Pilot studies and a literature review suggested that fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity and work might form specific cognitions intervening between low back pain and disability. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) was developed, based on theories of fear and avoidance behaviour and focussed specifically on patients' beliefs about how physical activity and work affected their low back pain. Test-retest reproducibility in 26 patients was high. Principal-components analysis of the questionnaire in 210 patients identified 2 factors: fear-avoidance beliefs about work and fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity with internal consistency (alpha) of 0.88 and 0.77 and accounting for 43.7% and 16.5% of the total variance, respectively. Regression analysis in 184 patients showed that fear-avoidance beliefs about work accounted for 23% of the variance of disability in activities of daily living and 26% of the variance of work loss, even after allowing for severity of pain; fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity explained an additional 9% of the variance of disability. These results confirm the importance of fear-avoidance beliefs and demonstrate that specific fear-avoidance beliefs about work are strongly related to work loss due to low back pain. These findings are incorporated into a biopsychosocial model of the cognitive, affective and behavioural influences in low back pain and disability. It is recommended that fear-avoidance beliefs should be considered in the medical management of low back pain and disability.

SummaryBackgroundBack pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).Methods1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.Findings851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06–2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25–1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19–0·45) and 0·19 (0·04–0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.InterpretationThe results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.FundingArthritis Research UK.

Objective. To develop and validate a tool that screens for back pain prognostic indicators relevant to initial decision making in primary care. Methods. The setting was UK primary care adults with nonspecific back pain. Constructs that were independent prognostic indicators for persistence were identified from secondary analysis of 2 existing cohorts and published literature. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified single screening questions for relevant constructs. Psychometric properties of the tool, including concurrent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and repeatability, were assessed within a new development sample (n ‫؍‬ 131) and tool score cutoffs were established to enable allocation to 3 subgroups (low, medium, and high risk). Predictive and external validity were evaluated within an independent external sample (n ‫؍‬ 500). Results. The tool included 9 items: referred leg pain, comorbid pain, disability (2 items), bothersomeness, catastrophizing, fear, anxiety, and depression. The latter 5 items were identified as a psychosocial subscale. The tool demonstrated good reliability and validity and was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Patients scoring 0 -3 were classified as low risk, and those scoring 4 or 5 on a psychosocial subscale were classified as high risk. The remainder were classified as medium risk. Conclusion. We validated a brief screening tool, which is a promising instrument for identifying subgroups of patients to guide the provision of early secondary prevention in primary care. Further work will establish whether allocation to treatment subgroups using the tool, linked with targeting treatment appropriately, improves patient outcomes.

Originally the term "yellow flags" was used to describe psychosocial prognostic factors for the development of disability following the onset of musculoskeletal pain. The identification of yellow flags through early screening was expected to prompt the application of intervention guidelines to achieve secondary prevention. In recent conceptualizations of yellow flags, it has been suggested that their range of applicability should be confined primarily to psychological risk factors to differentiate them from other risk factors, such as social and environmental variables. This article addresses 2 specific questions that arise from this development: (1) Can yellow flags influence outcomes in people with acute or subacute low back pain? and (2) Can yellow flags be targeted in interventions to produce better outcomes? Consistent evidence has been found to support the role of various psychological factors in prognosis, although questions remain about which factors are the most important, both individually and in combination, and how they affect outcomes. Published early interventions have reported mixed results, but, overall, the evidence suggests that targeting yellow flags, particularly when they are at high levels, does seem to lead to more consistently positive results than either ignoring them or providing omnibus interventions to people regardless of psychological risk factors. Psychological risk factors for poor prognosis can be identified clinically and addressed within interventions, but questions remain in relation to issues such as timing, necessary skills, content of treatments, and context. In addition, there is still a need to elucidate mechanisms of change and better integrate this understanding into the broader context of secondary prevention of chronic pain and disability.

No abstract

PURPOSE We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician's clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. METHODSThe IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTSThe 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8-3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed.CONCLUSIONS Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended. INTRODUCTIONI t has been stated that "most cases of back pain resolve regardless of the course of therapy, and some do not get better no matter what is done. Therein lies the problem for practitioners, patients, and policy makers."1 Health care systems universally face the challenge of providing effective primary care for low back pain within constrained resources, in the face of increased demands for treatment and investigations.2,3 Back pain is now the 6th highest contributor to the global burden of disease. 4 In the United Kingdom, 6% to 9% of adults consult a family physician for back pain each year, 5 accounting for 14% of consultations. 6 More than 60% still report pain and disability a year later, 7,8 and 2% to 7% will develop severe persistent symptoms 9 leading to high levels of reconsultation, work loss, and sickness certification. 10 evidence-based treatments, but the optimal approaches to tar...

No abstract

Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Respondent therapy (EMG biofeedback) versus waiting list control, Outcome 1 Pain (short term)...... Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Respondent therapy (EMG biofeedback) versus waiting list control, Outcome 2 Functional status (short term