Annette Bishop

Illness perceptions of low back pain patients in primary care: What are they, do they change and are they associated with outcome?

&NA; We describe the illness perceptions of patients with low back pain, how they change over 6 months, and their associations with clinical outcome. Consecutive patients consulting eight general practices were eligible to take part in a prospective cohort study, providing data within 3 weeks of consultation and 6 months later. Illness perceptions were measured using the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ‐R). Clinical outcome was defined using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and patients’ global rating of change. Associations between patients, perceptions and poor outcome were analysed using unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals. 1591 completed questionnaires were received at baseline and 810 at 6 months. Patients had a mean age of 44 years and 59% were women. Mean (SD) RMDQ score at baseline was 8.6 (6.0) and 6.2 (6.1) at 6 months. 52% and 41% of patients had a poor clinical outcome at 6 months using RMDQ and global rating scores, respectively. There were strong, statistically significant, associations (RRs of 1.4 and over) between IPQ‐R baseline consequences, timeline acute/chronic, personal control and treatment control scores and poor outcome. Patients who expected their back problem to last a long time, who perceived serious consequences, and who held weak beliefs in the controllability of their back problem were more likely to have poor clinical outcomes 6 months after they consulted their doctor. These results have implications for the management of patients, and support the need to assess and address patients’ cognitions about their back problems.

Distinctiveness of psychological obstacles to recovery in low back pain patients in primary care

&NA; Many psychological factors have been suggested to be important obstacles to recovery from low back pain, yet most studies focus on a limited number of factors. We compared a more comprehensive range of 20 factors in predicting outcome in primary care. Consecutive patients consulting 8 general practices were eligible to take part in a prospective cohort study; 1591 provided data at baseline and 810 at 6 months. Clinical outcome was defined using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The relative strength of the baseline psychological measures to predict outcome was investigated using adjusted multiple linear regression techniques. The sample was similar to other primary care cohorts (mean age 44 years, 59% women, mean baseline RMDQ 8.6). The 20 factors each accounted for between 0.04% and 33.3% of the variance in baseline RMDQ score. A multivariate model including all 11 scales that were associated with outcome in the univariate analysis accounted for 47.7% of the variance in 6 months RMDQ score; rising to 55.8% following adjustment. Four scales remained significantly associated with outcome in the multivariate model explaining 56.6% of the variance: perceptions of personal control, acute/chronic timeline, illness identify and pain self‐efficacy. When all independent factors were included, depression, catastrophising and fear avoidance were no longer significant. Thus, a small number of psychological factors are strongly predictive of outcome in primary care low back pain patients. There is clear redundancy in the measurement of psychological factors. These findings should help to focus targeted interventions for back pain in the future.

How does the self-reported clinical management of patients with low back pain relate to the attitudes and beliefs of health care practitioners? A survey of UK general practitioners and physiotherapists

&NA; Guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) have existed for many years, but adherence to these by health care practitioners (HCPs) remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to measure the attitudes, beliefs and reported clinical behaviour of UK physiotherapists (PTs) and general practitioners (GPs) about LBP and to explore the associations between these. A cross‐sectional postal survey of GPs (n = 2000) and PTs (n = 2000) was conducted that included the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABT.PT), and a vignette of a patient with non‐specific LBP (NSLBP) with questions asking about recommendations for work, activity and bedrest. Data from 1022 respondents (442 GPs and 580 PTs) who had recently treated patients with LBP were analysed. Although the majority of HCPs reported providing advice for the vignette patient that was broadly in line with guideline recommendations, 28% reported they would advise this patient to remain off work. Work advice was significantly related to the PABS.PT scores with higher biomedical (F1,986 = 77.5, p < 0.0001) and lower behavioural (F1,981 = 31.9, p < 0.001) scores associated with advice to remain off work. We have demonstrated that the attitudes and reported practice behaviour of UK GPs and PTs for patients with NSLBP are diverse. Many HCPs held the belief that LBP necessitates some avoidance of activities and work. The attitudes and beliefs of these HCPs were associated with their self‐reported clinical behaviour regarding advice about work. Future studies need to investigate whether approaches aimed at modifying these HCP factors can lead to improved patient outcomes.

Reliability of procedures used in the physical examination of non-specific low back pain: A systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the quality of the research and to assess the reliability of different types of physical examination procedures used in the assessment of patients with non-specific low back pain. A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PEDro, AMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL) up to August 2005 identified 48 relevant studies which were analysed for quality and reliability. Pre-established criteria were used to judge the quality of the studies and satisfactory reliability, and conclusions emphasised high quality studies (> or = 60% methods score). The mean quality score of the studies was 52% (range 0 to 88%), indicating weak to moderate methodology. Based on the upper threshold used (kappa/ICC > 0.85) most procedures demonstrated either conflicting evidence or moderate to strong evidence of low reliability. When the lower threshold was used (kappa/ICC > 0.70) evidence about pain response to repeated movements changed from contradictory to moderate evidence for high reliability. Most procedures commonly used by clinicians in the examination of patients with back pain demonstrate low reliability.

