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

Background. Internet delivered interventions may provide a route to rapid support for behavioural self-management for low back pain (LBP) that could be widely applied within primary care. Although evidence is emerging that more complex technologies (mobile apps linked to digital wristbands) can have some impact on LBP-related disability, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of highly accessible, web-based support for self-management for LBP. Methods and results. We conducted a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial, testing ‘SupportBack’, an accessible internet intervention developed specifically for primary care. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the SupportBack interventions in reducing LBP-related physical disability in primary care patients. Participants were randomised to 1 of 3 arms: 1) Usual care + internet intervention + physiotherapy telephone support, 2) Usual care + internet intervention, 3) Usual care alone. Utilising a repeated measures design, the primary outcome for the trial was disability over 12 months using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: 826 were randomised, with follow-up rates: 6 weeks = 83%; 3 months = 72%; 6 months = 70%; 12 months = 79%. Analysis is ongoing, comparing each intervention arm versus usual care alone. The key results will be presented at the conference. Conclusion. We believe this to be the largest trial of it's kind internationally. The trial will extend knowledge regarding the effectiveness of highly accessible internet interventions to support self-management and activity in people with LBP consulting in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Source of funding: NIHR HTA Project number 16/111/78

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]

Background. Medication prescribing patterns for patients with neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care are unknown. Purpose. To estimate the proportion of patients prescribed pain medications, describe baseline characteristics of patients prescribed neuropathic pain (NP) medication and estimate the proportion of LBLP patients with refractory NP. Methods. General practice electronic medical and prescribing records of a large (n=609), prospective, primary-care cohort of LBLP patients were analysed. Cases of NP were identified using the self-report version of the NP scale, Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (score of ≥12 indicates possible NP) (n=293). Patients with leg pain intensity ≥ 5 (mean of three 0–10 NRSs) or <30% reduction in disability (RMDQ 0–23) at 4-months compared to baseline and who were prescribed ≥ 2 NP medications were considered to have refractory NP. Results. 82% (223/273) of patients with NP were prescribed at least one pain medication; 29% (80/273) of patients were prescribed one first-line NP medication (for example Amitriptyline). Patients who were prescribed NP medication(s) had higher leg pain intensity and disability. There was evidence that patients improved with (61%, 41/67) and without (75%, 76/102) having been prescribed NP medication. Few patients (4%, 7/169) met the criteria for refractory NP suggesting that the scale of the problem in primary care is limited. Conclusion. Patients with NP were commonly prescribed pain medication, under a third were prescribed NP medication and many patients improved without such medication. Future research is needed to determine the effectiveness of NP medication. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Sarah Harrisson is a Clinical Doctoral Fellow funded through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship awarded to Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Kika Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ National Institute for Health Research Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work relates to an Education and Continued Professional Development (level 2) award by the Musculoskeletal Association of Chartered Physiotherapists to Sarah Harrisson (June 2016)

Background:. Internet interventions provide an opportunity to encourage patients with LBP to self-manage and remain active, by tailoring advice and providing evidence-based support for increasing physical activity. This paper reports the development of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, designed for use with usual primary care, as the first stage of a feasibility RCT currently underway comparing: usual primary care alone; usual care plus the internet intervention; usual care plus the internet intervention with physiotherapist telephone support. Methods:. The internet intervention delivers a 6-week, tailored programme focused on graded goal setting, self-monitoring, and provision of tailored feedback to encourage physical activity/exercise increases or maintenance. 22 patients with back pain from primary care took part in ‘think aloud’ interviews, to qualitatively explore the intervention, provide feedback on its relevance and quality and identify any extraneous content or omissions. Results:. Valuable feedback and suggested amendments from patients included individually-tailoring the activity programme, using the individual's current pain or activity level. Patients reported that the goal setting module was helpful, and were content with the range of activities offered by ‘SupportBack’. The majority of patients reported they would accept their GP's recommendation and use a credible internet intervention such as this programme to help improve self-management. Conclusions:. The development of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention has worked with patients to create an acceptable online tailored resource to supplement primary care management for patients with low back pain. The intervention is currently being trialled to determine feasibility and the most appropriate way to support its delivery

