Background

Osteopathy has been shown to be effective in the management of chronic low back pain. Guidelines recommend biopsychosocial care for chronic, complex musculoskeletal conditions, including non-specific low back pain but there is a lack of evidence comparing standard osteopathic care, which has traditionally been based on dated and disputed biomechanical theories of dysfunction, with more contemporary biopsychosocial approaches.

Background

There is an increasing burden of LBP. Clinical guidelines promote physical activity (PA) and self-management strategies and aim to reform unhelpful clinical activity. This study explores osteopaths' beliefs about non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and the role of activity in the treatment of NSLBP.

Purpose and background

Pain related distress is associated with poor low back pain outcomes, and is challenging for practitioners to address. This study investigated osteopaths' beliefs about the relationship between chronic pain (CP) and distress (D). The research aimed to explore how patient's distress is understood and managed by osteopath educator clinicians with an interest in the field.

A statement of the purposes of the study and background

The biopsychosocial (BPS) model is recommended for managing non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) but the best method for teaching the BPS model is unclear. E-learning is a promising alternative to face-to-face methods.

This study was a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded interview study to investigate the feasibility of conducting a main RCT and to explore the impact of an BPS for NSLBP e-learning programme on experienced practitioners' attitudes to back pain.

Background:

Low back pain (LBP) is the most common symptom encountered by osteopaths in the UK and affects a third of the UK population each year. Guidelines recommend using the biopsychosocial (BPS) model for non-specific LBP but it remains unclear what the BPS model actually is and how it applies in osteopathy. The aim of this study was to define the factors included in a BPS approach for non-specific LBP in a manual therapy using a systematic search and scoping review.

Background and purpose

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.

Purpose and background

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.

Background and aims: Evidence-based recommendations for practitioners treating back pain emphasize adequate screening of work-related factors, and good communication with employers. It has been argued that getting all the stakeholders onside – including practitioners – could reduce sickness absence. However, expanding the role of clinicians to include exploration of occupational obstacles to recovery, and targeting these within the framework of clinical intervention is controversial. Private musculoskeletal practitioners (MPs) including physiotherapists, chiropractors and osteopaths treat a considerable section of those seeking care for low back pain (LBP). This study aimed to explore how private musculoskeletal practitioners view their role.

Method: A semi-structured interview was carried out with 15 physiotherapists, 16 chiropractors and 14 osteopaths. The interview schedule included questions about the relationship between work & health; communication with employers and GPs; strategies in returning/maintaining patients at work; and sick leave certification. Interviews were audio-taped & transcribed, and content analysis was carried out to extract themes. These were reviewed on a sample of interviews by another researcher, and independently reviewed against verbatim quotes by a third researcher.

Results: There was a consensus that work was in general good for psychological well being, but work-specific issues were also seen as threats to back pain. Most practitioners viewed patients who would not take time off work or moderate work-practices as the strongest threat for further problems. There was very limited communication with employers or GPs, but most practitioners gave advice about moderating work-duties.

In conclusion, private musculoskeletal practitioners explore work-related issues, and see return to work as an important treatment goal.

Conflict of Interest: None

Source of Funding: British Academy and BackCare

Aim of investigation: Fear of movement (avoidance) has been implicated as an obstacle to recovery in back pain. We have argued that the concept of fear-avoidance needs clarifying, to identify sub-groups of avoiders. This study explored the patterns of activation during exposure to previously reported feared movement in patients with chronic back pain. The aim was to explore activation in areas associated with catasrophizing.

Method: 13 chronic back pain patients, who scored above a cut-point on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia selected photographic images representing 5 movements they feared most and five movements they hadno concerns with carrying out. Stimuli were therefore individually selected. Two other sets of stimuli included generally threatening images, and neutral images. These four stimulus types were presented in blocks in a fMRI scanner in random order. Ratings of pain were taken after the presentation of each block.

Results: Analysis of contrasts-of-interest showed that the highly feared movements caused selective activation in areas related to preparation for action, and attentional modulation. The canonical ‘pain matrix’, and areas associated with catasrophizing was not activated.

Conclusion: The activation seen may indicate the involvement of heightened attentional processing and/or response processes (bracing and protecting) when viewing pictures of feared movements. The absence of activity in affective pain areas in the contrast analysis will be discussed in reference to theoretical developments and methodological limitations.

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major and costly health problem which is difficult to treat from both patients’ and practitioners’ perspectives. Gaining a greater understanding of patients’ and practitioners’ decision making may be one way of achieving more successful chronic pain consultations.

