed understanding and low awareness of the purpose of NHS 111, despite its strong triage role. Long waits for call backs however, sometimes resulted in patients attending ED, along with previous negative perspectives and experiences. Conclusion. This research suggests enhanced visibility and knowledge of NHS 111 would increase its use by people with LBP. Further exploration comparing outcomes of callers to NHS 111 with those who seek care elsewhere, could help evaluate how NHS 111 can best help people with LBP and prevent unnecessary ED attendance. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and Background. Patients with low back pain are increasing globally. Physical dysfunction and psychosocial factors such as stress, anxiety, and fear of movement, often referred to as yellow flags, play a role in the persistence of low back pain. What is not known is the extent to which yellow flags are screened for and treatment adjusted accordingly by Physiotherapists in India. The aim was to determine the current knowledge and awareness of physiotherapists in India regarding psychosocial factors for managing patients with low back pain. Methods. Semi-structured interviews gathered data from of six physiotherapists, The interviews were conducted online. The data was transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results. The main finding was that the physiotherapists in India had a limited knowledge regarding psychosocial factors for management of low back pain. They were not supportive of adding yellow flag screening into their routine treatments due to lack of t awareness of such screening tools Physical elements of low back pain were focused on during treatment by the therapists and recommended by management. The physiotherapists noted that high daily patient volume left them with limited time to alter treatment protocols. Conclusion. There appears to be limited information and education delivered to the physiotherapists in India regarding psychosocial factors for managing low back pain. The addition of these factors in the education and treatment protocols could address these important factors when managing patients with low back pain in India. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

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. Immersive virtual reality (VR) demonstrates potential benefits in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, few studies have investigated the feasibility and the acceptability of introducing immersive VR for use with patients with CLBP and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Aim. To investigate immersive VR's feasibility, tolerability, and acceptability as a rehabilitation intervention for adult patients with CLBP and explore the views of relevant Health Care Practitioners (HCPs) in the KSA. Methodology and Methods. A multi-centre, mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design was adopted to test immersive VR's feasibility, tolerability, and acceptability. An uncontrolled feasibility trial was conducted. The immersive VR intervention involved a training session followed by three sessions over one week using commercially available hardware and software. Feasibility outcomes were collected from patients immediately post-intervention. Patients and HCPs were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Results. Thirty-three patients and three HCPs were recruited. The feasibility a priori criteria were met for recruitment, retention, dropout, completeness of questionnaire data, treatment compliance and fidelity. Adverse events included one who reported aggravation of tinnitus, whereas two experienced dizziness. Qualitative data suggested that entertainment and motivation were key enablers. Barriers included technological capability and HCPs’ perceptions that immersive VR was time-consuming. Conclusion. The results suggested that immersive VR was feasible, acceptable, and tolerable among patients with CLBP and HCPs in clinical settings in the KSA. Further research focusing on the effectiveness is warranted in this field. Conflicts of Interest. None. Sources of Funding. None. Trial registration number. ISRCTN14434517

Purpose and background. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES), a rare (<1 per 100,000) and potentially devasting condition, involves compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots. If not quickly identified and treated, it can lead to lasting disability, and high medicolegal costs (>£186 million in the decade to 2018). This study identified why people with suspected CES attend the emergency department (ED) and explored any delays in attending. Methods and Results. The design was a secondary analysis of a qualitative dataset comprising patients with back pain who attended the ED, undertaken using an interpretivist approach. Fourteen patients (8M:6F, aged 23–63 years) with suspected CES were purposively sampled from 4 EDs (2 Northern and 2 Southern) in England between August and December 2021. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Acopia with pain was the biggest factor in a participant's decision to attend the ED, along with the need for a diagnosis. This pain was the worst ever experienced and debilitating, leaving people unable to cope and desperate for relief. 12/14 were advised to attend the ED following identification of red flags by: GPs (n=9); physiotherapists (n=2); surgical colleague (n=1); and 111 (n=1). Factors such as guilt, previous experience of being disregarded, and symptom misattribution were seen to cause delays in seeking care. Conclusion. This paper revealed a disconnect between the priorities of patients and clinicians prior to attending the ED. Clinicians need to validate the pain experience, communicate clearly why signs and symptoms are concerning, and convey the urgency and potential impact of CES. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National. Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Nearly 70% of UK physiotherapists experience work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs) during their career, with a significant proportion occurring in the back and being attributed to patient handling tasks. Evidence suggests that manual handling training alone is ineffective and interventions among nurses indicate that a tailored approach, including targeted exercise (TE), can reduce WRMSD rates. This study aimed to explore physiotherapists’ perspectives of WRMSDs, patient handling, and the role of TE in reducing WRMSDs among physiotherapists. Methods and Results. Key informant interviews were conducted with 4 physiotherapy operational leads and 1 manual handling trainer from NHS Grampian. Interviews were transcribed and Framework Analysis was utilised to identify key themes, including challenges, barriers, and facilitators. Following this, two online focus groups were conducted with 7 qualified NHS physiotherapists across the UK. Views of manual handling training varied across specialities, with some finding it comprehensive and adaptable, and others finding it less applicable to patients in their speciality or community setting. Physiotherapist views on fitness for work varied, with some highlighting the necessity of TE to ensure workforce health whilst others considered exercise to be a personal matter. Facilitators to implementation identified by participants were having support from management and a strong justification for the exercise content. Varied work schedules and facilities were identified as barriers to implementation of a work-based TE intervention. Conclusion. Varying perspectives on TE interventions and barriers to implementation were identified. This work will inform future research to develop TE interventions in consultation with key stakeholders. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest. Source of Funding. NHS Endowment Research Grant 22/001