Purpose and background. Back pain guidelines endorse giving advice to enable people to self-manage and continue normal activities. Little is known however, about the content of advice that clinicians give and this project aimed to identify the advice given by physiotherapists to patients with back pain at their initial consultation. Patients and methods. Twenty-five audio-recordings of patients with back pain and physiotherapists in a primary care outpatient department were collected, transcribed, coded and thematically analysed using a Framework approach to identify the content of advice given. Results. The mean duration of consultation was 38 minutes 59 seconds (range 26:21–53:16). Advice was given in 88% (n=22/25) consultations and 96% included additional exercise instruction. Cognitive reassurance was evident, focussing on getting people confident to ‘move your back’ despite pain and encouraging active lifestyle changes. Beyond reassurance and discussion to enhance confidence, the key topics of advice given were: activity promotion; postural changes; practical self-help advice regarding ways to sit; pain-management advice including medication and the use of heat. Gaps were identified in the completeness of the advice given and there was a lack of specificity, especially relating to the frequency of recommended tasks and activities. Conclusion. Advice and reassurance are integral to enabling people to self-manage their back pain. Despite its importance, little is known about the advice offered by clinicians. This novel, observational study identifies the topics of advice given by clinicians in back pain consultations and recognises the need for guidance to be patient-centred and specific. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The data were collected as part of Lisa Roberts's Arthritis Research UK academic fellowship [17830]. Lisa Roberts currently holds an NIHR senior clinical lectureship (round 3)

Background. Patients with low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can present with neuropathic pain; it is not known but is often assumed that neuropathic pain persists over time. This research aimed to identify cases with neuropathic pain that persisted at short, intermediate and longer-term time points, in LBLP patients consulting in primary care. Methods. LBLP patients in a primary care cohort study (n=606) completed the self-report version of Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (s-LANSS, score of ≥12 indicates possible neuropathic pain) at baseline, 4-months, 12-months and 3-years. S-LANSS scores and percentages of patients with score of ≥12 are described at each time-point. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Results. At baseline, 48.3% (293/606) of patients presented with neuropathic pain, 25.0% (94/376) at 4-months, 22.6% (79/349) at 12-months and 21.6% (58/268) at 3-years. A small proportion (6.6%) scored ≥ 12 at all four time-points. Those who scored ≥ 12 at baseline and 4-months reported higher disability (RMDQ (0–23) 15.2) and depression scores (HADS (0–21) 8.6), and lower pain self-efficacy (PSEQ (0–60) 27.2), compared to those with neuropathic pain at one other time-point at most. Conclusion. Few LBLP patients in primary care present with long-term persistent neuropathic pain. Patients with neuropathic pain at baseline and short-term follow-up present with greater morbidity in terms of disability, depression and lower confidence to manage their pain. This is important because these patients may benefit the most from early intervention using neuropathic pain medication. These findings will inform research investigating potential prognostic indicators of persistent neuropathic pain. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Support for SA Harrisson, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Fellow and NE Foster, an NIHR Senior Investigator, was provided by an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NE Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). K Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Background. Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual, health care and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) is investigating whether stratified primary care for sciatica is more effective and cost-effective than usual, non-stratified primary care. Stratified care involves subgrouping patients to one of three groups based on a combination of prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one of these groups are ‘fast-tracked’ with an MRI scan to spinal specialist opinion. Our aim was to understand the perspectives of clinicians on the acceptability of this ‘fast-track’ pathway. Methods. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists and spinal surgeons (n=20 in total). Interviews were fully transcribed, and data were analysed using the constant comparison method. Results. Across all groups, clinicians identified potential added value in ‘fast-tracking’ some sciatica patients in terms of patient reassurance based on MRI scan findings. Whilst spinal physiotherapists felt that most ‘fast track’ patients were appropriate, some spinal physiotherapists and GPs had concerns that patients with symptom durations of less than 6 weeks might be inappropriately fast-tracked since their symptoms may still resolve without the need for invasive treatments. Spinal surgeons felt it was acceptable for patients with short symptom durations to be ‘fast-tracked’, but to provide early reassurance rather than direct treatment. Conclusion. Whilst clinicians saw added value in a group of sciatica patients being ‘fast-tracked’ to specialist opinion, there was some reservation about moving away from the usual stepped care, ‘wait and see’ approach for patients with short symptom duration. Conflicts of interest statement. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Funding support is also received from an NIHR Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015), who is an NIHR Senior Investigator, and a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award for Kika Konstantinou. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. The study was approved by the NRES Committee West Midlands – Solihull, 17/03/2015, ref: 15/WM/0078. Trial registration: ISRCTN75449581

