Optimizing management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: A feasibility trial

People Living with Chronic Pain Experience a High Prevalence of Decision Regret in Canada: A Pan-Canadian Online Survey

Background(1) To estimate the prevalence of decision regret in chronic pain care, and (2) to identify factors associated with decision regret.DesignWe conducted a pan-Canadian cross-sectional online survey and reported the results following the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines. We recruited a sample of adults experiencing chronic noncancer pain. We used a stratified proportional random sampling based on the population and chronic pain prevalence of each province. We measured decision regret with the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and decisional needs with the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. We performed descriptive analysis to estimate the prevalence and level of decision regret and multilevel multivariable regression analysis to identify factors associated with regret according to the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies recommendations.ResultsWe surveyed 1,649 people living with chronic pain, and 1,373 reported a most difficult decision from the 10 prespecified ones, enabling the collection of a DRS score. On a scale ranging from 0 to 100 where 1 reflects the presence of decision regret and 25 constitutes important decision regret, the mean DRS score in our sample was 28.8 (s = 19.6). Eighty-four percent of respondents experienced some decision regret and 50% at an important level. We identified 15 factors associated with decision regret, including 4 personal and 9 decision-making characteristics, and 2 consequences of the chosen option. Respondents with low education level and higher decisional conflict experienced more decision regret when the decision was deemed difficult.ConclusionsThis pan-Canadian survey highlighted a high prevalence and level of decision regret associated with difficult decisions for pain care. Decision making in pain care could be enhanced by addressing factors that contribute to decision regret.HighlightsWe conducted an online pan-Canadian survey and collected responses from a wide diversity of people living with chronic pain.More than 84% of respondents experienced decision regret and approximately 50% at an important level.We identified 15 factors associated with decision regret, including 4 personal and 9 decision-making characteristics, and 2 consequences of the chosen option.Our pan-Canadian survey reveals an urgent need of a shared decision-making approach in chronic pain care that can be potentiated by targeting multiple factors associated with decision regret.

Rehabilitation Management of Neck Pain-Development of a Diagnostic Framework Based on the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model

RATIONALE

Neck pain is a major cause of disability worldwide, and current rehabilitation strategies show limited effectiveness. Subgrouping patients by their primary pain and disability drivers can help tailor treatments. At this end, the Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) was developed and has demonstrated preliminary effectiveness in the management of low back pain. Nevertheless, the PDDM model was only validated for this population. Adapting this framework to patients with neck pain would provide a more global view of the patient's experience of pain and support a genuine biopsychosocial intervention.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop and validate the content of the PDDM model for patients living with neck pain.

METHODS

Through a modified DELPHI study design, participants with clinical and research expertize in rehabilitation of neck pain were invited to participate. A questionnaire was developed using literature reviews and endorsed by a steering committee. The relevance of each element of the newly adapted model was evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. An item reached consensus if it obtained the predefined threshold of > 78% "relevant" and "very relevant." Participants left comments on terminology and recommended items to add in early rounds. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

An invitation was sent to 1650 potential participants, from which 155 accessed the survey, 64 completed the first round and 55 the second round. A total of 70 elements met consensus and were distributed across six domains: "Nociceptive pain drivers", "nociplastic pain drivers," "drivers associated with neuropathic pain", "comorbidity drivers", "cognitive-emotional drivers" and "environmental or lifestyle drivers, and social determinants of health."

CONCLUSION

Through a modified DELPHI study, the PDDM model was updated and adapted to people with neck pain. Subsequent steps include clinical integration and measures of efficacy when used for assessment/treatment.

Enrollment, adherence and retention rates among musculoskeletal disorders rehabilitation practitioners in knowledge translation studies: a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Practitioners' enrollment, adherence, and retention rates influence estimates of effectiveness in knowledge translation (KT) studies and remain important concerns for implementation researchers. This review aimed to systematically summarize the current evidence on feasibility measures as gauged by enrollment, adherence, and retention rates in KT evaluation studies targeting rehabilitation practitioners treating musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases from the inception to October 2022. We included KT studies that 1) had designs recommended by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, 2) targeted rehabilitation practitioners managing patients with MSDs, 3) delivered KT interventions according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change classification, and 4) reported on the feasibility measures (e.g., enrollment, adherence, and retention). Descriptive statistics were conducted to report on study-, practitioners- and intervention-related factors influencing enrollment, adherence, and retention rates. Meta-regression weighted by the sample size of included studies was used to estimate the effect of factors on overall enrollment, adherence, and retention rates.

