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. 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.Background and study purpose
Methods and results
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. 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.Background
Methods and results
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). 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.Background and study purpose
Method and results
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. 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.Background:
Methods:
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. 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 statement of the purposes of the study and background:
A summary of the methods used and the results:
With a strong political agenda for change towards patient-centred healthcare, the notion of shared decision-making is reported to substantially improve patient experience, adherence to treatment and health outcomes. In clinical practice however, observational studies have shown shared decision-making is rarely implemented and patient preferences are seldom met. The aim of this study was to measure the extent of shared decision-making in clinical encounters involving physiotherapists and patients with low back pain. Eighty outpatient encounters (from 12 clinicians) were observed, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the OPTION instrument. This measures 12 decision-making items, rated on a scale 0–4, which are summated and scaled to give a percentage: The higher the score, the greater the shared decision-making competency. The mean OPTION score was 24.0% (range 10.4%–43.8%). Providing patients with a list of treatment options was the only behaviour exhibited by every clinician, however in 73.8%, this was not demonstrated beyond a perfunctory level. Failure to offer the choice of doing nothing, or deferring the decision precluded clinicians from attaining a higher OPTION score.Purpose of the Study and Background
Methods and Results
