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