Aim. To develop a clinical core set of outcome measures that is accepted for relevance, feasibility and validity by stakeholders and useful for a) interaction between patient and professional, b) internal quality improvement, and c) external transparency in patients with NSLBP in primary care physical therapy. Method. We used a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA Delphi technique. We conducted seven separate steps with panellists (physical therapists, patient representatives, health insurers) to select accepted outcomes. These seven steps consisted of a literature search, two online surveys, patient interviews, an experts meeting, a consensus meeting and final approval of an advisory board. Results of previous steps were discussed during the consensus meeting, and then panellists voted for inclusion per measure. The final core set was rated on relevance and feasibility on a 9-point Likert scale, when the median was ≥7 the core set was accepted. Results. 34 panellists in two online surveys, five panellists in an expert committee, ten patients for semi-structured interviews and 26 panellists in a consensus meeting participated in the study. 12 outcome measures were rated and discussed and finally six outcome measures were accepted. The final core set was accepted with a median of 7. Conclusion. This study present an outcome set that is accepted by stakeholders as having added value for a) interaction between patient and professional, b) internal quality improvement, and c) external transparency in patients with NSLBP in primary care physical therapy. In a next project this outcome set will be tested on his reliability and feasibility in a large pilot. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Health insurance company CZ, the Netherlands

Purpose of Study and Background. Population ageing will facilitate an increase in health problems common in older adults, such as musculoskeletal conditions. Musculoskeletal conditions are the fourth largest contributor to disease burden in older adults; affecting quality of life, physical activity, mental wellbeing and independence. Therefore primary care health services must provide appropriate and efficacious management and treatment. However there are a number of complexities specific to older adults that are essential to address. Methods and Results. In order to identify these complexities, a review of the background literature was undertaken in addition to a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) session. The PPIE group consisted of eight older adults who experience chronic musculoskeletal pain. This session was used to discuss and explore what factors are important to consider in GP consultations for musculoskeletal pain for older adults, in addition to those identified through background literature. A number of factors were highlighted through these methods, including the difference in mood and aspirations for older adults; taking a holistic approach; the impact of comorbidities; whether the GP is listening and ‘on the same wavelength’, and older adults' expectations regarding their pain and the consultation. Conclusion. Management of musculoskeletal pain for older adults in GP consultations is complex due to a range of factors, reinforcing the importance of taking a holistic approach. The impact of these factors upon the experience and outcomes of GP consultations will be further explored through in depth interviews with older adults with musculoskeletal pain. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. This PhD is funded as part of an ACORN studentship awarded by Keele University. This PhD is nested within the Treatment for Aches and Pains Study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1211-20010)

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

Background. Recruitment to time and target in clinical trials is a key challenge requiring careful estimation of numbers of potential participants. The SCOPiC trial ((HTA 12/201/09) (ISRCTN75449581)) is investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica in primary care. Here, we describe the approaches followed to achieve recruitment of our required sample size (n=470), the challenges encountered and required adaptations. Methods. We used recruitment data from the SCOPiC trial and its internal pilot, to show the differences between estimated and actual numbers of patients from consultation to participation in the trial. Patients were consented to the trial if they had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (with at least 70% confidence) and met the trial eligibility criteria. Results. Initial recruitment estimates suggested we needed a source population of 146,000 adults registered at approximately 30 GP practices, and a monthly trial recruitment target of 22 patients per month over 22 months. The internal pilot trial phase resulted in revisions of these estimates to 256,000 and 42 GP practices. To date, 1,623 patients have been screened for eligibility and 450 randomised. The main reason for ineligibility is low confidence in the diagnosis of sciatica. Conclusion. Our experience highlights the challenge of recruitment to clinical trials of sciatica, particularly in terms of case definition, and the need for careful planning and an internal pilot phase prior to a main trial. We believe our experience will be helpful to others conducting trials with sciatica patients. No conflicts of interest. Funding. NEF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. KK is supported through a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award. The SCOPiC trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Background. 60% of back pain patients report pain radiation in the leg(s), which is associated with worse symptoms and poorer recovery. The majority are treated in primary care, but detailed information about them is scarce. The objective of this study is to describe the characteristics of patients with back and leg pain-seeking treatment in primary care. Methods. Adult patients consulting their GP with back and leg pain were invited to the study. Participants completed questionnaires including sociodemographic, physical and psychosocial measures. They also underwent standardised clinical assessments by physiotherapists, and received an MRI scan. Results. 609 patients participated with 67.5% reporting pain below the knee. 62.6% were female, sample mean (SD) age 50.2 (13.9). 367 (60.7%) were in paid employment with 39.7% reporting time off work. Mean disability (RMDQ) was 12.7 (5.7) and mean pain intensity was 5.6 (2.2) and 5.2 (2.4) for back and leg respectively. Mean sciatica bothersomeness index (SBI) score was 14.9 (5.1). 74.2% (452/609) were clinically diagnosed as having sciatica. Patients in the sciatica group reported significantly higher levels of leg pain and SBI scores, leg pain worse than back pain and pain below the knee. Neuropathic pain was more prevalent in patients with referred leg pain. Conclusion. This primary care cohort reported high levels of disability and pain. Three quarters were diagnosed with sciatica. Follow-up of this cohort will investigate the prognostic value of their baseline characteristics. This abstract summarises independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0707-10131). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. K. Konstantinou is supported by a HEFCE/NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. KM Dunn is supported by the Wellcome Trust (083572)