RESULTS

Findings from 33 KT studies reported weighted enrolment, adherence, and retention rate of 82% (range: 32%-100%), 74% (range: 44%-100%), and 65% (range: 36%-100%) respectively for both intervention and control groups. Factors positively influencing enrollment, adherence, and retention rates included designing short study period with short duration intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Intense (e.g., high frequency, short duration) single KT intervention was more appealing for practitioners. Future evaluation studies should clearly report follow-up data, and practitioners' prior training, Results may not apply to non-MSD healthcare providers.

Establishing the prognostic profile of patients with work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Development and acceptability of the MAPS questionnaire

PURPOSE

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMD) are the most common causes of disability worldwide and are associated with significant use of healthcare. One way to optimize the clinical outcomes of injured workers receiving rehabilitation is to identify and address individual prognostic factors (PF), which can facilitate the personalization of the treatment plan. As there is no pragmatic and systematic method to collect prognostic-related data, the purpose of the study was to develop and assess the acceptability of a set of questionnaires to establish the "prognostic profile" of workers with WRMD.

METHODS

We utilized a multistep process to inform the acceptability of the Measures Associated to PrognoStic (MAPS) questionnaire. During STEP-1, a preliminary version of the was developed through a literature search followed by an expert consensus including a patient-advisor. During STEP-2, future users (rehabilitation professionals, healthcare administrators and compensation officers) were consulted through an online survey and were asked to rate the relevance of each content item; items that obtained ≥80% of "totally agree" answers were included. They were also asked to prioritize PF according to their usefulness for clinical decision-making, as well as perceived efficacy to enhance the treatment plan.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was developed with three categories: the outcome predicted, the unique PF, and prognostic tools. Personal PF (i.e.: coping strategies, fear-avoidance beliefs), pain related PF (i.e.: pain intensity/severity, duration of pain), and work-related PF (i.e.: work physical demands, work accommodations) were identified to be totally relevant and included in the questionnaire. 84% of the respondents agreed that their patients could complete the MAPS questionnaire in their clinical setting, while 75% totally agreed that the questionnaire is useful to personalize rehabilitation interventions.

CONCLUSION

The MAPS questionnaire was deemed acceptable to establish the "prognostic profile" of injured workers and help the clinicians in the treatment decision-making process.

Optimising management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: Findings from a pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability. The Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic controlled trial of the PDDM model and to explore its effectiveness compared to clinical practice guidelines' recommendations for LBP management.

METHODS

A pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial. Participants included physiotherapists and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design. Secondary exploratory analyses were conducted on LBP-related outcomes such as pain severity and interference at 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Feasibility of study procedures were confirmed, recruitment exceeded our target number of participants, and the eligibility criteria were deemed suitable. Lost to follow-up at 12 weeks was higher than expected (43.0%) and physiotherapists' compliance rates to the study protocol was lower than our predefined threshold (75.0% vs. 57.5%). A total of 44 physiotherapists and 91 patients were recruited. Recommendations for a larger scale trial were formulated. The PDDM model group demonstrated slightly better improvements in all clinical outcome measures compared to the control group at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The findings support the feasibility of conducting such trial contingent upon a few recommendations to foster proper future planning to determine the effectiveness of the PDDM model. Our results provide preliminary evidence of the PDDM model effectiveness to optimise LBP management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04893369.

Investigating force-time characteristics of prone thoracic SMT and self-reported patient outcome measures: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including thoracic spine pain. Applying patient-specific force-time characteristics are believed to be important to improve SMT's effectiveness. Investigating SMT as part of a multimodal approach is fundamental to account for the complexity of chiropractic clinical practice. Therefore, pragmatic investigations balancing minimal disruptions to the clinical encounter at the same time as ensuring a robust data quality with rigorous protocols are needed. Consequently, preliminary studies are required to assess the study protocol, quality of data recorded and the sustainability of such investigation. Therefore, this study examined the feasibility of investigating SMT force-time characteristics and clinical outcome measures in a clinical setting.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, providers recorded thoracic SMT force-time characteristics delivered to patients with thoracic spinal pain during regular clinical encounters. Self-reported clinical outcomes of pain, stiffness, comfort during the SMT (using an electronic visual analogue scale), and global rating of change scale were measured before and after each SMT application. Feasibility was quantitatively assessed for participant recruitment, data collection and data quality. Qualitative data assessed participants' perceptions on the impact of data collection on patient management and clinical flow.

