The influence of a MOBile-based video Instruction for Low back pain (MOBIL) on initial care decisions made by primary care providers: a randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of strategies for implementing guideline-concordant care in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

International low back pain guidelines recommend providing education/advice to patients, discouraging routine imaging use, and encouraging judicious prescribing of analgesics. However, practice variation occurs and the effectiveness of implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care is unclear. This review aims to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care for low back pain.

Methods

Five databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and PEDro were searched from inception until 22nd August 2024. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated strategies to promote guideline-concordant care (providing education/advice, discouraging routine imaging use, and/or reducing analgesic use) among healthcare professionals or organisations were included. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was guideline-concordant care in the medium-term (>3 months but <12 months). The taxonomy recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group was used to categorise implementation strategies. Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was conducted where possible. This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023452969).

Findings

Twenty-seven RCTs with 32 reports were included. All strategies targeted healthcare professionals (7796 health professionals overseeing 34,890 patients with low back pain), and none targeted organisations. The most commonly used implementation strategies were educational materials (15/27) and educational meetings (14/27), although most studies (24/27) used more than one strategy ('multifaceted strategies'). In the medium-term, compared to no implementation, implementation strategies probably reduced the use of routine imaging (number of studies [N] = 7, odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.58, I 2  = 50%, moderate certainty evidence), but made no difference in reducing analgesic use (N = 4, OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14, I 2  = 0%, high certainty evidence). Further, implementation strategies may make no difference to improve the rate of providing education/advice (N = 3, OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 0.87-3.87, I 2  = 95%, low certainty evidence), but this finding should be interpreted with caution because the sensitivity analysis showed a weak positive finding indicating unstable results that are likely to change with future research (N = 2, OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.04-1.35, I 2  = 0%, moderate certainty evidence). No difference was found when comparing one implementation strategy to another in the medium-term.

Interpretation

Implementing guideline recommendations delivered mixed effects in promoting guideline-concordant care for low back pain management.

Funding

There was no funding source for this review.

General and Pain-Associated Psychological Distress Phenotypes Among Patients With Low Back Pain in the Military Health System

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to describe rates of general and pain-related psychological distress for individuals with low back pain (LBP) in the Military Health System (MHS). We identified common phenotypes defined by rates of general and pain-related psychological distress and compared phenotypes on their level of pain interference, physical function, anxiety, and depression.

METHODS

We created a cohort from two completed trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment for LBP in the MHS (n = 510 total). The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag assessment tool identified the presence of 11 different yellow flags. Latent class analysis (LCA) used yellow flag indicators to identify common psychological phenotypes. We then compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems measures of pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety across phenotypes.

RESULTS

LCA identified five phenotypes (percentage of the sample): low distress (32%), high distress (27%), poor pain coping and low self-efficacy (18%), low self-efficacy and acceptance (14%), and poor pain coping (10%). Highly distressed phenotypes reported higher levels of pain interference, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety than those with other phenotypes, whereas the low distress phenotype had significantly lower pain interference and higher physical function scores than those characterized by all other phenotypes.

CONCLUSION

These phenotypes provide opportunities for clinicians and researchers to develop novel LBP treatment pathways tailored to patients with different profiles of psychological distress. Future work is needed to validate their predictive capabilities for clinical outcomes.

The Efficacy of the Smartphone App for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Their Quality through the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) in Italy

Smartphone apps for self-management are valuable tools to help manage low back pain (LBP) patients. The purposes of this systematic review were to (a) summarize the available studies on the efficacy of smartphone apps for self-management of LBP and (b) identify free applications available in Italy that offer strategies for LBP self-management and provide a qualitative assessment using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). According to the Prisma Checklist, six bibliographic databases were searched with the keywords 'low back pain', 'mobile application', 'smartphone', and 'telemedicine'. In total, 852 records were screened, and 16 were included in the systematic review. Of the six RCTs included, four reported a statistically significant decrease in pain in favor of the app group, and two RCTs did not. Only in a non-RCT was there an increase in the disability score. In the application research conducted on mobile stores, we identified and rated 25 applications through MARS. The overall scores ranged from 1.93 to 3.92 for the IOS app and 1.73 to 4.25 for the Play Store app. The findings suggest that few apps meet satisfying quality, content, and functionality criteria for LBP self-management.

Minimal Intervention of Patient Education for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of minimal intervention of patient education (MIPE) for reducing disability and pain intensity in patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing MIPE, consisting of a single session of patient education, to no or other interventions in patients with LBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible. A noninferiority margin of 5 points (0-100 scale) was considered for noninferiority hypotheses. We assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: A total of 21 trials were included. There were no differences between MIPE and no intervention for effects on disability and pain intensity. There was low-certainty evidence that MIPE had inferior effects on short-term disability (mean difference = 3.62; 95% CI: 0.85, 6.38; 15 trials; n = 3066; I2 = 75%) and pain intensity (mean difference = 9.43; 95% CI: 1.31, 17.56; 10 trials; n = 1394; I2 = 90%) than other interventions. No differences were found for subsequent time points. CONCLUSION: As an intervention delivered in isolation, and without tailoring (ie, one-size-fits-all intervention), MIPE on average did not provide benefits for reducing disability and pain intensity over no or other interventions. We encourage clinicians to consider using additional/other or more tailored treatments when helping people manage LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-13. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11865.