Aim: To explore the influences on patients’ decision making regarding care seeking, and practitioners’ decision making regarding care delivery for chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Method: In-depth qualitative interview study of chronic musculoskeletal pain patients and of NHS and private, mainstream and CAM practitioners who treat patients. Topic guides were developed which explored, patients’ and practitioners’ beliefs about the causes of pain and expectations of treatment, and the factors influencing decision making within the consultation. All interviews were audio taped and transcribed for analysis, and data was analysed using Framework.

Results: Fifteen patients and 21 practitioners (two GPs, five chiropractors, five osteopaths and 10 physiotherapists) were interviewed. Themes identified as influencing the process of care and decision making, were the level of trust within the patient-practitioner relationship, beliefs about whom should be responsible for patients’ health, the role of patients’ self identity on the management of pain, and beliefs about whom should hold the expertise within the consultation.

Conclusions: To improve primary care for chronic musculoskeletal pain, the level of trust within the patient-practitioner relationship may need to be increased. This may help practitioners to recognise and accept patients’ growing expertise within the consultation, which in turn may facilitate patients in taking more responsibility for their pain.

Background – Patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain seek care from a wide range of practitioners, both mainstream and complementary and alternative (CAM). Previous research suggests that patients’ social class and educational level may strongly influence their consulting behaviour. The role of health outcomes in influencing patients’ consulting behaviour has been less frequently studied.

Aims – To explore the relationship between health outcomes and consulting behaviour of chronic musculoskeletal pain patients.

Method – Secondary analysis of data collected as part of a population questionnaire survey of chronic pain. Univariate and multi variate analyses were undertaken to explore the relationship between health outcomes (e.g. health related quality of life) and consulting behaviour.

Results – The survey response rate was 62% and the prevalence of chronic pain was 38% (987/2504). 53% of patients had consulted mainstream practitioners only, 4% CAM practitioners only, 18% mainstream and CAM practitioners and 25% no one.

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.

Conclusions – This analysis suggests that poorer health outcomes may be powerful predictors of consulting CAM practitioners, in some cases, amongst those who do not have access to the financial resources to pay for such treatment.

Background: Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists play key roles in the management of low back pain patients in the UK In our previous work we used mixed methods to investigate theor cognitions and attitudes to treating back pain. We developed and tested a scale, the Attitudes to Back Pain- Musculoskeletal Practitioners Scale, which includes both a personal and professional dimensional

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between the attitudes of three professional groups: Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Physiotherapists.

Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was sent to 300 practitioners randomly selected from the registers of each profession. The returned questionnaires (N=465, response rate 61%), including the new ABS-mp and a questionnaire about personal and professional factors were analysed, using ANOVA, to compare the responses from the three groups.

Results: Physiotherapists tend to limit the number of treatment sessions offered to LBP patients. They work more clearly within a re-activation approach than their colleagues in the either of the other two professional groups. When practice setting (NHS versus private practice) was considered, the differences in personal interaction attitudes were unchanged but the differences in treatment orientation attitudes become less marked.

Conclusions: Aspects associated with practice settings, and especially those concerned with working within the NHS or privately impact on practitioners attitudes. There are also some professional differences, indicating that physiotherapists hold attitudes more closely in line with current guidelines.

Background: The three professional groups of chiropractic, osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy are involved in the management of 15–20% of all people with low back pain (LBP) in the UK. Exploratory and descriptive research suggests that the management of non-specific LBP by some members of these groups does not follow best available evidence.

Purpose: To test the short-term effectiveness of a directly-posted, contextualised, printed educational package about the evidence-based management of acute LBP on changing UK chiropractors’, osteopaths’ and musculoskeletal physiotherapists’:

reported practice (based on a vignette of a patient with non-specific LBP)

Methods: A prospective, pragmatic randomised trial was designed to test the effectiveness of the printed educational package versus a no-intervention control. Questionnaires were posted to simple random samples of UK registered chiropractors (n=611), osteopaths (n=1368) and physiotherapists (n=1625). Intervention packages were sent to consenting practitioners in March 2004, and follow-up questionnaires were sent 6 months later.

Results: Good response rates to the baseline questionnaire were obtained, and most respondents were willing to participate in the RCT. Following exclusions based on criteria determined a priori, 1758/3380 (52.0%) consenting practitioners were recruited for the RCT: chiropractors 335/601 (55.7%), osteopaths 600/1335 (44.9%) and physiotherapists 823/1444 (57.0%). Overall response to the 6 month follow-up was 1557/1758 (88.6%): chiropractors 280/335 (83.6%), osteopaths 520/600 (86.7%) and physiotherapists 757/823 (92.0%).

Conclusions: Data analysis is now being carried out. The main trial results will be presented at the meeting.

Study Design: To design and test a new questionnaire to assess depression and other mood states.

