S. Vogel

A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain.

Study Design. A systematic review of prospective cohort studies in low back pain. Objectives. To evaluate the evidence implicating psychological factors in the development of chronicity in low back pain. Summary of Background Data. The biopsychosocial model is gaining acceptance in low back pain, and has provided a basis for screening measurements, guidelines and interventions; however, to date, the unique contribution of psychological factors in the transition from an acute presentation to chronicity has not been rigorously assessed. Methods. A systematic literature search was followed by the application of three sets of criteria to each study: methodologic quality, quality of measurement of psychological factors, and quality of statistical analysis. Two reviewers blindly coded each study, followed by independent assessment by a statistician. Studies were divided into three environments: primary care settings, pain clinics, and workplace. Results. Twenty-five publications (18 cohorts) included psychological factors at baseline. Six of these met acceptability criteria for methodology, psychological measurement, and statistical analysis. Increased risk of chronicity (persisting symptoms and/or disability) from psychological distress/depressive mood and, to a lesser extent, somatization emerged as the main findings. Acceptable evidence generally was not found for other psychological factors, although weak support emerged for the role of catastrophizing as a coping strategy. Conclusion. Psychological factors (notably distress, depressive mood, and somatization) are implicated in the transition to chronic low back pain. The development and testing of clinical interventions specifically targeting these factors is indicated. In view of the importance attributed to other psychological factors (particularly coping strategies and fear avoidance) there is a need to clarify their role in back-related disability through rigorous prospective studies.

Communication between general and manipulative practitioners: A survey

A survey of general practitioners (GPs) in the south of England was undertaken to determine their understanding and communication needs in referring patients to practitioners of manipulation. Eighty-six out of 309 GPs replied to a postal questionnaire (28% response). The results suggest that, while routine communication is important for improving understanding, GPs appear to have a preference for disciplines of which they have personal experience. The majority of responders favoured receiving a report on one side of A5 paper when the patient completes treatment. This should contain the nature of treatment and advice given and an indication of its outcome. Those who desired an initial report wanted it to contain a summary of the nature of the problem, a brief history, a summary of relevant findings from the examination, any investigations and a prognosis. Many GPs commented that they were more comfortable in referring to physiotherapists because they felt they had a better understanding of the treatment involved. Furthermore, chiropractic and osteopathic terminologies were reported to be confusing more often than physiotherapy terminology. Bearing in mind the potential bias in responses due to its geographical limitations and low response rate, this study provides useful indicators for manipulative and GPs who wish to work more closely together.