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.

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...

Background & aimsMusculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.MethodsA systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.ResultsModerate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.ConclusionThis review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Acupuncture as an adjunct to exercise based physiotherapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: randomised controlled trial Nadine E Foster, senior lecturer in therapies (pain management), 1 Interventions Advice and exercise (n=116), advice and exercise plus true acupuncture (n=117), and advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture (n=119). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in scores on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index pain subscale at six months. Secondary outcomes included function, pain intensity, and unpleasantness of pain at two weeks, six weeks, six months, and 12 months. Results Follow-up rate at six months was 94%. The mean (SD) baseline pain score was 9.2 (3.8). At six months mean reductions in pain were 2.28 (3.8) for advice and exercise, 2.32 (3.6) for advice and exercise plus true acupuncture, and 2.53 (4.2) for advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture. Mean differences in change scores between advice and exercise alone and each acupuncture group were 0.08 (95% confidence interval −1.0 to 0.9) for advice and exercise plus true acupuncture and 0.25 (−0.8 to 1.3) for advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture. Similar nonsignificant differences were seen at other follow-up points. Compared with advice and exercise alone there were small, statistically significant improvements in pain intensity and unpleasantness at two and six weeks for true acupuncture and at all follow-up points for nonpenetrating acupuncture. Conclusion The addition of acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee delivered by physiotherapists provided no additional improvement in pain scores. Small benefits in pain intensity and unpleasantness were observed in both acupuncture groups, making it unlikely that this was due to acupuncture needling effects.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88597683.

Background and objective This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. Databases and Data Treatment Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up‐to‐date evidence‐based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. Results Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain , there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain‐specific subgroups—work‐based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. Conclusions This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non‐pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. Significance Consensus regarding evidence‐based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non‐pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back‐UP research team will transfer these evidence‐based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.

ObjectivesCurrent musculoskeletal outcome tools are fragmented across different healthcare settings and conditions. Our objectives were to develop and validate a single musculoskeletal outcome measure for use throughout the pathway and patients with different musculoskeletal conditions: the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ).SettingA consensus workshop with stakeholders from across the musculoskeletal community, workshops and individual interviews with a broad mix of musculoskeletal patients identified and prioritised outcomes for MSK-HQ inclusion. Initial psychometric validation was conducted in four cohorts from community physiotherapy, and secondary care orthopaedic hip, knee and shoulder clinics.ParticipantsStakeholders (n=29) included primary care, physiotherapy, orthopaedic and rheumatology patients (n=8); general practitioners, physiotherapists, orthopaedists, rheumatologists and pain specialists (n=7), patient and professional national body representatives (n=10), and researchers (n=4). The four validation cohorts included 570 participants (n=210 physiotherapy, n=150 hip, n=150 knee, n=60 shoulder patients).Outcome measuresOutcomes included the MSK-HQ's acceptability, feasibility, comprehension, readability and responder burden. The validation cohort outcomes were the MSK-HQ's completion rate, test–retest reliability and convergent validity with reference standards (EQ-5D-5L, Oxford Hip, Knee, Shoulder Scores, and the Keele MSK-PROM).ResultsMusculoskeletal domains prioritised were pain severity, physical function, work interference, social interference, sleep, fatigue, emotional health, physical activity, independence, understanding, confidence to self-manage and overall impact. Patients reported MSK-HQ items to be ‘highly relevant’ and ‘easy to understand’. Completion rates were high (94.2%), with scores normally distributed, and no floor/ceiling effects. Test–retest reliability was excellent, and convergent validity was strong (correlations 0.81–0.88).ConclusionsA new musculoskeletal outcome measure has been developed through a coproduction process with patients to capture prioritised outcomes for use throughout the pathway and with different musculoskeletal conditions. Four validation cohorts found that the MSK-HQ had high completion rates, excellent test–retest reliability and strong convergent validity with reference standards. Further validation studies are ongoing, including a cohort with rheumatoid/inflammatory arthritis.

IntroductionClinicians require brief, practical tools to help identify low back pain (LBP) subgroups requiring early, targeted secondary prevention. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was recently validated to subgroup LBP patients into early treatment pathways.AimTo test the SBT’s concurrent validity against an existing, popular LBP subgrouping tool, the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ), and to compare the clinical characteristics of subgroups identified by each tool.MethodsTwo hundred and forty-four consecutive ‘non-specific’ LBP consulters at 8 UK GP practices aged 18–59 years were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included the ÖMPSQ and SBT, disability, fear, catastrophising, pain intensity, episode duration and demographics. Instruments were compared using Spearman’s correlations, tests for subgroup agreement and discriminant analysis of subgroup characteristics according to reference standards.ResultsCompleted SBT (9-items) and ÖMPSQ (24-items) data was available for 130/244 patients (53%). The correlation of SBT and ÖMPSQ scores was ‘excellent (rs = 0.80). Subgroup characteristics were similar across the low, medium and high subgroups, but, the proportions allocated to ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ risk groups were different, with fewer patients in the SBT’s high risk group. Both instruments similarly discriminated for reference standards such as disability, catastrophising, fear, comorbid pain and time off work. The ÖMPSQ was better at discriminating pain intensity, while the SBT was better for discriminating bothersomeness of back pain and referred leg pain.ConclusionsThe SBT baseline psychometrics performed similarly to the ÖMPSQ, but the SBT is shorter and easier to score and is an appropriate alternative for identifying high risk LBP patients in primary care.