Background. Stratifying patients with Low Back Pain (LBP) using the STarT Back Tool and delivering targeted treatment has demonstrated efficacy in individual physiotherapy settings. Physiotherapy interventions for LBP patients are often delivered in groups. This study aimed to explore the sustainability and cost effectiveness of a group stratified intervention in primary care. Methods. This non-randomised controlled trial compared a novel group stratified intervention to a historical non-stratified group control. Patients from 30 GP practices in Waterford Primary Care were stratified and offered a matched targeted group intervention. The historical control received a generic group intervention. The primary outcome measure was disability (RMDQ) at 12 weeks. A cost effectiveness analysis was also undertaken. Analysis was by intention to treat. Ethical approval was obtained. Results. 251 patients in the new stratified intervention and 332 in the historical control were included. Overall adjusted mean changes in the RMDQ scores were higher in the stratified intervention than in the control arm [p=0.028]. Exploring the risk groups individually the high-risk (HR) stratified group demonstrated better outcome over the controls (p=0.031)]. The medium risk (MR) stratified intervention demonstrated equally good outcomes (p=0.125), and low risk (LR) stratified patients, despite less intervention did as well as the historical controls [p=0.993]. With respect to cost effectiveness, the high risk intervention delivered a larger reduction in disability per unit time and proved equally cost effective as the medium risk intervention (HR €44.50 v MR €45.43). Conclusion. Group stratified care provides both a clinically effective and cost effective model of care for LBP patients. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Source of Funding: Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer Healthcare Ireland

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

Purpose of study and background. Neuropathic pain is a challenging pain syndrome to manage. Low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is clinically diagnosed as either sciatica or referred leg pain and sciatica is often assumed to be neuropathic. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and characteristics of neuropathic pain in LBLP patients. Methods. Analysis of cross-sectional data from a prospective, primary care cohort of 609 LBLP patients. Patients completed questionnaires, and received clinical assessment including MRI. Neuropathic characteristics (NC) were measured using the self-report version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs scale (SLANSS; score of ≥12 indicates pain with NC). Results. 52% of the patients diagnosed with sciatica and 39% of those diagnosed with referred leg pain presented with pain with NC. Irrespective of LBLP diagnosis, patients with NC reported significantly worse leg pain (mean 5.8 vs 4.7), back pain intensity (0.0 vs 0.0), disability (RMDQ 15.2 vs 12.4), high risk of persistent disabling pain (47.5% vs 31.5%), depression (HADS 7.3 vs 5.4) and anxiety (8.9 vs 6.7), compared to patients without NC. Sciatica patients with NC presented with higher leg pain (6.0 vs 4.8) and disability but less anxiety (8.6 vs 10.2) and depression compared to patients with referred pain with NC. Conclusion. LBLP patients with NC present with more severe pain, disability and psychological morbidity, but these characteristics differ according to clinical diagnosis, suggesting potential subgroups. The data will inform future research on the clinical course and prognosis of these patients. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Support for SA Harrisson, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Fellow and NE Foster, an NIHR Senior Investigator, was provided by an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NE Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). K Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Background. Criticisms about overuse of MRI in low back pain are well documented. Yet, with the exception of suspicion of serious pathology, little is known about factors that influence clinicians' preference for MRI. We investigated the factors associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI for patients consulting with benign low back and leg pain (LBLP) including sciatica. Methods. Data were collected from 607 primary care patients consulting with LBLP and assessed by 7 physiotherapists, in the ATLAS cohort study. Following clinical assessment, physiotherapists documented whether he/she wanted the patient to have an MRI. Factors potentially associated with clinicians' preference for imaging were selected a priori, from patient characteristics and clinical assessment findings. A mixed-effect logistic regression model examined the associations between these factors and physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Results. Physiotherapists expressed a preference for MRI in 32% (196/607) of patients, of whom 22 did not have a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (radiculopathy). Factors associated with preference for MRI included; clinical diagnosis of sciatica (OR 4.23: 95% CI 2.29,7.81), greater than 3 months pain duration (OR 2.61: 95% CI 1.58,4.30), high pain intensity (OR 1.24: 95%CI 1.11,1.37), patient's low expectation of improvement (OR 2.40: 95% 1.50,3.83), physiotherapist's confidence in the diagnosis (OR 1.19: 95% CI 1.07,1.33) with greater confidence associated with higher probability of preference for MRI. Conclusion. A clinical diagnosis of sciatica and longer symptom duration were most strongly associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Given current best practice guidelines, these appear to be justifiable reasons for wanting patients to have an MRI. Conflicts of interest: None. Funding. SE was supported through an NIHR internship linked to an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NEF (RP-01-015). NEF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. KK is supported through a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Background. Improving primary care management of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a priority. A pilot cluster RCT tested prognostic stratified care for patients with common MSK pain presentations, including low back pain, in 8 UK general practices (4 stratified care; 4 usual care) with 524 patients. GPs in stratified care practices were asked to use i) the Keele STarT MSK tool for risk-stratification and ii) matched treatment options for patients at low-, medium- and high-risk of persistent pain. A linked qualitative process evaluation explored patients' and GPs' views and experiences of stratified care. Methods. Individual ‘stimulated-recall’ interviews with patients and GPs in the stratified care arm (n=10 patients; 10 GPs), prompted by consultation-recordings. Data were analysed thematically and mapped onto the COM-B behaviour change model; exploring the Opportunity, Capability and Motivation GPs and patients had to engage with stratified care. Results. Patients reported positive views that stratified care enabled a more ‘structured’ consultation. GPs identified difficulties integrating the STarT MSK tool in their consultation timeframe (Opportunity), but found this easier as it became more familiar. Both groups saw the tool as having added-value, but identified ‘cumbersome’ items which made it more difficult to use (Capability). GPs reported the matched treatment options aided their clinical decision-making, identified several that were not available to them (e.g. pain-management clinics) and suggested additional options (e.g. GP-management of psychosocial issues (Motivation). Conclusion. Changes to the STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options, targeting the COM-B model constructs, were identified and have been implemented in the current main trial. Conflicts of interest statement: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1211-20010). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). Trial registration: ISRCTN15366334

