Primary care for low back pain: we don't know the half of it

"All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it

BACKGROUND

Low-quality care for low back pain (LBP) is pervasive in Australia. Drivers of low-quality care have been identified elsewhere and include misconceptions about LBP, vested interests and limited funding for evidence-based interventions. Yet, the literature that identified such drivers is not specific to the Australian context, and therefore, it is likely to represent only part of the local problem. This study aimed to determine where the most influential drivers of LBP care are in the Australian healthcare system and what could be done to address them.

METHODS

Clinical leaders from various disciplines, academics, hospital managers, policy-makers, consumers involved in LBP advocacy, board members of relevant health profession boards and private insurers were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Interview data were analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 37 stakeholders. Challenges that hinder LBP care in Australia included variability in care and inconsistent messages, funding models that are not supportive of appropriate care for LBP, the community's understanding of LBP, vested interests and commercial forces, difficulties in accessing timely and affordable conservative care, neglect of social determinants and health inequities, short consultations, siloed practices, uncertainties that stem from gaps in evidence and the experience of having LBP, individual and contextual variability, the mismatch between evidence and practice, the Australian healthcare system itself, the lack of political will and acknowledgement of LBP as a public health issue, stigma, the need to improve human aspects and the compensation system. When discussing factors that could improve LBP care, participants raised collaboration, changes in funding, improvement of access to - and affordability of - models of care and care pathways, public health campaigns targeting LBP, enhancement of policy and governance, increasing and better training the workforce, consideration of inequities, making improvements in information sharing and reforming the worker's compensation sector.

CONCLUSIONS

LBP is a wicked problem, influenced by several systemic factors. An agenda for system change in the LBP landscape should be guided by a collaborative, coherent and integrated approach across sectors to enhance quality of care and system efficiency for those who seek and provide care.

What's the low back pain problem represented to be? An analysis of discourse of the Australian policy directives

PURPOSE

Low back pain (LBP) directives provide information about how LBP should be managed, communicated and navigated in complex health systems, making them an important form of policy. This study aimed to examine how LBP is problematised (represented) in Australian directives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We employed an analysis of discourse of LBP directives drawing on Bacchi's "What's the problem represented to be?" policy problematisation approach.

RESULTS

Our analysis suggests that LBP is problematised as a symptom that tends to improve when individuals take responsibility for themselves, but may require care at times. The way in which LBP is represented in the directives excludes important aspects, such as the uncertainties of scientific knowledge, paradigms other than (post)positivist, multimorbidity, social and structural determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

LBP directives may benefit from problematisations of LBP that consider the ongoing nature of LBP and broader contextual factors that impact on both LBP outcomes and care, beyond individual responsibility. Consideration of a wider range of paradigms and expanded evidence base may also be beneficial, as these are likely to enable individuals, clinicians and the Australian healthcare system to address LBP while dealing with its complexities, enabling real-world changes to lessen the LBP burden.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare professionals who work with people who experience low back pain (LBP) may benefit from critically reflecting about discourses embedded in policy directives.Healthcare professionals may consider engaging in policy changes processes to expand the discourses on which LBP policy directives rely.Healthcare professionals' ability to enact policy recommendations may be enhanced by consideration of the fluctuating nature of LBP, uncertainties, multimorbidity and determinants of health.

Redesigning care for back pain in an Australian hospital setting: A service evaluation to identify need for change

OBJECTIVE

This needs assessment study examined current processes of physiotherapy care for adults with back pain in a large teaching hospital serving a multicultural community in Sydney, Australia. Evaluation of current practices is a necessary first step in the design of a patient-centred, multidisciplinary service that promotes best practice in back pain management.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective service evaluation in the physiotherapy outpatient department by reviewing clinical data on episode of care and processes of care for adults managed for back pain over a 6-month period using a defined protocol (n = 252).

RESULTS

Patients (median age = 56 years; 72.2% born outside of Australia) were referred from various internal and external sources, with 79.8% having chronic back pain. The median length of episode of care was 8 weeks. Active interventions were almost universally used (98.4% of records). Key aspects of assessment were frequently recorded (84.5%-98% of records), but psychosocial risk assessment was not routinely recorded. Aspects of longitudinal management planning, including goal setting, outcome measurement, and routine follow-up, were also not routinely recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that physiotherapy processes of care in this setting followed key messages of best practice particularly with regard to interventions, in contrast to other settings and jurisdictions. However, the brief episodes of care and less evident focus on psychosocial aspects might not align with the needs of the majority with chronic back pain. These findings suggest the need to reframe processes of care with a biopsychosocial approach and structure episodes of care towards long-term management solutions.

