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
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
Previous research in people with musculoskeletal low back pain (MLBP) in primary care shows that a reliable and valid measure of consultation-based reassurance enables testing reassurance against patient' outcomes. Little is known about the role of reassurance in people with MLBP consulting spinal surgeons, especially in cases where surgeons recommend not to have surgery. There might be several reasons to exclude surgery as a treatment option, that range from positive messages about symptoms resolving to negative messages, suggesting that all reasonable avenue of treatment have been exhausted. AIM to explore patient's experience of consultation-based reassurance in people with MLBP who have been recently advised not to have surgery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 low back pain patients who had recently consulted for spinal surgery and were advised that surgery is not indicated. Interview were audio recorded and transcribed, and then coded using NVIVO qualitative software and analysed using the Framework Analysis.Background
Methods
Although pain is usually described as a private experience, how pain is understood and responded to by others is important. A crucial feature of this process is empathy. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between empathy for pain and observers' health anxiety and fear of pain. The role of the observer's sex and age were also examined. In this study 159 participants (73 males, mean age=41, SD=19.6) were presented with 16 images of individuals in pain (8 female, 8 male), and subsequently rated their empathy towards them. Participants then completed the fear of pain and health anxiety measures. Both fear of pain and health anxiety were positively associated with empathy for pain, but in the regression model only fear of pain was a significant positive predictor of empathy for pain (Purpose of the study and background
Methods and results
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and greater understanding of mechanisms leading to increased disability in LBP is necessary. Pain-related guilt and in particular social guilt (one type of pain-related guilt) has recently been linked to greater depression, anxiety and disability in LBP. Research has also shown that greater acceptance of pain is associated with less pain intensity, depression, pain-related anxiety and disability, and with greater daily activity and overall wellbeing in chronic pain patients. The current study aim was to understand the relationship between pain-related guilt and pain-related acceptance in LBP. The study examined the relationship between pain-related guilt and pain-related acceptance in a sample of 287 LBP patients. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted in which known correlates of pain-related acceptance (pain intensity, disability, depression and anxiety) were controlled for, with the objective of testing whether pain-related guilt explains any unique variance in pain-related acceptance. Social guilt was the strongest predictor of reduced pain-related acceptance in all analyses.Statement of the purposes of the study and background:
Summary of the methods used and the results:
A distinction has been posited between cognitive (informational) and affective (emotional) reassurance, with a suggestion that affective reassurance may negatively affect patient outcomes by reducing patients' motivation to engage with information conducive to recovery. Cognitive reassurance, though, provides explanations and information to help patients self-manage, and so aids recovery. However, research is lacking on how each actually affects patient outcomes in primary care. To develop a valid measure of practitioner reassurance, and assess the impact of different reassurance strategies on patients' outcomes.Background:
Purpose of the Study:
Patients' beliefs about the origin of their pain and their cognitive processing of pain-related information have both been shown to be associated with poorer prognosis in low back pain (LBP), but the relationship between specific beliefs and specific cognitive processes is not known. The aim of this study was to study the relationship between diagnostic uncertainty and recall bias in two groups of chronic LBP patients, those who were certain about their diagnosis, and those who believed that their pain was due to an undiagnosed problem. Patients (N=68) endorsed and subsequently recalled pain, illness, depression and neutral stimuli. They also provided measures of pain, diagnostic status, mood and disability. Both groups exhibited a recall bias for pain stimuli, but only the group with diagnostic uncertainty additionally displayed a recall bias for illness-related stimuli. This bias remained after controlling for depression and disability. Sensitivity analyses using grouping by diagnosis/explanation received supported these findings. Higher levels of depression and disability were found in the group with diagnostic uncertainty, but levels of pain intensity did not differ between the groups.Purpose of the study and background
Summary of the methods used and the results
