Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial

Cognitive Functional Therapy compared with usual physiotherapy care in people with persistent low back pain: a mixed methods feasibility randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom National Health Service

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility of completing a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT), evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) in comparison to usual physiotherapy care (UPC), for people with persistent low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN AND SETTING

A two-arm parallel feasibility RCT completed in a United Kingdom (UK) Secondary Care National Health Service (NHS) physiotherapy service.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty adult participants who reported LBP lasting for more than three months, that was not attributable to a serious (e.g. cancer) or specific (e.g. radiculopathy) underlying cause, were invited to participate. Participants were allocated at random to receive CFT or UPC.

INTERVENTIONS

Cognitive Functional Therapy and Usual Physiotherapy Care for persistent LBP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the feasibility of completing a definitive RCT, defined by recruitment of at least 5 participants per month, delivery of CFT per protocol and securing relevant and acceptable outcome measures. Data concerning study processes, resources, management and participant reported outcome measures were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty participants (n = 30 CFT and n = 30 UPC) were recruited with 80% (n = 48), 72% (n = 43) and 53% (n = 32) retained at 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up respectively. NHS physiotherapists were trained to competence and delivered CFT with fidelity. CFT was tolerated by participants with no adverse events. Relevant and clinically important outcome data were collected at all time points (0.4%, 3%, 1% and 0.8% of data was missing from the returned outcome measure booklets at baseline and 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up respectively). The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was considered the most suitable primary outcome measure with a proposed sample size of 540 participants for a definitive cluster RCT.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to conduct a randomised study of CFT in comparison to UPC for NHS patients. A future study should incorporate an internal pilot to address aspects of feasibility further, including participant retention strategies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12965286 CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER.

Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care

INTRODUCTION

Models of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were conducted.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible records included MoCs implemented for adult LBP patients in primary healthcare settings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.

Numeric rating scale for pain should be used in an ordinal but not interval manner. A retrospective analysis of 346,892 patient reports of the quality improvement in postoperative pain treatment registry

ABSTRACT

To assess postoperative pain intensity in adults, the numeric rating scale (NRS) is used. This scale has shown acceptable psychometric features, although its scale properties need further examination. We aimed to evaluate scale properties of the NRS using an item response theory (IRT) approach. Data from an international postoperative pain registry (QUIPS) was analyzed retrospectively. Overall, 346,892 adult patients (age groups: 18-20 years: 1.6%, 21-30 years: 6.7%, 31-40 years: 8.3%, 41-50 years: 13.2%, 51-60 years: 17.1%, 61-70 years: 17.3%, 71-80 years: 16.4%, 81-90 years: 3.9%, >90: 0.2%) were included. Among the patients, 55.7% are female and 38% had preoperative pain. Three pain items (movement pain, worst pain, least pain) were analyzed using 4 different IRT models: partial credit model (PCM), generalized partial credit model (GPCM), rating scale model (RSM), and graded response model (GRM). Fit indices were compared to decide the best fitting model (lower fit indices indicate a better model fit). Subgroup analyses were done for sex and age groups. After collapsing the highest and the second highest response category, the GRM outperformed other models (lowest Bayesian information criterion) in all subgroups. Overlapping categories were found in category boundary curves for worst and minimum pain and particularly for higher pain ratings. Response category widths differed depending on pain intensity. For female, male, and age groups, similar results were obtained. Response categories on the NRS are ordered but have different widths. The interval scale properties of the NRS should be questioned. In dealing with missing linearity in pain intensity ratings using the NRS, IRT methods may be helpful.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Predictors of outcome in sciatica patients following an epidural steroid injection: the POiSE prospective observational cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sciatica can be very painful and, in most cases, is due to pressure on a spinal nerve root from a disc herniation with associated inflammation. For some patients, the pain persists, and one management option is a spinal epidural steroid injection (ESI). The aim of an ESI is to relieve leg pain, improve function and reduce the need for surgery. ESIs work well in some patients but not in others, but we cannot identify these patient subgroups currently. This study aims to identify factors, including patient characteristics, clinical examination and imaging findings, that help in predicting who does well and who does not after an ESI. The overall objective is to develop a prognostic model to support individualised patient and clinical decision-making regarding ESI.

METHODS

POiSE is a prospective cohort study of 439 patients with sciatica referred by their clinician for an ESI. Participants will receive weekly text messages until 12 weeks following their ESIand then again at 24 weeks following their ESI to collect data on leg pain severity. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after their ESI to collect data on pain, disability, recovery and additional interventions. The prognosis for the cohort will be described. The primary outcome measure for the prognostic model is leg pain at 6 weeks. Prognostic models will also be developed for secondary outcomes of disability and recovery at 6 weeks and additional interventions at 24 weeks following ESI. Statistical analyses will include multivariable linear and logistic regression with mixed effects model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The POiSE study has received ethical approval (South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee 21/SC/0257). Dissemination will be guided by our patient and public engagement group and will include scientific publications, conference presentations and social media.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. 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. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).