RESULTS

Twelve providers (58% female, 27.3 ± 5.0 years old) and twelve patients (58% female, 37.2 ± 14.0 years old) participated in the study. Enrolment rate was greater than 40%, data collection rate was 49% and erroneous data was less than 5%. Participant acceptance was good with both providers and patients reporting positive experience with the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Recording SMT force-time characteristics and self-reported clinical outcome measures during a clinical encounter may be feasible with specific modification to the current protocol. The study protocol did not negatively impact patient management. Specific strategies to optimize the data collection protocol for the development of a large clinical database are being developed.

Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DesignGrounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines.SamplingThe Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). ContentBased on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. AnalysisWe will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain.

Establishing Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi Version) in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Undergoing Multimodal Physical Therapy

Increasing emphasis is placed on physical functional measures to examine treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi version) (QBPDS-H) has never been evaluated for responsiveness. The objectives of this study were to (1) examine the internal and external responsiveness of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi version) (QBPDS-H) and (2) find out the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) in the functional ability of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) undergoing multimodal physical therapy treatment. In this prospective cohort study, QBPDS-H responses were recorded at the baseline and after eight weeks from 156 CLBP patients undergoing multimodal physiotherapy treatment. To differentiate between the clinically unimproved (n = 65, age: 44.16 ± 11.8 years) and clinically improved (n = 91, age: 43.28 ± 10.7 years) scores of patients from the initial assessment to the last follow-up, the Hindi version of the Patient's Global Impression of Change (H-PGIC) scale was utilized. Internal responsiveness was large (E.S. (pooled S.D.) (n = 91): 0.98 (95% CI = 1.14-0.85) and Standardized Response Mean (S.R.M.) (n = 91): 2.57 (95% CI = 3.05-2.17)). In addition, the correlation coefficient and receiver operative characteristics (R.O.C.) curve were used to assess the QBPDS-H external responsiveness. MCID and MDC were detected by the R.O.C. curve and standard error of measurements (S.E.M.), respectively. The H-PGIC scale showed moderate responsiveness (ρ = 0.514 and area under the curve (A.U.C.) = 0.658; 95% CI, 0.596-0.874), while the MDC achieved 13.68 points, and the MCID was found have 6 points (A.U.C. = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.88, sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 61%). This study shows that QBPDS-H has moderate levels of responsiveness in CLBP patients receiving multimodal physical therapy treatment, so it can be used to measure the changes in disability scores. MCID and MDC changes were also reported with QBPDS-H.

Disability Among Persons With Chronic Severe Back Pain: Results From a Nationally Representative Population-based Sample

We evaluated the association between the chronic severe back pain with disability and participation, in U.S. Adults using data from the US 2019 National Health Interview Survey. In our sample of 2,925 adults (weighted n: 20,468,134) who reported having chronic severe back pain, 60% reported mobility disability, 60% had work limitations, 34% were limited for social participation and 16% had self-care limitations. Older age (65+) was associated with mobility difficulties (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.28,6.09) and work limitation (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.61,3.05). Lower socioeconomic status was associated with increasing odds of disability across the 4 categories. Being obese was only associated with mobility difficulties (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.41,2.71), while not working in the past week was associated with difficulties in mobility (OR 3.55, 95% CI 2.64,4.75), self-care (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.20,5.08), and social participation (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.13,4.80). Comorbidities were highly associated with limitations in all 4 categories. Those deeming their ability to manage their pain ineffective were twice as likely to have limitations in self-care, social and work participation but not mobility. Identifying factors associated with disability and limitation may help target appropriate management for persons with chronic pain at high risk for disability. PERSPECTIVE: We evaluated the association between the chronic severe back pain with disability and participation, in a representative sample of Americans. Identifying factors associated with a likelihood of disability may help target appropriate pain management for persons at high risk for disability due to chronic severe back pain.