Do physical therapists in the United Kingdom recognize psychosocial factors in patients with acute low back pain

Study Design. A cross-sectional, descriptive vignette survey of practicing, musculoskeletal physical therapists. Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine if musculoskeletal physical therapists, in the United Kingdom, recognize when patients with low back pain (LBP) are at risk of chronicity due to psychosocial factors. A secondary aim was to explore the advice they give to patients about work and activities. Summary of Background Data. Psychosocial factors have been shown to be important in the progression from acute LBP to chronic disability. Early identification of individuals at risk of developing chronic disability is important to enable targeted intervention. Methods. Three vignettes were written based on acute LBP patients attending for physical therapy and incorporated into a self-completed postal questionnaire sent to a simple random sample of musculoskeletal physical therapists in the United Kingdom (n = 900). After one reminder, 20% of nonresponders were sent a further questionnaire (n = 80). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 11). Results. The response rate was 57.7% (n = 518) with 453 meeting all inclusion criteria. The sample consisted of physical therapists working in the musculoskeletal field across all practice settings. Most correctly rated the chronicity risk of the low- and high-risk patient vignettes. Advice to restrict work and activity was common. Conclusions. Most physical therapists recognize when patients are at high risk of developing chronicity, yet many recommend the patient limit their activity levels and not work. Advice to “not work” is associated with more severe perceived spinal pathology, suggesting persistence of the biomedical model for LBP.

Health care practitioners' attitudes and beliefs about low back pain: a systematic search and critical review of available measurement tools.

Abstract The attitudes and beliefs that health care practitioners (HCPs) hold about back pain have been shown to affect the advice they provide to patients seeking healthcare. In order to develop a questionnaire for a national survey of attitudes, beliefs and practice behaviour of HCPs about back pain, a systematic review of available measurement tools was undertaken. Measurement tools were identified from a systematic search of databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Psychinfo, AMED and British Nursing Index) in the English language for papers published from January 1990 to October 2006. Quality criteria were applied to each of the tools by two independent reviewers. The initial search strategy generated a total of 5269 references. Following assessment of titles and abstracts, 12 papers describing five tools were identified for inclusion in the review. The tools were the Attitudes to Back Pain scale for musculoskeletal practitioners (ABS.mp), a fear avoidance beliefs tool, the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) adapted for HCPs, the Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC‐PAIRS) and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT). The HC‐PAIRS and PABS.PT have undergone the most thorough testing to date, but gaps in the properties of all the tools remain, particularly test–retest reliability and responsiveness. This review identified only five tools and demonstrated limited reporting of their validity and reliability. Further development and testing of existing tools should be a priority to ensure they are robust and valid measures of attitudes and beliefs of HCPs about back pain.

Biopsychosocial care and the physiotherapy encounter: physiotherapists' accounts of back pain consultations

BackgroundThe physiotherapy profession has undergone a paradigmatic shift in recent years, where a ‘biopsychosocial’ model of care has acquired popularity in response to mounting research evidence indicating better patient outcomes when used alongside traditional physiotherapy. However, research has not examined how this new dimension to traditional physical therapy is implemented within the therapeutic consultation.MethodsThe study aimed to investigate physiotherapists’ reported approaches to back pain care in the context of increasing pressure to address patients’ psychosocial concerns. A secondary analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 UK physiotherapists was conducted. Respondents were sampled from a national survey, to include a broad mix of physiotherapists. Data were analysed thematically, adopting the constant comparative methodology.ResultsThe combination of traditional physical therapy with a broader biopsychosocial approach presented significant challenges. Physiotherapists responded by attempting to navigate patients’ biopsychosocial problems through use of various strategies, such as setting boundaries around their clinical role and addressing lay health beliefs of patients through the provision of reassurance and lifestyle advice.ConclusionsAs psychosocial issues, alongside biomechanical factors, command a prominent place within the back pain consultation, physiotherapists may benefit from further specific training and mentoring support in identifying specific strategies for combining the best of traditional physiotherapy approaches with greater focus on patients’ beliefs, fears and social context.

