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].

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.

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.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

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.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference −5.30, 95% confidence interval −7.31 to −3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (−9.72, −12.75 to −6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (−18.60, −31.87 to −5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (−17.50, −42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (−7.55, −18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (−15.95, −31.52 to −0.39) and 3-12 months (−27.0, −36.11 to −17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (−3.55, −5.22 to −1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (−5.10, −7.31 to −2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (−6.07, −8.13 to −4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. Conclusion Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

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).