Purpose and background. Understanding patients’ expectations of back pain treatment can help improve their experiences, adherence and outcomes. Patients typically expect a diagnosis and exercise-based physiotherapy, but often undervalue the role of psychological factors. This study explored patients’ expectations of outpatient physiotherapy treatment for back pain in primary care. Methods and Results. The design, a secondary analysis of a qualitative cross-sectional study, involved 25 patients (13M:12F), aged 20–81, referred with low back pain (duration 7 weeks to 9 years). This sample did not include patients with serious spinal pathologies, known psychological disorders, or those unable to communicate without assistance. Face-to-face interviews were undertaken in patients’ homes, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the six stages of thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke. Patients expected a caring clinician and a strong therapeutic relationship, where they felt believed, openly communicated with and valued as an individual. Most patients expected a diagnosis and credible explanation for their pain. There was an almost equal split between those keen to take responsibility for their care and those who felt this was the clinicians’ role. Expectations of passive therapies were slightly higher in this study than existing research. Most patients were realistic about outcomes and expected treatment to reduce their pain, but not cure it. Conclusion. A positive experience mattered most to patients, valuing the relational aspects of their care more than the clinical content provided. Patients saw back pain through a biomedical lens, and most failed to recognise the role of psychosocial factors in their condition or treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis)

Statement of purpose of study and background. As the treatment of low back pain (LBP) continues to evolve, there is greater recognition of the importance of optimising the therapeutic relationship to better deliver improved patient outcomes. Contextual effects, such as communication, have been shown to influence the therapeutic relationship, but it is not known how these factors evolve over time. This study analysed interviews from two studies (one cross-sectional and one longitudinal) to explore patients’ and physiotherapists’ perspectives of treatment outcomes and experiences in episodes of LBP in the same dialogic space. The objective was to explore the alignment between these perceptions to identify factors that influence the therapeutic relationship over time. Summary of methods used and results. Two secondary thematic analyses were undertaken, one analysing cross-sectional data and the other analysing longitudinal data, from an existing data set from the programme: “Exploring the relationship between communication and clinical decision-making in physiotherapy consultations for back pain”. All data were thematically analysed and organised using a framework approach. Six themes emerged from the cross-sectional data reporting consistency of opinion in the initial consultation stages, but highlighting inadequate patient involvement in shared decision making. Four main themes emerged from the longitudinal data, all of which reported interactional fears and anxieties identified on both the parts of the patient and the physiotherapist. Conclusion. These findings suggest that failing to involve the patient in adequately personalised treatment from the initial consultation may lead to diagnosis hunting and stereotyping behaviours within the therapeutic relationship, in turn leading to increased health resource usage. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of Funding. The primary data set was collected in a research programme funded by Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis)

Purpose and background of the study. Self-management and behaviour change is at the core of back pain management. Despite the high-rate of recurrence and healthcare utilisation, clinical guidelines do not include guidance for clinicians on return consultations. This project aimed to identify primary care clinicians’ reported practices and experiences of delivering self-management advice for people returning with persistent low back pain (LBP), to inform future delivery of self-management care. Methods and Results. In this qualitative study involving 27 primary care clinicians, four focus groups and two semi-structure interviews were conducted online. GPs (n=5) and physiotherapists working in primary care roles (First contact practitioners n=7, community and interface roles n=7, and mixed roles n=8) in England and Scotland shared their experience of delivering self-management advice to people returning with persistent LBP. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Clinicians unanimously shared their frustrations identifying the challenges involved in supporting people who return with LBP. Helpful strategies to support self-management in return consultations were identified by clinicians in addition to service and system-level changes vital to optimise care. Patient-factors affecting delivery of care, lack of defined responsibility and challenges in meeting patients’ expectations illustrated the tensions that exist in return consultations. Conclusion. This novel study provides insight into the experiences and practices of the frontline primary care workforce seeing patients return with persistent or recurrent LBP. It identifies the tensions that exist between services, professional roles and between clinicians and patients regarding self-management. Important practice implications have been identified to improve information-sharing, agenda-setting, and exploring expectations. No conflicts of interest.  . Source of funding. Lisa Osborn-Jenkins is funded by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) Research & Development PhD Fellowship [GRT0723]