Effectiveness of PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness, effect on waiting times, and patient acceptability of PhysioDirect services in patients with musculoskeletal problems, compared with usual care. Design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence in clinical effectiveness. Patients were individually randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care. Setting Four physiotherapy services in England. Participants Adults (aged ≥18 years) referred by general practitioners or self referred for musculoskeletal physiotherapy. Interventions PhysioDirect services invited patients to telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice, followed by face-to-face physiotherapy if necessary. Usual care involved patients joining a waiting list for face-to-face treatment. Main outcome measures Numbers of appointments, waiting time for treatment, and non-attendance rates. Primary outcome was physical health (SF-36v2 physical component score) at six months. Secondary outcomes included four other measures of health outcome, mental component score and scales from the SF-36v2, time lost from work, and patient satisfaction and preference. Participants were not blind to allocation, but outcome data were collected blind to allocation. Results Of 1506 patients allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care, 85% provided primary outcome data at six months (1283 and 629 patients, respectively). PhysioDirect patients had fewer face-to-face appointments than usual care patients (mean 1.91 v 3.11; incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.65)), a shorter waiting time (median 7 days v 34 days; arm time ratio 0.32 (0.29 to 0.35)), and lower rates of non-attendance (incidence rate ratio 0.55 (0.41 to 0.73)). After six months’ follow-up, the SF-36v2 physical component score was equivalent between groups (adjusted difference in means −0.01 (−0.80 to 0.79)). Health outcome measures suggested a trend towards slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at six week follow-up and no difference at six months. There was no difference in time lost from work. PhysioDirect patients were no more satisfied with access to physiotherapy than usual care patients, but had slightly lower satisfaction overall at six months (difference in satisfaction −3.8% (−7.3% to −0.3%); P=0.031). PhysioDirect patients were more likely than usual care patients to prefer PhysioDirect in future. No adverse events were detected. Conclusions PhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual care, provides faster access to physiotherapy, and seems to be safe. However, it could be associated with slightly lower patient satisfaction. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618.

'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for physiotherapy: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundProviding timely access to physiotherapy has long been a problem for the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. In an attempt to improve access some physiotherapy services have introduced a new treatment pathway known as PhysioDirect. Physiotherapists offer initial assessment and advice by telephone, supported by computerised algorithms, and patients are sent written self-management and exercise advice by post. They are invited for face-to-face treatment only when necessary. Although several such services have been developed, there is no robust evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness, nor the acceptability of PhysioDirect.Methods/DesignThis protocol describes a multi-centre pragmatic individually randomised trial, with nested qualitative research. The aim is to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of PhysioDirect compared with usual models of physiotherapy based on patients going onto a waiting list and receiving face-to-face care. PhysioDirect services will be established in four areas in England. Adult patients in these areas with musculoskeletal problems who refer themselves or are referred by a primary care practitioner for physiotherapy will be invited to participate in the trial. About 1875 consenting patients will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care. Data about outcome measures will be collected at baseline and 6 weeks and 6 months after randomisation. The primary outcome is clinical improvement at 6 months; secondary outcomes include cost, waiting times, time lost from work and usual activities, patient satisfaction and preference. The impact of PhysioDirect on patients in different age-groups and with different conditions will also be examined.Incremental cost-effectiveness will be assessed in terms of quality adjusted life years in relation to cost.Qualitative methods will be used to explore factors associated with the success or failure of the service, the acceptability of PhysioDirect to patients and staff, and ways in which the service could be improved.DiscussionIt is still relatively unusual to evaluate new forms of service delivery using randomised controlled trials. By combining rigorous trial methods with economic analysis of cost-effectiveness and qualitative research this study will provide robust evidence to inform decisions about the widespread introduction of PhysioDirect services.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation.

Objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness of PhysioDirect with usual physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal problems. Design (1) Cost-consequences comparing cost to the National Health Service (NHS), to patients, and the value of lost productivity with a range of outcomes. (2) Cost-utility analysis comparing cost to the NHS with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Setting Four physiotherapy services in England. Participants Adults (18+) referred by their general practitioner or self-referred for physiotherapy. Interventions PhysioDirect involved telephone assessment and advice followed by face-to-face care if needed. Usual care patients were placed on a waiting list for face-to-face care. Primary and secondary outcomes Primary clinical outcome: physical component summary from the SF-36v2 at 6 months. Also included in the cost-consequences: Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile; a Global Improvement Score; response to treatment; patient satisfaction; waiting time. Outcome for the cost-utility analysis: QALYs. Results 2249 patients took part (1506 PhysioDirect; 743 usual care). (1) Cost-consequences: there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in the cost of physiotherapy, other NHS services, personal costs or value of time off work. Outcomes were also similar. (2) Cost-utility analysis based on complete cases (n=1272). Total NHS costs, including the cost of physiotherapy were higher in the PhysioDirect group by £19.30 (95% CI −£37.60 to £76.19) and there was a QALY gain of 0.007 (95% CI −0.003 to 0.016). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2889 and the net monetary benefit at λ=£20 000 was £117 (95% CI −£86 to £310). Conclusions PhysioDirect may be a cost-effective alternative to usual physiotherapy care, though only with careful management of staff time. Physiotherapists providing the service must be more fully occupied than was possible under trial conditions: consideration should be given to the scale of operation, opening times of the service and flexibility in the methods used to contact patients.