In the majority of low back pain (LBP) patients a definitive cause for back pain cannot be established; consequently, many patients report feeling uncertain about their diagnosis. They also experience pain-related guilt, which can be divided into: social guilt, managing pain guilt and verification of pain guilt. This study aimed to test a theoretical (causal) model, which proposed that diagnostic uncertainty leads to pain-related guilt, which leads to depression, anxiety and finally to disability. Structural equation modelling was employed to test this model on 438 participants with LBP. The model demonstrated an adequate to good fit with the data. Diagnostic uncertainty predicts all three types of guilt. Verification of pain guilt predicts disability, managing pain guilt predicts anxiety, while social guilt was the strongest predictor of negative outcomes, predicting depression, anxiety and disability.Purpose of the study and background
Summary of the methods used and the results
Identifying mechanisms that mediate recovery is imperative to improve outcomes in low back pain (LBP). Qualitative studies suggest that guilt may be such a mechanism, but research on this concept is scarce, and reliable instruments to measure pain-related guilt are not available. We addressed this gap by developing and testing a pain-related guilt scale (PGS) for people with LBP. Two samples of participants with LBP completed the scale and provided data on rates of depression, anxiety, pain intensity and disability. Three factors were identified using exploratory factor analysis (n=137): ‘Social guilt’ (4 items) relating to letting down family and friends; ‘Managing condition/pain guilt’, (5 items) relating to failing to overcome and control pain; and ‘Verification of pain guilt’, (3 items) relating to the absence of objective evidence and diagnosis. This factor structure was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (n=288), demonstrating an adequate to good fit with the data (AGFI= 0.913, RAMSEA= 0.061). The PGS subscales positively correlated with depression, anxiety, pain intensity and disability. After controlling for depression and anxiety the majority of relationships between the PGS subscales and disability and pain intensity remained significant, suggesting that guilt shared unique variance with disability and pain intensity independent of depression and anxiety. High levels of guilt were reported by over 40% of patients.Purpose of the study and background:
Summary of the methods used and the results:
Fear avoidance (FA) has been identified as a risk factor for poor prognosis and a target for intervention in patients with low back pain (LBP), but the mechanisms involved need clarification. Experimental studies would benefit from the use of carefully developed and controlled stimuli representing avoided movements in back pain, and matched stimuli of movements to provide a credible control stimuli. Existing stimuli depicting avoided movements in LBP are static, do not include a set of control stimuli, and do not control for possible systematic observer biases. Two studies were carried out aiming to develop and test LBP patients' responses to videos of models depicting commonly avoided movements associated with back pain, and those associated with a control condition, wrist pain. Two samples of LBP patients rated how much pain and harm each movement would cause them. They also reported how often they avoided the movement. The findings from the first study (N = 99) indicate that using videos of commonly avoided movements in low back pain is viable, and that movements associated with wrist pain provide an acceptable control stimuli. Participants in the second study (N=85) consistently rated movements depicted by females as causing more harm, and more frequently avoided than the same movements depicted by males.Background
Method and results
There is on-going debate about a possible link between manipulation and stroke in patients, and a growing interest in other treatment reactions such as increased pain. Evidence about manipulation is contradictory. There is little published information about outcomes in osteopathy. We aimed to address this gap. A survey was sent to all UK practising osteopaths. Another survey was sent to patients recruited by osteopaths. Patients were surveyed before treatment, one day and two days after treatment and at six weeks. 1,082 (27.8%) osteopaths completed the practitioner survey. 2,057 patients, recruited from 212 osteopaths, completed questionnaires before, and directly after their treatment. 1,387 patients provided data six weeks after treatment. Between 10% and 20% of patients experienced increased symptoms/pain related to their main complaint in the days directly following treatment. This was highest for new patients. At 6 weeks, 4% of patients reported temporary disability, which they attributed to osteopathic treatment. 10% of patients reported seeking further consultation for worsening symptoms associated with osteopathic care. The comparison between those that received manipulation and those that did not suggests that manipulation was not linked to worsening outcomes. In the preceding year, 4% of osteopaths reported that they had patients who experienced a range of serious events. The most common event described was the occurrence of peripheral neurological symptoms. There were also 7 reports of stroke-like symptoms.Background and purpose
Methods and results
