From this review, the alliance between therapist and patient appears to have a positive effect on treatment outcome in physical rehabilitation settings; however, more research is needed to determine the strength of this association.

Choosing Wisely (CW) campaigns globally have focused attention on the need to reduce low-value care, which can represent up to 30% of the costs of healthcare. Despite early enthusiasm for the CW initiative, few large-scale changes in rates of low-value care have been reported since the launch of these campaigns. Recent commentaries suggest that the focus of the campaign should be on implementation of evidence-based strategies to effectively reduce low-value care. This paper describes the Choosing Wisely De-Implementation Framework (CWDIF), a novel framework that builds on previous work in the field of implementation science and proposes a comprehensive approach to systematically reduce low-value care in both hospital and community settings and advance the science of de-implementation.The CWDIF consists of five phases: Phase 0, identification of potential areas of low-value healthcare; Phase 1, identification of local priorities for implementation of CW recommendations; Phase 2, identification of barriers to implementing CW recommendations and potential interventions to overcome these; Phase 3, rigorous evaluations of CW implementation programmes; Phase 4, spread of effective CW implementation programmes. We provide a worked example of applying the CWDIF to develop and evaluate an implementation programme to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing in healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgeries and to further develop the evidence base to reduce low-value care.

ObjectivesTo assess whether cognitive behavioural (CB) approaches improve disability, pain, quality of life and/or work disability for patients with low back pain (LBP) of any duration and of any age.MethodsNine databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to November 2014. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual trials. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for two contrasts: CB versus no treatment (including wait-list and usual care (WL/UC)), and CB versus other guideline-based active treatment (GAT).ResultsThe review included 23 studies with a total of 3359 participants. Of these, the majority studied patients with persistent LBP (>6 weeks; n=20). At long term follow-up, the pooled SMD for the WL/UC comparison was -0.19 (-0.38, 0.01) for disability, and -0.23 (-0.43, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. For the GAT comparison, at long term the pooled SMD was -0.83 (-1.46, -0.19) for disability and -0.48 (-0.93, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. While trials varied considerably in methodological quality, and in intervention factors such as provider, mode of delivery, dose, duration, and pragmatism, there were several examples of lower intensity, low cost interventions that were effective.ConclusionCB interventions yield long-term improvements in pain, disability and quality of life in comparison to no treatment and other guideline-based active treatments for patients with LBP of any duration and of any age.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42014010536.

Objective. To determine the effect of tai chi exercise on persistent low back pain. Methods. We performed a randomized controlled trial in a general community setting in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Participants consisted of 160 volunteers between ages 18 and 70 years with persistent nonspecific low back pain. The tai chi group (n ‫؍‬ 80) consisted of 18 40-minute sessions over a 10-week period delivered in a group format by a qualified instructor. The waitlist control group continued with their usual health care. Bothersomeness of back symptoms was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and pain-related disability. Data were collected at pre-and postintervention and analyzed by intent-to-treat. Results. Tai chi exercise reduced bothersomeness of back symptoms by 1.7 points on a 0 -10 scale, reduced pain intensity by 1.3 points on a 0 -10 scale, and improved self-report disability by 2.6 points on the 0 -24 Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scale. The followup rate was >90% for all outcomes. These results were considered a worthwhile treatment effect by researchers and participants. Conclusion. This is the first pragmatic randomized controlled trial of tai chi exercise for people with low back pain. It showed that a 10-week tai chi program improved pain and disability outcomes and can be considered a safe and effective intervention for those experiencing long-term low back pain symptoms.

With additional training, physiotherapists can deliver effective CB interventions. However, without training or resources, successful translation and implementation remains unlikely. Researchers should improve reporting of procedural information, provide relevant materials, and offer accessible provider training. Implications for Rehabilitation Previous reviews have established that traditional biomedical-based treatments (e.g., acupuncture, manual therapy, massage, and specific exercise programmes) that focus only on physical symptoms do provide short-term benefits but the sustained effect is questionable. A cognitive-behavioural (CB) approach includes techniques to target both physical and psychosocial symptoms related to pain and provides patients with long-lasting skills to manage these symptoms on their own. This combined method has been used in a variety of settings delivered by different health care professionals and has been shown to produce long-term effects on patient outcomes. What has been unclear is if these programmes are effective when delivered by physiotherapists in routine physiotherapy settings. Our study synthesises the evidence for this context. We have confirmed with high-quality evidence that with additional training, physiotherapists can deliver CB interventions that are effective for patients with back pain. Physiotherapists who are considering enhancing their treatment for patients with low back pain should consider undertaking some additional training in how to incorporate CB techniques into their practice to optimise treatment benefits and help patients receive long-lasting treatment effects. Importantly, our results indicate that using a CB approach, including a variety of CB techniques that could be easily adopted in a physical therapy setting, provides greater benefits for patient outcomes compared to brief education, exercise or physical techniques (such as manual therapy) alone. This provides further support that a combined treatment approach is likely better than one based on physical techniques alone. Notably, we identified a significant barrier to adopting any of these CB interventions in practice. This is because no study provided a description of the intervention or accessible training materials that would allow for accurate replication. Without access to provider training and/or resources, we cannot expect this evidence to be implemented in practice with optimal effects. Thus, we would urge physiotherapists to directly contact authors of the studies for more information on how to incorporate their interventions into their settings.

