Dataset Information

What do the general public believe about the causes, prognosis and best management strategies for low back pain? A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking health care and is costly to the health care system. Recent evidence has shown that LBP care provided by many providers is divergent from guidelines and one reason may be patient's beliefs and expectations about treatment. Thus, examining the nature of patient beliefs and expectations regarding low back pain treatment will help coordinate efforts to improve consistency and quality of care.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional population-based survey of adults living in Newfoundland, Canada. The survey included demographic information (e.g. age, gender, back pain status and care seeking behaviors) and assessed outcomes related to beliefs about the inevitable consequences of back pain with the validated back beliefs questionnaire as well as six additional questions relating beliefs about imaging, physical activity and medication. Surveys were mailed to 3000 households in July-August 2018 and responses collected until September 30th, 2018.

Results

Fout hundred twenty-eight surveys were returned (mean age 55 years (SD 14.6), 66% female, 90% had experienced an episode of LBP). The mean Back Beliefs Questionnaire score was 27.3 (SD 7.2), suggesting that people perceive back pain to have inevitable negative consequences. Large proportions of respondents held the following beliefs that are contrary to best available evidence: (i) having back pain means you will always have weakness in your back (49.3%), (ii) it will get progressively worse (48.0%), (iii) resting is good (41.4%) and (iv) x-rays or scans are necessary to get the best medical care for LBP (54.2%).

Conclusions

A high proportion of the public believe LBP to have inevitable negative consequences and hold incorrect beliefs about diagnosis and management options, which is similar to findings from other countries. This presents challenges for clinicians and suggests that considering how to influence beliefs about LBP in the broader community could have value. Given the high prevalence of LBP and that many will consult a range of healthcare professionals, future efforts could consider using broad reaching public health campaigns that target patients, policy makers and all relevant health providers with specific content to change commonly held unhelpful beliefs.

SUBMITTER: Hall A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8028215 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Low back pain clinical practice guidelines consistently recommend against the routine ordering of spinal imaging; however, imaging is frequently requested in primary care, without evidence of benefit. Imaging reports frequently identify degenerative features which are likely to be interpreted as 'abnormal', despite their high prevalence in symptom-free individuals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether post-imaging back-related perceptions are influenced by providing prior information about normal findings, and to compare the effect of receiving imaging results with best practice care (without imaging). The impact of introducing novel, 'enhanced' reporting strategies was also explored. Methods:This study was a simulated-patient, randomised, multiple-arm experiment. Patient scenarios were presented to volunteer healthy adult participants via an online survey. In the scenarios, 'virtual' patients with low back pain were randomised to one of three groups. Group 1 received imaging and was pre-informed about normal findings. Group 2 received imaging (without pre-information). Group 3 received best practice care: quality information without imaging. Group 1 was further divided to receive either a standard report, or an 'enhanced' report (containing altered terminology and epidemiological information). The primary outcome was back-related perceptions (BRP), a composite score derived from three numeric rating scale scores exploring perceptions of spinal condition, recovery concerns and planned activity. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction and kinesiophobia. Results:Full data were available from 660 participants (68% female). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant effect of group after controlling for baseline BRP scores [Formula: see text]. Pairwise comparisons indicated that receiving best practice care resulted in more positive BRPs than receiving imaging results, and receiving prior information about normal findings had no impact. Enhanced reporting strategies also positively impacted BRPs [Formula: see text]. Significant relationships between group allocation and both satisfaction [Formula: see text] and kinaesiophobia [Formula: see text] were found, with statistically significant pairwise comparisions again in favour of best-practice care. Conclusion:Intervention strategies such as enhanced reporting methods and the provision of quality information (without imaging) have the potential to improve the outcome of patients with recent-onset LBP and should be further considered by primary care providers.

Project description:BackgroundImaging is overused in the management of low back pain, resulting in overdiagnosis, increased healthcare utilisation, and increased costs. Few effective interventions to decrease inappropriate use have been developed and have typically not been developed using behaviour change theory. An intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain was developed using behavioural change theory, incorporating a novel low back pain management booklet to facilitate patient education and reassurance. The aim of this study was to assess the adoption and feasibility of use of the developed intervention within clinical practice and to determine appropriate implementation strategies to address identified barriers to use.MethodsFourteen general medical practitioners were recruited and trained to use the booklet with low back pain patients over a minimum 5-month period. Quantitative data on use of the booklet were collected and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on use of the booklet and training session were collected in general medical practitioner interviews and thematically analysed. Barriers to use were identified and mapped to suitable implementation strategies using the Behaviour Change Wheel.ResultsPractitioners used the booklet with 73 patients. The booklet was used with 63% of patients presenting with low back pain. Facilitators for using the booklet included patient's requesting imaging and lower practitioner confidence in managing low back pain. Barriers included accessible storage and remembering to use the booklet. Implementation strategies were identified to increase adoption and feasibility of use, including development of a digital version of the booklet.ConclusionsGeneral medical practitioners reported that the low back pain management booklet and training were useful for clinical practice, particularly with patients requesting imaging. Barriers to use were identified and implementation strategies to address these barriers will be incorporated into future effectiveness studies. This study forms one of a series of studies to thoroughly develop and test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain; a successful intervention would decrease healthcare costs and improve patient management.

Project description:BackgroundTotal sitting time is associated with a higher risk for cardio metabolic disease and mortality, while breaks in prolonged sitting attenuate these effects. However, less is known about associations of different specific domains and breaks of sitting on general health, back/neck pain and if physical activity could influence these associations. The aim was to investigate how workplace sitting and frequency of breaking up workplace sitting is associated with self-reported general health and self-reported back/neck pain.Methods44,978 participants (42% women) from the Swedish working population, who participated in a nationwide occupational health service screening 2014-2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. Self-reported sitting duration and frequency of breaks from sitting at work, general health, back/neck pain, exercise, leisure time sitting, diet, smoking, stress and body mass index were assessed. Occupation was classified as requiring higher education qualifications or not. Logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between workplace sitting/frequency of breaks in workplace sitting and poor general health and back/neck pain, respectively.ResultsCompared to sitting all the time at work, sitting ≤75% of the time showed significantly lower risks for poor general health (OR range 0.50-0.65), and sitting between 25 and 75% of the time showed significantly lower risks (OR 0.82-0.87) for often reported back/neck pain. For participants reporting sitting half of their working time or more, breaking up workplace sitting occasionally or more often showed significantly lower OR than seldom breaking up workplace sitting; OR ranged 0.40-0.50 for poor health and 0.74-0.81 for back/neck pain.ConclusionsSitting almost all the time at work and not taking breaks is associated with an increased risk for self-reported poor general health and back/neck pain. People sitting almost all their time at work are recommended to take breaks from prolonged sitting, exercise regularly and decrease their leisure time sitting to reduce the risk for poor health.

Project description:BackgroundClinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization.MethodsA sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR.ResultsSixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making.ConclusionsThis is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.