Summary of Background Data: Measurement of depression and of other mood states in pain patients has been criticised in recent years on the grounds that most questionnaires were not developed in pain populations and suffer from criterion contamination by somatic items. In addition, there is no accepted measurement for positive emotions which are more than the absence of depression.

Objective: To develop a reliable and brief tool to assess mood in pain patients.

Method: Non-somatic items concerning depression, anxiety and positive outlook were extracted using exploratory factor analysis from commonly used instruments (Beck Depression Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by over 900 chronic pain patients. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the internal structure of the final item set. Items were then reworded and presented as a new questionnaire (the Depression, Anxiety and Positive Outlook Scale: DAPOS) to two new samples: patients attending pain management and patients attending osteopathy. The new questionnaire was compared with several well-known questionnaires (SF-36, BDI, PCS). The structure was calibrated and tested using confirmatory factor analysis on both samples. Finally, a sub-set of patients carried out a sorting task to test for face validity.

Results and conclusion: The DAPOS performed well, indicating that it is a reliable measure of the three mood states with good initial evidence of validity in these samples.

Purpose and Background: Despite widespread clinical belief, a previous systematic review found insufficient evidence to substantiate fear avoidance beliefs (FAB) as a risk factor for long-term problems in low back pain. This updated review explores whether there is stronger evidence supporting the role of fear avoidance in early stages of low back pain as a predictor of outcome. In addition, this evidence was examined in reference to current models and knowledge about fear avoidance.

Methods and Results: A systematic literature search for all prospective inception cohorts of low back pain that included psychological factors at baseline between 2000 and 2003 was made. We searched MEDLINE, psychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index databases. Included studies had early recruitment of up to three weeks since onset of back pain and an absence of back pain in the previous three months. These studies were coded according to criteria adapted from Pincus et al (2002) blindly by two researchers. A sample of these was coded by a third blinded reviewer. An independent statistician performed statistical conversion of reported results to effect sizes. Out of the six included studies, four included valid and reliable measures of fear avoidance. There was only weak evidence implicating fear avoidance as a predictor of disadvantageous outcome.

Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the basic concept of fear avoidance as a risk factor for poor outcomes in low back pain. Experimental studies indicate that those with high FAB benefit from targeted intervention. To explain this we propose a model of FAB containing two distinct groups.

Background – Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a major health problem, for which patients consult a wide range of practitioners often with little success. This may be due to the sometimes different explanatory models for pain held by patients and practitioners. Gaining an understanding of these models may improve care. An area of conflict may be the identification and management of the psychological aspects of pain.

Purpose – To explore patients’ and practitioners’ beliefs and expectations of treatment for CMP, in relation to the identification and management of the psychological aspects to pain.

Method – In-depth qualitative interview study of 24 practitioners (osteopaths, chiropractors, physiotherapists and GPs) and 24 patients with CMP which explored their beliefs about causation and treatment of CMP. Maximum variety purposive samples of both groups were selected. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis. Data was analysed using FRAMEWORK.

Results – Patients and practitioners believed that stress influenced pain perception, however some patients believed that stress could also cause pain. In terms of the consultation, practitioners felt pressure from patients to provide them with emotional / psychological support which on the whole they felt ill-equipped to provide. Patients operated with a physical model of illness and felt dismissed if practitioners focused too much attention on the psychological aspects of their pain.

Conclusion– Practitioners expressed confusion over what they were expected to provide patients in terms of psychological support. They also expressed a need for training in the management of behavioural / psychological aspects to pain. Patients may also require education to increase their awareness of the psychological aspects to their pain.

Purpose and background: Practitioners’ beliefs about their professional role, their patients and the nature of back pain can impact on clinical decisions. These attitudes are likely to affect their choice to implement guidelines, whether they engage with their patients’ psychological problems, and their decisions about referral. We aimed to develop, test and explore the underlying dimensions of a new questionnaire, ‘The Attitudes to Back Pain Scale’ (ABS), in a specific group of clinicians, practitioners who specialise in musculoskeletal therapy: chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (COPs).

Methods and Results: We used a mixed methods study design. Using transcripts of interviews with 42 practitioners, we constructed 54 attitudinal statements, grouped theoretically into six sub-headings. We tested the validity of our categorization on 14 practitioners, who carried out a sorting task, including a rating of difficulty in cat-egorising each item. We sent the draft questionnaires to a large random sample of practitioners (300 COPs). 546 questionnaires were returned (61%). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on split samples of the dataset. Separate exploratory analyses were done for attitudes concerned with personal interaction (34 items) and attitudes about treatment orientation (18 items), producing six domains ‘Limitations on sessions’, ‘Psychological’, ‘System and Void’, ‘Clinical Limitations’, ‘Reactivation’, and ‘Biomedical’. Confirmatory analyses indicated that the model tested presented a good fit. Validity interviews revealed high agreement of categorisation and low levels of difficulty in categorising the items.