Inter-rater agreement of the Pain and Disability Drivers Management rating scale

BACKGROUND

A framework to establish the biopsychosocial patient profile for persons with low back pain has been recently proposed and validated: The Pain and Disability Drivers Management model (PDDM). In order to facilitate its clinical integration, we developed the PDDM rating scale.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the inter-rater agreement of the PDDM rating scale. A second objective was to determine if this inter-rater agreement varies according to the complexity of patients' clinical presentation.

METHODS

We recruited physiotherapists during one-day workshops on the PDDM. We asked each participant to assess two clinical vignettes using the rating scale. One vignette presented a typical clinical presentation (moderate level of difficulty) and one presented an atypical presentation (complex level of difficulty). We determined inter-rater agreement with the proportion of participants who gave the same answer for each PDDM domain.

RESULTS

For the typical vignette, the inter-rater agreement per domain was moderate to good (between 0.54 and 0.97). For the complex vignette, the inter-rater agreement per domain was poor to good (between 0.49 and 0.81). The comparison between the two vignettes showed a significant difference (p< 0.01) for nociceptive and cognitive-emotional domains.

CONCLUSION

Overall performance indicates that the rating scale present adequate agreement for clinical use, but specific domains require further development.

Back pain treatment: a new perspective

This article aims to provide new perspectives for the treatment of low back pain (LBP). A narrative literature review highlights the treatment strategies currently anchored in the guidelines as well as the extensive attempts to identify subgroups within the non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) classification. A variety of multimodal approaches exist for both diagnostic assessments and therapy approaches. Nonetheless, there are often gaps in the classification systems as well as in published treatment concepts with regard to the implementation of musculoskeletal functional disorders. Indeed, a growing body of evidence shows that more holistic and flexible approaches are needed to individually diagnose and target the complexity of LBP. As an example, both a diagnostic and a (independently developed) therapeutic LBP concept will be presented and discussed. Ultimately, guidelines and subgroup classification systems can only reflect the complexity of LBP, if they capture its entire multidimensional and biopsychosocial character in both the diagnostic and therapeutic processes. Furthermore, the expansion of the pain definition to include the nociplastic pain mechanism, as an important driver of LBP, has the potential to provide important impulses for further necessary research. In conclusion, the implementation of a functional musculoskeletal approach along with the emerging nociceptive pain concept in individually targeted holistic approaches seems to be the successful way to deal with the complexity of LBP.

Development and content validity of a rating scale for the pain and disability drivers management model

Background

Establishing the biopsychosocial profile of patients with low back pain (LBP) is essential to personalized care. The Pain and Disability Drivers Management model (PDDM) has been suggested as a useful framework to help clinicians establish this biopsychosocial profile. Yet, there is no tool to facilitate its integration into clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this study is to develop a rating scale and validate its content, to rapidly establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile, based on the five domains of the PDDM.

Methods

The tool was developed in accordance with the principles of the COSMIN methodology. We conducted three steps: 1) item generation from a comprehensive review, 2) refinement of the scale with clinicians’ feedback, and 3) statistical analyses to assess content validity.

To validate the item assessing with Likert scales, we performed Item level-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) analyses on three criteria (clarity, presentation and clinical applicability) with an a priori threshold of > 0.78. We conducted Average-Content Validity Index (Ave-CVI) analyses to validate the overall scale with a threshold of > 0.9.

Results

In accordance with the PDDM, we developed a 5-item rating scale (1 per domain) with 4 score options. We selected clinical instruments to screen for the presence or absence of problematic issues within each category of the 5 domains. Forty-two participants provided feedback to refine the scale’s clarity, presentation, and clinical applicability. The statistical analysis of the latest version presented I-CVI above the threshold for each item (I-CVI ranged between 0.94 and 1). Analysis of the overall scale supported its validation (Ave-CVI = 0.96 [0.93;0.98]).

Conclusion

From the 51 biopsychosocial elements contained within the 5 domains of the PDDM, we developed a rating scale that allows to rapidly screen for problematic issues within each category of the PDDM’s 5 domains. Involving clinicians in the process allowed us to validate the content of the first scale to establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile for people with low back pain. Future steps will be necessary to continue the psychometric properties analysis of this rating scale.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40945-022-00137-2.