International clinical practice guidelines for low back pain (LBP) contain consistent recommendations including universal provision of information and advice to remain active, discouraging routine referral for imaging, and limited prescription of opioids. This systematic review describes usual care provided by first-contact physicians to patients with LBP. Studies that reported the assessments and care provided to people with LBP in family practice and emergency departments (EDs) from January 2000 to May 2019 were identified by searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Study quality was assessed with reference to representativeness of samples, potential misclassification of patients, potential misclassification of outcomes, inconsistent data and precision of the estimate, and the findings of high-quality studies were prioritized in the data synthesis. We included 26 studies that reported data from almost 195,000 patients: 18 from family practice, and 8 from EDs. Less than 20% of patients with LBP received evidence-based information and advice from their family practitioner. Around 1 in 4 patients with LBP received referral for imaging in family practice and 1 in 3 in EDs. Up to 30% of patients with LBP were prescribed opioids in family practice and up to 60% in EDs. Large numbers of patients who saw a physician for LBP received care that is inconsistent with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Usual care included overuse of imaging and opioid prescription and underuse of advice and information. Suboptimal care may contribute to the massive burden of the condition worldwide.

Background Adoption of low back pain guidelines is a well-documented problem. Information to guide the development of behaviour change interventions is needed. The review is the first to synthesise the evidence regarding physicians’ barriers to providing evidence-based care for LBP using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Using the TDF allowed us to map specific physician-reported barriers to individual guideline recommendations. Therefore, the results can provide direction to future interventions to increase physician compliance with evidence-based care for LBP. Methods We searched the literature for qualitative studies from inception to July 2018. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extracted data on study characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological rigour. Guided by a TDF coding manual, two reviewers independently coded the individual study themes using NVivo. After coding, we assessed confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Results Fourteen studies ( n = 318 physicians) from 9 countries reported barriers to adopting one of the 5 guideline-recommended behaviours regarding in-clinic diagnostic assessments (9 studies, n = 198), advice on activity (7 studies, n = 194), medication prescription (2 studies, n = 39), imaging referrals (11 studies, n = 270), and treatment/specialist referrals (8 studies, n = 193). Imaging behaviour is influenced by (1) social influence — fr om patients requesting an image or wanting a diagnosis ( n = 252, 9 studies), (2) beliefs about consequence— physicians believe that providing a scan will reassure patients ( n = 175, 6 studies), and (3) environmental context and resources— physicians report a lack of time to have a conversation with patients about diagnosis and why a scan is not needed ( n = 179, 6 studies). Referrals to conservative care is influenced by environmental context and resources —long wait-times or a complete lack of access to adjunct services prevented physicians from referring to these services ( n = 82, 5 studies). Conclusions Physicians face numerous barriers to providing evidence-based LBP care which we have mapped onto 7 TDF domains. Two to five TDF domains are involved in determining physician behaviour, confirming the complexity of this problem. This is important as interventions often target a single domain where multiple domains are involved. Interventions designed to address all the domains involved while considerin...

The mechanism or mechanisms involved in the development of pain-related disability in people with low back pain is unclear. Psychological distress has been identified as one potential pathway by which an episode of pain influences the development of persistent disabling symptoms; however, the relationship has not been formally investigated. This study investigated the causal relationship between pain and disability via psychological distress (and its components depression, stress, and anxiety) by using mediation path analysis. The study sample included 231 participants with subacute low back pain (6 to 12 weeks' pain duration) who had been recruited for an exercise-based randomised, controlled trial. All participants completed self-report assessments of pain (0-10 numerical rating scale), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), and psychological distress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale) at baseline and again at 2 follow-up time points (6 and 12 weeks after baseline). The results of the mediation analysis suggest that approximately 30% of the relationship between subacute pain and later disability is dependent on the level of patients' psychological distress. The finding that psychological distress only partially (30%) mediated the pain-disability relationship indicates that other factors should also be explored. Further analysis into the components of psychological distress revealed that the symptoms of depression and stress, but not anxiety, are responsible for mediation of the pain-disability relationship. These findings provide an opportunity to decrease the risk of long-term disability through early identification and management of depressive and stress symptoms.