Biomedical approaches for diagnosing and managing disabling low back pain (LBP) have failed to arrest the exponential increase in health care costs, with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. Health messages regarding the vulnerability of the spine and a failure to target the interplay among multiple factors that contribute to pain and disability may partly explain this situation. Although many approaches and subgrouping systems for disabling LBP have been proposed in an attempt to deal with this complexity, they have been criticized for being unidimensional and reductionist and for not improving outcomes. Cognitive functional therapy was developed as a flexible integrated behavioral approach for individualizing the management of disabling LBP. This approach has evolved from an integration of foundational behavioral psychology and neuroscience within physical therapist practice. It is underpinned by a multidimensional clinical reasoning framework in order to identify the modifiable and nonmodifiable factors associated with an individual's disabling LBP. This article illustrates the application of cognitive functional therapy to provide care that can be adapted to an individual with disabling LBP.
CRD 42014009964. [Synnott A, O'Keeffe M, Bunzli S, Dankaerts W, O'Sullivan P, O'Sullivan K (2015) Physiotherapists may stigmatise or feel unprepared to treat people with low back pain and psychosocial factors that influence recovery: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy61: 68-76].
A mix of interpersonal, clinical, and organizational factors are perceived to influence patient-therapist interactions, although research is needed to identify which of these factors actually influence patient-therapist interactions. Physical therapists' awareness of these factors could enhance patient interactions and treatment outcomes. Mechanisms to best enhance these factors in clinical practice warrant further study.
ObjectivesPhysicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists’ treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews.DesignSystematic review.SettingWe performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with ‘practice patterns’ and ‘physical therapy’ from the earliest record to April 2018.ParticipantsStudies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion.Primary and secondary outcomesUsing medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes).ResultsWe included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits).ConclusionsMany physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018094979.
Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the final review. Thirty potentially modifiable determinants across seven domains (oral, psychosocial, medication and care, health, physical function, lifestyle, eating) were included. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias and were of a low quality. There is moderate evidence that hospitalisation, eating dependency, poor self-perceived health, poor physical function and poor appetite are determinants of malnutrition. Moderate evidence suggests that chewing difficulties, mouth pain, gum issues co-morbidity, visual and hearing impairments, smoking status, alcohol consumption and physical activity levels, complaints about taste of food and specific nutrient intake are not determinants of malnutrition. There is low evidence that loss of interest in life, access to meals and wheels, and modified texture diets are determinants of malnutrition. Furthermore, there is low evidence that psychological distress, anxiety, loneliness, access to transport and wellbeing, hunger and thirst are not determinants of malnutrition. There appears to be conflicting evidence that dental status, swallowing, cognitive function, depression, residential status, medication intake and/or polypharmacy, constipation, periodontal disease are determinants of malnutrition. Conclusion: There are multiple potentially modifiable determinants of malnutrition however strong robust evidence is lacking for the majority of determinants. Better prospective cohort studies are required. With an increasingly ageing population, targeting modifiable factors will be crucial to the effective treatment and prevention of malnutrition.
Only four relevant low risk of bias randomised controlled trials were found. At present there is no strong evidence of efficacy for any intervention in preventing or treating low back pain in nurses. Additional high quality randomised controlled trials are required. It may be worth exploring the efficacy of more individualised multidimensional interventions for low back pain in the nursing population.
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Various approaches to diagnose and manage LBP have arisen, leading to an exponential increase in health care costs. Paradoxically, this trend has been associated with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. The health care system faces enormous challenges, with both the disability burden and financial impact relating to LBP escalating. Growing evidence suggests that current practice is discordant with contemporary evidence, and is in fact often exacerbating the problem. Change will demand a cultural shift in LBP beliefs and practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(11):932-937. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0609.
BackgroundOne-size-fits-all interventions reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) a small amount. An individualised intervention called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) was superior for CLBP compared with manual therapy and exercise in one randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, systematic reviews show group interventions are as effective as one-to-one interventions for musculoskeletal pain. This RCT investigated whether a physiotherapist-delivered individualised intervention (CFT) was more effective than physiotherapist-delivered group-based exercise and education for individuals with CLBP.Methods206 adults with CLBP were randomised to either CFT (n=106) or group-based exercise and education (n=100). The length of the CFT intervention varied according to the clinical progression of participants (mean=5 treatments). The group intervention consisted of up to 6 classes (mean=4 classes) over 6–8 weeks. Primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity in the past week at 6 months and 12months postrandomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.ResultsCFT reduced disability more than the group intervention at 6 months (mean difference, 8.65; 95% CI 3.66 to 13.64; p=0.001), and at 12 months (mean difference, 7.02; 95% CI 2.24 to 11.80; p=0.004). There were no between-group differences observed in pain intensity at 6 months (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54; p=0.056) or 12 months (mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI -0.20 to 1.50; p=0.134).ConclusionCFT reduced disability, but not pain, at 6 and 12 months compared with the group-based exercise and education intervention. Future research should examine whether the greater reduction in disability achieved by CFT renders worthwhile differences for health systems and patients.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02145728).
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.