BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the most common musculoskeletal disorder and a leading cause of disability worldwide. It impacts daily life and work capacity and is the most common reason for consulting a general practitioner (GP). According to international guidelines, information, reassurance, and advice are key components in the management of people with LBP; however, the consultation time available in general practice for each patient is often limited. Therefore, new methods to support the delivery of information and advice are needed and online technologies provide new opportunities to extend the consultation beyond the GP’s office. However, it is not known whether GPs and people consulting their GP because of LBP will accept online technologies as part of the consultation. By involving patients in the development of online information, we may produce more user-friendly content and design, and improve patient acceptance and usage, optimising satisfaction and clinical outcomes. The purpose is to study satisfaction in people consulting their GP with LBP depending on whether they are randomised to receive supporting information through a new participant-driven web application or a standard reference website containing guideline-based information on LBP. It is hypothesised that patients offered information in a new web application will be more satisfied with the online information after 12 weeks compared to patients allocated to a standard website.MethodsTwo hundred patients with LBP aged ≥ 18 years consulting Danish general practice will be randomly allocated 1:1 to either the new web application or standard online information in permuted blocks of two, four, and six. Patients with serious spinal diseases (cancer, fractures, spinal stenosis, spondyloarthritis), those without Danish reading skills or without online access, and pregnant women will not be included in the trial. Patient satisfaction measured by the Net Promotor Score after 12 weeks is the primary outcome. Patients will be aware of their allocation. GPs will be blinded unless informed by the patient. Assessors are blinded.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first trial evaluating whether involving LBP patients in the development of an online web application will result in higher patient satisfaction.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03088774. Registered on 23 March 2017. Last updated on 14 March 2018.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2795-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is one of the health conditions that lead to the most disability worldwide. Guidelines aimed at management of LBP recommend non-invasive and non-pharmacological management, including patient education, advice to stay active and exercise therapy; however, the guidelines offer no recommendation as to the allowable level of pain during exercise or how specific levels of pain should be reflected in the stage and progression of exercises or activities. The purpose of this review is to study the effect of differentiation of exercise guidance based on the level of LBP in patients in primary care.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be performed on PubMed, EMBASE, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDRO), Cochrane and PROSPERO from their inception until September 2017. Published peer-reviewed human experimental and observational studies with quantitative or qualitative designs will be included. Two independent reviewers will identify papers by reviewing titles and abstracts. Papers passing the initial selection will be appraised by two reviewers, based on their full texts. Furthermore, the reference lists of included studies will be snowballed for identification of other relevant studies. Data will be extracted using a standard extraction sheet by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion and consensus with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation risk of bias tool, or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Results will be reported narratively. Search histories will be documented on EndNote X8 (Clarivate Analytics).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this review was not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed international journal and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017074880.

IntroductionKnee pain is common in adolescents and adults and is associated with an increased risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this systematic review was to gather and appraise the cost-effectiveness of treatment approaches for non-osteoarthritic knee pain conditions.MethodA systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050683). The literature search was done in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Study selection was carried out by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using a customized extraction form. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list.ResultsFifteen studies were included. The majority regarded the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, but we also identified studies evaluating other knee pain conditions such as meniscus injuries, cartilage defects, and patellofemoral pain syndrome. Study interventions were categorized as surgical or non-surgical interventions. The surgical interventions included ACL reconstruction, chondrocyte implantation, meniscus scaffold procedure, meniscal allograft transplantation, partial meniscectomy, microfracture, and different types of autografts and allografts. The non-surgical management consisted of physical therapy, rehabilitation, exercise, counselling, bracing, and advice. In general, for ACL injuries surgical management alone or in combination with rehabilitation appeared to be cost-effective. The quality of the economic evaluations was of moderate to high quality.ConclusionThere was insufficient evidence to give a firm overview of cost-effective interventions for non-osteoarthritic knee pain, but surgical treatment of acute ACL injury appeared cost-effective. There is very little data regarding the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for non-traumatic knee conditions.

Objective: In a future full-scale randomised controlled trial, we plan to compare satisfaction with a standard website versus satisfaction with a participatory driven web-application. The participatory driven web-application may facilitate the delivery of targeted evidence-based advice and information to patients with low back pain in general practice (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03088774). This feasibility study is intended to inform a future randomised controlled trial. The aim is to report on the lessons learned from recruitment to report on reasons for loss to follow-up. Results: We recruited 12 women and 8 men from two general practices with each practice recruiting for 3 months. Full follow-up data was available in only three patients (15%). Based on the high loss to follow-up, we do not consider it feasible to conduct the full-scale confirmatory trial as planned. Modifying inclusion criteria to include only patients expressing an interest in using online health information or randomising patients directly at the general practice, supporting them in accessing the web-application, and letting patients respond with their immediate satisfaction may improve the speed of recruitment and follow-up rates. Furthermore, the participatory driven web-application can be included in a larger multi-faceted intervention, making the combined intervention seem more relevant to study participants.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Patient education and self-management have the potential to improve the care of patients. However, high workload and little available time for consultations are argued to challenge the delivery of optimal care in general practice. Involving clinical staff members in the management of diabetes and of patients with hypertension has shown to be feasible. Consequently, involving clinical staff members in providing education and information to patients may improve the delivery of patient information and education. However, this require a shift in the division of tasks and general practitioners’ (GPs’) barriers and facilitators for this is currently unknown. The aim is to explore GPs’ barriers and facilitators to involve clinical staff members in the treatment of LBP in general practice. Methods This is a qualitative, semi-structured interview study. We used the phenomenological approach to study experiences and attitudes towards changing the management of patients with LBP from the GPs’ perspectives. Analysis was conducted using inductive descriptive methods. Results We conducted five 60-minute interviews with Danish GPs. All GPs had experience with task delegation, but it varied which tasks the GPs delegated and to which types of clinical staff members. The following barriers towards clinical staff member involvement were identified: Patients with LBP is a heterogeneous group with a variety of treatment needs, the examination and treatment can be considered as one coherent process, and it would require external support.
Involving clinical staff members can release GP time. Another facilitator was the possibility for improving the uptake of clinical guidelines and involvement of practice nurses was considered to improve the provision of patient education and lead to greater patient self-management. Conclusion While some GPs currently consider delegation to clinical staff members a good idea in the treatment of LBP, others prefer the existing treatment strategy without clinical staff member involvement. Consequently, healthcare providers need to address existing barriers and facilitators for involving clinical staff members when advocating for a future multi professional treatment strategy of LBP in general practice.