Purpose and background. Low back pain burdens individuals, society and services, including Emergency Departments (ED), straining services and prolonging wait times. Despite reported personal influences on deciding to attend ED, the role of third-party advice remains underexplored. Sparse guidance for clinicians and service-users highlights the need for effective back pain management strategies, to alleviate system pressure and optimise patient outcomes. This study explored how advice influences the decision to attend the ED for back pain. Methods and Results. From a subtle realist stance, the design was a secondary analysis of qualitative data, where 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) with back pain were purposively sampled from four EDs (2 Northern and 2 Southern) in England between August and December 2021. Eight patients had previously visited ED for this episode of back pain. As this was during the pandemic, semi-structured interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflective thematic analysis. Three themes were identified as crucial in making the decision to attend ED: The Healthcare professional; Trusted others; and the Individual. Healthcare professionals often dictated decisions, leaving participants feeling powerless. Trusted others provided varying support levels, often acting as allies. Individuals grappled with anxieties around their condition and treatment expectations. Conclusion. This study highlights the need for clinicians to provide clarity and guidance to individuals and their Trusted others, seeking advice regarding escalation to visit the ED with back pain. There was evidence that worrying about pain was a significant motivator for attending ED, resulting in malalignment with current practice guidelines. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Cauda equina syndrome (CES) leads to nerve compression in the lumbar spine, and requires immediate treatment to prevent permanent neurological dysfunction, including urinary/anorectal incontinence. The consequences for the patient are significant as, in the decade to 2018, CES has cost the NHS £186,134,049. No study has reported patients’ experiences of being managed with suspected CES in an emergency department (ED), and this study explores patients’ experiences and how the NHS can optimise care for patients experiencing this condition. Methods and Results. In this qualitative secondary analysis, 14 participants (aged 23–63 years) with suspected CES were purposively sampled from 4 EDs in England. Online, semi-structed interviews were undertaken (in 2021, during the pandemic), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a Framework approach and analysed thematically. Three themes were identified: quality of care; environmental factors; and expectations. The quality of care included managing uncertainty, the importance of communication, appropriate assessment and follow-up care. Environmental factors, including the chairs, waiting times and the busy nature of the ED, negatively impacted patients’ experiences. Furthermore, an expectation gap was identified, as most individuals came to the ED expecting to receive a scan, an accurate diagnosis and a cure. Despite frustrations, patients expressed gratitude towards the ED staff. Conclusion. This study highlights the importance of empathically acknowledging the patient's pain and providing comprehensive assessments and management plans for people attending ED with suspected CES. Optimising the ED environment to minimise patients’ pain and distress while waiting to access care is paramount and overdue. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Background. Information about low back pain (LBP) and help to support patients' self-management are recommended in the majority of guidelines for LBP management. However, the delivery of patient information and advice can be time consuming, and with short available consultation times for general practitioners (GPs), new methods to support the delivery of sufficient patient information is called for. Purpose. To identify general practitioners' perspectives on recommending online information to patients with LBP. Methods. Danish GPs varying in age and professional interests were recruited to interviewing in their practices (their working environment). The interviews were based on a semi-structured interview guide, based on a value-led method, and inspired by think aloud methods,. Results. Eight 60-Minutes interviews were conducted. For GPs to recommend online LBP information, it is essential to target the information to their patients. GPs expressed the possible advantages by involving both healthcare professionals and patients in the development of the online information material by aligning the content with the face-to-face delivered information. Furthermore, the content should be guideline concordant. However, GPs expressed that some patients had problems with accessing and understanding health-related LBP information. Conclusion. When developing online information, the content should be supported by evidence and it is important to involve patients' and GPs' preferences in the design process. Consequently, including the elements in evidence-based medicine. However, GPs do not consider online information material to be suited to all. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Funded by ARs' Honour in Medical Research from Magda and Svend Aage Friederichs Memorial Fund and the Novo Nordic Foundation