RESULTS

24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).

CONCLUSION

Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021269997.

Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica.

METHODS

The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Between-study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results.

RESULTS

3094 citations were identified; 15 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-two prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n = 10 studies), imaging features (n = 8 studies), patient socio-demographics (n = 7 studies), health and lifestyle (n = 6 studies), clinical assessment findings (n = 4 studies) and injection level (n = 4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies.

How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).

RESULTS

Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I² = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I²= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I²= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I² = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I² = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I² = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

CONCLUSION

Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

The High Burden of Acute and Chronic Pain in General Practice in French-Speaking Belgium

Background

Chronic pain prevalence is very high in the general population, much higher than can be managed by chronic pain centers. Therefore, most pain patients are cared for by first-line professionals. However, general practitioners often feel ill at ease with these patients, and only a few studies assess the burden of chronic pain in general practice. To better estimate the resources needed to support these professionals, a good knowledge of (sub)acute and chronic pain prevalence and prognosis in general practices is needed.

Methods

We report cross-sectional data from a larger longitudinal study performed in French-speaking general practices in Belgium in November 2018. Fifth-year medical students performing a one-month internship collected data for every third patient they saw each day: demographic information, pain characteristics, lifestyle, general health perception and the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in the French language.

Results

3882 patients (participation rate 66%) accepted to take part in the study. 22 and 50% of these suffered from (sub)acute and chronic pain, respectively. Pain was more often the motive of the consultation for (sub)acute than for chronic pain patients. Pain intensity and functional impact were moderate, irrespective of pain duration. 70% of (sub)acute and 31% of chronic pain patients were at low risk of chronicity.

Conclusion

In our sample, chronic pain patients constituted 33-50% of patient contacts in general practice, indicating the high importance of providing adequate support to general practitioners and other first-line professionals, ie, by reinforcing collaboration with chronic pain centers.

Prospective observational study investigating the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool and the clinical effectiveness of stratified care in an emergency department setting

PURPOSE

To determine the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool (SBT) undertaken at baseline and 6 weeks to classify Emergency Department (ED) patients with LBP into groups at low, medium or high risk of persistent disability at 3 months. A secondary aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of pragmatic risk-matched treatment in an ED cohort at 3 months.

METHODS

A prospective observational multi-centre study took place in the physiotherapy services linked to the ED in four teaching hospitals in Dublin, Ireland. Patients were stratified into low, medium and high-risk groups at their baseline assessment. Participants received stratified care, where the content of their treatment was matched to their risk profile. Outcomes completed at baseline and 3 months included pain and disability. Linear regression analyses assessed if baseline or 6-week SBT score were predictive of disability at 3 months. Changes in the primary outcome of disability were dichotomised into those who achieved/ did not achieve a 30% improvement in their RMDQ at 6 weeks and 3 months.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 118 patients with a primary complaint of LBP ± leg pain with 67 (56.7%) completing their 6-week and 3-month follow-up. Baseline RMDQ and being in medium or high risk SBT group at 6 weeks were predictive of persistent disability at 3 months. A total of 54 (80.6%) participants reported a > 30% improvement at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Disability at baseline and SBT administered at 6 weeks more accurately predicted disability at 3 months than SBT at baseline in an ED population.

Clinical pathways for the management of low back pain from primary to specialised care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clinical pathways for low back pain (LBP) have potential to improve clinical outcomes and health service efficiency. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence for clinical pathways for LBP and/or radicular leg pain from primary to specialised care and to describe key pathway components.

METHODS

Electronic database searches (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) from 2006 onwards were conducted with further manual and citation searching. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. A narrative synthesis of findings is presented.

RESULTS

From 18,443 identified studies, 28 papers met inclusion criteria. Pathways were developed primarily to address over-burdened secondary care services in high-income countries and almost universally used interface services with a triage remit at the primary-secondary care boundary. Accordingly, evaluation of healthcare resource use and patient flow predominated, with interface services associated with enhanced service efficiency through decreased wait times and appropriate use of consultant appointments. Low quality study designs, heterogeneous outcomes and insufficient comparative data precluded definitive conclusions regarding clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Pathways demonstrated basic levels of care integration across the primary-secondary care boundary.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited volume of research evaluating clinical pathways for LBP/radicular leg pain and spanning primary and specialised care predominantly used interface services to ensure appropriate specialised care referrals with associated increased efficiency of care delivery. Pathways demonstrated basic levels of care integration across healthcare boundaries. Well-designed randomised controlled trials to explore the potential of clinical pathways to improve clinical outcomes, deliver cost-effective, guideline-concordant care and enhance care integration are required.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Disentangling 'sciatica' to understand and characterise somatosensory profiles and potential pain mechanisms

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to investigate if patients with lumbar radicular pain only and those with combined lumbar radicular pain + radiculopathy differ in their somatosensory profiles and pain experiences.