Conclusions: A new questionnaire for measuring clinicians’ attitudes towards back pain has been developed. Further work is required to assess the impact of these factors on practitioners’ behaviour and patient outcomes.

Background – Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a major health problem treated by a wide range of health professionals. Complementary therapies are likely to become more readily available on the NHS. Therefore a greater understanding of current service use may be helpful in ensuring appropriate targeting of services in the future.

Purpose – To describe current service use for CMP in a UK representative population. To examine predictors of CMP use.

Methods – Population questionnaire survey to 4100 patients registered with 17 Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework general practices. The questionnaire collected data on demographics, presence of pain, pain location and severity, health related quality of life (HRQOL), care seeking and beliefs about pain. Univariate and multivariate analyses was undertaken to examine predictors of care seeking.

Results – Response rate of 61% of whom 47% reported CMP use. 77% consulted for their CMP; 60% mainstream medicine only, 17% mainstream and / or complementary and 22% no-one.

Patients who consulted complementary practitioners were more likely to be female, to be psychologically distressed, to work, to have left school aged over 16 and to have severe pain (p< 0.05 in all cases). Working was independently associated with consulting a complementary practitioner (Exp (B) = 2.0, p=0.00)

Conclusion – Complementary therapies are currently only available to those patients who can afford them. If such therapies become available on the NHS it may be important to provide patients and health professionals with appropriate information to inform their choices about these care options.

Background The three professional groups of chiropractic, osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy are involved in the management of 15–20% of people with low back pain (LBP) in the UK (CSAG 1994). Exploratory and descriptive research suggests that the management of non-specific low back pain (LBP) by some members of these groups does not follow best available evidence (RCGP 1999).

Purpose To test the short-term effectiveness (at 6 months) of a directly-posted, contextualised, printed educational package about the evidence-based management of acute back pain on changing UK chiropractors’, osteopaths’ and musculoskeletal physiotherapists’:

1) beliefs and attitudes about LBP

2) reported practice (using a clinical vignette)

Methods A prospective, pragmatic randomised trial was designed to test the effectiveness of the printed educational package versus a no-intervention control. MREC approval was gained and a questionnaire was developed and piloted (n=150). Information was gathered on practitioners’ demographics, their beliefs about LBP (using the HC-PAIRS, Rainville et al 1995) and reported practice based on a vignette of a patient with non-specific LBP (adapted from Bombardier et al 1995, Buchbinder 2001).

A total of 3602 questionnaires were posted to simple random samples of UK registered chiropractors (n=611), osteopaths (n=1367) and physiotherapists (n=1624). Intervention packages were sent to consenting practitioners in March 2004, and the follow-up is planned for September 2004.

Results Good response rates to the baseline questionnaire were obtained, and most respondents were willing to participate in the RCT. Following exclusions based on a priori criteria, 1773/3402 (52.1%) participants were recruited for the RCT: chiropractors 335/604 (55.4%), osteopaths 600/1338 (44.8%) and physiotherapists 838/1460 (57.4%). The RCT methodology and some baseline data will be presented.

Conclusions It is possible to recruit large numbers of healthcare practitioners, within and outside the NHS, to RCTs conducted by post. Whilst the results will be specific to these three professional groups in the UK, this study is believed to be the largest RCT of printed, evidence-based educational material in healthcare, to incorporate a no-intervention control group.

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a major health problem for the individual and the NHS. It is important to examine the prevalence of and factors associated with it, to identify unmet need and inform the development of interventions.

Purpose: To describe the prevalence of CMP in a community based sample, overall and by location; To describe the factors associated with presence of CMP.

Methods: Population questionnaire survey to 4100 patients registered with 17 Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework practices. We collected questionnaire data on demographics, presence and location of pain, pain severity, health related quality of life, care seeking and beliefs about pain. We then did univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors associated with CMP.

Results: Survey response rate was 61% (2509/4100); mean age 52 years (range 18–101); 56% female. CMP prevalence was 47%. One month period prevalence by area was; Lower back 23%; Knee 19%%; Shoulder 16%; Hip/thigh 14% and Upper back 6%. The majority of sufferers consulted their GP (61%), but a large minority (21%) consulted no-one. Factors associated with presence of CMP were being older, leaving school aged 16 or less, not working, having poorer quality of life and experiencing psychological distress (P< 0.05). In a multivariate analysis no factors were independently associated with presence of CMP.

Conclusion: Results demonstrate the significant burden CMP presents in the community and the need to focus interventions on those individuals who may be more likely to suffer. It may be particularly important to consider the needs of those who have not consulted anyone.