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

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. Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. Objectives. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions. Methods. Three Delphi rounds with 64 experts in placebo research and/or non-pharmacological clinical trials were conducted. The panel was presented with a systematic review and meta-analysis of control and blinding methods. A draft guidance document included 63 consensus items (≥80% agreement) and was discussed with patient partners. Finally, the draft guidance and results from stakeholder interviews were discussed at consensus meetings with Delphi participants and patient representatives. Results. Forty-four experts completed the process. When treatment efficacy or mechanisms are to be studied, the advocated principle is to design control interventions as similar as possible to the tested intervention, apart from the components that the study examines. Structured reasoning in the planning phase, early engagement with stakeholders, feasibility work, and piloting will enhance the quality and acceptability of control interventions. With participant blinding being a primary objective, blinding effectiveness should be routinely assessed and reported. Transparent and detailed reporting will improve interpretability and repeatability of clinical trials. Conclusion. This guideline provides the much-needed standards to enhance the quality of efficacy clinical trials in physical, psychological, and self-management intervention research, ultimately improving patient care. Study registration: . https://osf.io/jmyhq/. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Sources of Funding: Alain and Sheila Diamond Charitable Trust PhD Studentship

Background and study purpose. Low mood and distress are commonly reported with by people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and may be mislabelled as ‘depression’. In order to understand how pain-related distress is conceptualised and managed in primary care consultations, we explored understanding of pain-related distress and depression from the perspectives of people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and general practitioners (GPs). Method and results. Semi-structured interviews with 21 GPs and 21 people with persistent musculoskeletal pain were conducted. The majority of people with pain had back pain (15/21). Data were analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Participants described challenges distinguishing between distress and depression in the context of persistent pain but described strategies to make this distinction. Some people with pain described how acceptance of their situation was key, involving optimism about the future and creation of a new identity. Some GPs expressed ‘therapeutic nihilism’, with uncertainty about the cause of pain and thus how to manage people with both pain and distress, whilst GPs who could identify and build on optimism with patients described how this could help the patient to move forwards. Conclusion. This study offers a model for the primary care consultation with patients presenting with pain-related distress. GPs should recognize the impact of pain on the patient, support the person in acceptance of the pain, explore how the person feels about the future, encourage optimism, and support self-management strategies. Conflicts of Interest: No conflict of interests. 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

Purpose of study. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is a surgical emergency. With Physiotherapists increasingly taking on first-contact and spinal triage roles, screening for CES must be as thorough and effective as possible. This study explores whether Physiotherapists are asking the correct questions, in the correct way and investigates their experiences when screening for this serious condition. Background. Thirty physiotherapists working in a community musculoskeletal service were purposively invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Data was transcribed and thematically analysed. Methods and Results. All participants routinely asked bladder, bowel function and saddle anaesthesia screening questions although only 9 routinely asked about sexual function. Whether questions are asked in the correct way has never been studied. Sufficient depth of questioning was achieved by 63% of participants, 76% used lay terminology and 73% used explicit language. Only 43% framed the questions before asking them and only 16% combined all four dimensions. Whilst most participants (n = 25) felt comfortable asking general CES questions, 50% reported feeling uncomfortable when asking about sexual function. Issues around; gender, culture and language were also highlighted. Conclusion. Four main themes emerged from this study; i) Physiotherapists ask the right questions but frequently omit sexual function questions, ii) mostly, Physiotherapists ask CES questions in a way that patients understand however, there needs to be improvement in framing the context of the questions, iii) Physiotherapists generally feel comfortable with CES screening but there is some awkwardness surrounding discussion of sexual function and iv) Physiotherapists perceive there to be barriers to effective CES screening caused by culture and language. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained. Previously presented poster at BritSpine 2021 and VPUK 2021

Purpose and Background. Patients’ engagement with self-management strategies (SMS) is key when managing low back pain (LBP) and relies on appropriate information being delivered by the treating Clinician. However, patients have differing coping mechanisms which may affect success with SMS. This study aimed to determine Patient and Physiotherapist's perceptions of coping responses and SMS in patients with LBP. Methods. Patient completed a Pain Coping strategies questionnaire, before and after LBP treatment. Semi-structured interviews gathered data from of 10 patients (6 males; and 6 physiotherapists. Questionnaire data was described descriptively, and qualitative data was transcribed/analysed thematically. Results. 5 patients were categorized as ‘active copers’ and 5 as ‘passive copers’ before treatment. SMS success appeared to be impacted by patient coping strategies they adopted. Spiritual religious coping strategies linked to cultural beliefs was a common strategy for all patients. However, the active copers were more likely to engage with active strategies compared to passive copers. All patients felt they had not received full education/details about the home exercises. One patient became an ‘active coper’ following treatment demonstrating high self-confidence to self-manage pain and accepted exercises as a lifestyle. Physiotherapists did not use a valid method for screening purposes for coping, although they referred to ascertaining this verbally and they did tailor exercises differently for passive and active copers. Conclusion. Screening for individual coping strategies would enhance targeting treatments and all patients would benefit from full exercise programmes for self- management and pain self-efficacy approaches to change patients ‘behaviour and enhance patients’ self-confidence. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The study is sponsored by Kuwait Government