METHODS

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in 26 patients (mean age 47 ± 10 years, 10 females) with unilateral leg pain in the L5 or S1 distribution in their main pain area (MPA) and contralateral mirror side, in the relevant foot dermatome on the symptomatic side and in the hand dorsum. Pain experience was captured on the painDETECT.

RESULTS

Eight patients presented with lumbar radicular pain only and 18 patients with combined radicular pain + radiculopathy. Patients with radicular pain only demonstrated widespread loss of function (mechanical detection) bilaterally in the MPA (p<0.003) and hand (p=0.002), increased heat sensitivity in both legs (p<0.019) and cold/heat sensitivity in the hand (p<0.024). QST measurements in the dermatome did not differ compared to HCs and patients with radiculopathy. Patients with lumbar radiculopathy were characterised by a localised loss of function in the symptomatic leg in the MPA (warm, mechanical, vibration detection, mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity p<0.031) and dermatome (mechanical, vibration detection p<0.001), consistent with a nerve root lesion. Pain descriptors did not differ between the two groups with the exception of numbness (p<0.001). Patients with radicular pain did not report symptoms of numbness, while 78% of patients with radiculopathy did.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct differences in somatosensory profiles and pain experiences were demonstrated for each patient group, suggesting differing underlying pain mechanisms.

Management approach combining prognostic screening and targeted treatment for patients with low back pain compared with standard physiotherapy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Research evidence suggests that a stratified care management approach is better at improving clinical and economic outcomes for low back pain (LBP) patients compared with usual care in the short-term. However, it is uncertain if these health and economic benefits are sustainable in the longer term.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of stratified care compared with standard physiotherapy for LBP treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was undertaken of seven electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Pedro, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials and Web of Science with full text. No time limits were applied, but studies were limited to English language publications and those involving human participants. Two independent reviewers undertook study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study RESULTS: In total, 6,842 patients (18 years and above) were included in the 8 trials reviewed - 4 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the other 4 were non-RCTs. The pooled analysis of 3 studies (n = 2,460) demonstrated a strong evidence in favour of stratified care over standard care at improving overall pain (WMD [random] 0.46 [95% CI 0.21, 0.71]; P < 0.0003), with overall effect (Z = 3.6) and (RMDQ) scores (WMD [random] 0.71 [95% CI 0.05, 1.37]; P < 0.03), with overall effect (Z = 2.11) at 3, 4- and 6-months follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

This current review demonstrated that a stratified care approach provides substantial clinical, economic and health related cost benefits in the medium and high-risk subgroups compared with usual care. Further research is needed for longer-term benefits.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on a 'fast-track' pathway for patients with sciatica in primary care: qualitative findings from the SCOPiC stratified care trial

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) (trial registration: ISRCTN75449581 ) tested stratified primary care for sciatica by subgrouping patients into one of three groups based on prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one group were 'fast-tracked' for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and spinal specialist opinion. This paper reports qualitative research exploring patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the acceptability of this 'fast-track' pathway.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients and 20 clinicians (general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists, spinal surgeons). Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and 'boundary objects' concept.

RESULTS

Whilst the 'fast-track' pathway achieved a degree of 'coherence' (i.e. made sense) to both patients and clinicians, particularly in relation to providing early reassurance based on MRI scan findings, it was less 'meaningful' to some clinicians for managing patients with acute symptoms, reflecting a reluctance to move away from the usual 'stepped care' approach. Both groups felt a key limitation of the pathway was that it did not shorten patient waiting times between their spinal specialist consultation and further treatments.

CONCLUSION

Findings contribute new knowledge about patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the role of imaging and spinal specialist opinion in the management of sciatica, and provide important insights for understanding the 'fast-track' pathway, as part of the stratified care model tested in the RCT. Future research into the early referral of patients with sciatica for investigation and specialist opinion should include strategies to support clinician behaviour change; as well as take into account the role of imaging in providing reassurance to patients with severe symptoms in cases where imaging reveals a clear explanation for the patient's pain, and where this is accompanied by a thorough explanation from a trusted clinical expert.