MRI scanning of spinal patients at the Primary Care Triage stage is pivotal in reducing inappropriate referrals into Secondary Care. A retrospective study was undertaken. Details of patients from spinal triage clinics referred for MRI scan were collated together with a provisional diagnosis. Following imaging the results and management plan were documented. 2191 Patients referred via GP's to Physiotherapy Specialist- lead spinal triage clinics from April to September 2009 inclusive. Referred to a spinal consultant routine/urgent, Managed conservatively, Failed to attend for MRI scanning or MRI cancelled, Sent for scanning for reassurance and discharged. Of 2191 patients seen in a 6-month period 194 (9%) were referred for MRI of which 81 (41%) were referred on to spinal consultant. This equates to 3.7% of the total number of patients triaged. Specialist physiotherapy diagnosticians with access to MRI scanning, allows simultaneous treatment and seamless transfer to spinal consultants for surgical intervention if appropriate. 1. This process is used effectively to manage large numbers of spinal referrals and minimises the number of patients seen unnecessarily in secondary care. 1. This is only possible with close multidisciplinary team working. 2.

Background:. Identification of nerve root involvement (NRI) in patients with low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can be challenging. Diagnostic models have mainly been developed in secondary care with conflicting reference standards and predictor selection. This study aims to ascertain which cluster of items from clinical assessment best identify NRI in primary care consulters with LBLP. Methods:. Cross-sectional data on 395 LBLP consulters were analysed. Potential NRI indicators were seven clinical assessment items. Two definitions of NRI formed the reference standards: (i) high confidence (≥80%) NRI clinical diagnosis (ii) high confidence (≥80%) NRI clinical diagnosis with confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed and compared for both reference standards. Model performances were summarised using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic and area under the curve (AUC). Bootstrapping assessed internal validity. Results:. NRI clinical diagnosis model retained five items. The model with MRI in the reference standard retained six items. Four items remained in both models: below knee pain, leg pain worse than back pain, positive neural tension tests, neurological deficit (myotome, reflex or sensory). NRI clinical diagnosis model was well calibrated (p=0.17) and discrimination was AUC 0.96 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.98). Performance measures for clinical diagnosis plus confirmatory MRI model showed good discrimination (AUC 0.83, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.86) but poor calibration (p=0.01). Bootstrapping revealed minimal overfitting in both models. Conclusion:. A cluster of items identified NRI in LBLP consulters. These criteria could be used clinically and in research to improve accuracy of identification and homogeneity of this subgroup of low back pain patients