Private musculoskeletal practitioners treat a large section of people with back pain, and could play an important role in returning and maintaining patients to work. We aimed to examine practitioners perception of their role quantitatively. A postal questionnaire was sent to 300 chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (n=900). Responses were received from 352 out of 900 (39%). Physiotherapists visited the work place more frequently than either of the other groups, osteopaths were more likely to give out sick leave certificates than chiropractors, who in turn are more likely to give out sick leave certificates than physiotherapists. Physiotherapists had a significantly higher belief in the psychological benefits of work, and in the importance of contacting work than either chiropractors or osteopaths. In addition, physiotherapists held the strongest belief that returning their patients to work was within their remit. There were no differences between the groups in their beliefs that employers could be an obstacle to return to work, that work could be detrimental to recovery, or in their belief that rest from work was necessary for recovery. Purpose and background
methods and results
There is growing concern that current outcome measures of back pain trials do not comprehensively capture what is important to patients. Some researchers believe we need to incorporate patients in the development of ‘next-generation’ outcomes. As a preliminary step to patient-interviews, we aimed to articulate ‘important change’ from the patients' perspective, as represented in reports of qualitative investigations inadvertently or directly exploring this. We adopted a multi-strand search of electronic databases, and citation and reference tracking. Two researchers identified qualitative investigations relating to low back pain. Data were abstracted and synthesised using meta-ethnographic processes. Provisional results, based on 41 studies, indicate few studies have directly addressed this issue, but that data regarding experience and expectations may be useful. Whilst results suggest that practically, patients are concerned with (re-)engagement in meaningful activities, the more experientially focused literature suggests that patients want to be believed and have validated their experiences and identity as someone ‘doing battle’ with pain. Patients seek not only diagnoses, treatment and cure, but simultaneously reassurance of the absence of pathology. In the absence of tenable diagnoses, some feel they must not adopt a ‘sick role’. Some struggle, but manage to meet others' expectations; thereby undermining the credibility of their pain/disability claims. Others withdraw, fearful of disapprobation and unable or unwilling to accommodate social demands. Patients generally seek to regain their pre-pain healthy, and emotionally robust state.Study purpose and background
Summary of methods used and results
Effective reassurance is an essential element of treatment for conditions that do not require further investigations, referrals and on-going monitoring. However, research defining what reassurance should consist of and how to deliver it is scarce. The aim of this review was to identify consultation-related processes that improved patients' outcomes, in order to build an evidence-based model of effective reassurance in primary care. A literature search identified prospective observational studies that explicitly measured consultation-related factors in appropriate primary care patient groups. The findings from empirical studies were combined with theoretical and systematic reviews to develop a model of effective reassurance. Scrutiny of 8193 Abstracts yielded 29 empirical studies fitting inclusion criteria, and 64 reviews. The majority of studies measured patient satisfaction. Clinical outcomes (e.g. health status / symptom reduction) appear to improve with patients' active participation in the consultation. Behavioural outcomes (e.g. adherence/ health care utilization) were only measured in a handful of studies, but may improve when information was given in the final stage of the consultation. Psychological outcomes (e.g. health concerns) were consistently improved by patient-centred approaches.Purpose and background
Method and results
In conclusion, private musculoskeletal practitioners explore work-related issues, and see return to work as an important treatment goal.
Patients’ who had consulted both mainstream and CAM practitioners reported the poorest health outcomes (EQ 5D = 0.55), followed by those who consulted just mainstream practitioners (EQ 5D = 0.61), and those who had consulted no one (EQ 5D = 0.72). The best health outcomes were reported amongst those who had just consulted CAM practitioners (EQ 5D =0.78). In multivariate analyses, the most powerful predictors of consulting both mainstream and CAM practitioners were working and having high levels of pain related disability.
The steering committee produced checklists of predictors and outcomes based on systematic reviews and a Delphi focus group. The international teams of experts coded each item for inclusion or exclusion, and recommended new items. This process was iterated twice to resolve disagreement between teams, and to receive scores for new items. The steering committee carried out a consensus synthesis and produced the final lists for predictors and outcome. Finally, the measurements for each factor were selected based on:
original systematic review recommendations from existing systematic review Recommendations from consensus statements and narrative reviews consultation with independent experts.