Interventions to Promote Work-Focused Care by Healthcare Providers for Individuals with Musculoskeletal Conditions a Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Building on an emerging body of evidence, this scoping review aimed to provide an overview of current interventions to promote work-focused care by healthcare providers for individuals with musculoskeletal conditions and to identify current knowledge gaps for future research.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycInfo using Medical Subject Heading terms and text words relating to musculoskeletal conditions, interventions to promote work-focused care and work-related outcomes. Articles involving any interventions with elements of work-focused care delivered by healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions were reviewed for suitability and inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles (18 intervention trials) were identified. Most studies were multidisciplinary interventions incorporating one or more elements of work-focused care including: work-related assessment to identify barriers to working, vocational advice/coaching or education to address barriers to working, involvement of the workplace stakeholders, restoration of fitness for work and regular communication with multidisciplinary team members. Most studies (61 %) concluded that their interventions achieved the desired work-related outcomes although firm conclusions could not be made regarding the effectiveness of a particular component, content or strategy of work-focused care itself because of the variability in the type and number of elements and outcomes used.

CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence demonstrating the potential for healthcare providers to improve work outcomes for those with musculoskeletal conditions. Additional training is required to increase confidence in this area of practice. Accepting that work-focused care is important, however, does not diminish the challenge it presents.

Validation of the Nepali Version of the Self-reported Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) in Adults With Chronic Pain and Predominantly Low-literacy Levels

Neuropathic pain research and clinical care is limited in low- and middle-income countries with high prevalence of chronic pain such as Nepal. We translated and cross-culturally adapted the Self-report version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS)-a commonly used, reliable and valid instrument to screen for pain of predominantly neuropathic origin (POPNO)-into Nepali (S-LANSS-NP) and validated it using recommended guidelines. We recruited 30 patients with chronic pain in an outpatient setting for cognitive debriefing and recruited 287 individuals with chronic pain via door-to-door interviews for validation. For known-group validity, we hypothesized that the POPNO group would report significantly more pain intensity and pain interference than the chronic pain group without POPNO using a cut-off score of ≥10/24. The S-LANSS-NP was comprehensible based on the ease of understanding the questionnaire and lack of missing responses. The validation sample consisted of predominantly low-levels of literacy (81% had 5 years or less education); 23% were classified as having POPNO. Internal consistency was good (alpha = .80). Known-group validity was supported (chronic pain with POPNO reported significantly greater pain intensity than those without). The S-LANSS-NP is a comprehensible, unidimensional, internally consistent, and valid instrument to screen POPNO in individuals with chronic pain with predominantly low-levels of literacy for clinical and research use. PERSPECTIVE: This paper shows that the Nepali version of the S-LANSS is comprehensible, reliable and valid in adults with chronic pain and predominantly low-levels of literacy in rural Nepal. The study could potentially develop research and clinical care of neuropathic pain in this resource-limited setting where chronic pain is a significant problem.

[Role of B vitamins, thiamine, pyridoxine, and cyanocobalamin in back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions: a narrative review]

Low back pain, as well as other musculoskeletal disorders (neck pain, osteoarthritis, etc.), are a very frequent cause of consultation both in primary care and in other hospital specialties and are usually associated with high functional and work disability. Acute low back pain can present different nociceptive, neuropathic and nonciplastic components, which leads to consider it as a mixed type pain. The importance of the concept of mixed pain is due to the fact that the symptomatic relief of these pathologies requires a multimodal therapeutic approach to various pharmacological targets. The antinociceptive role of the B vitamin complex has been recognized for several decades, specifically the combination of Thiamine, Pyridoxine and Cyanocobalamin (TPC). Likewise, there is accumulated evidence that indicates an adjuvant analgesic action in low back pain. The aim of the present review is to present the existing evidence and the latest findings on the therapeutic effects of the TPC combination in low back pain. Likewise, some of the most relevant mechanisms of action involved that can explain these effects are analyzed. The reviewed evidence indicates that the combined use of PCT has an adjuvant analgesic effect in mixed pain, specifically in low back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders with nociceptive and neuropathic components. This effect can be explained by an anti-inflammatory, antinociceptive, neuroprotective and neuromodulatory action of the TPC combination on the descending pain system.

Distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Co-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain - these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability.

CONCLUSIONS

People with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017068807 .