An Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for the Management of Low Back Pain in Community Pharmacy: Development and Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

Clinical Decision Support System Used in Spinal Disorders: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Spinal disorders are highly prevalent worldwide with high socioeconomic costs. This cost is associated with the demand for treatment and productivity loss, prompting the exploration of technologies to improve patient outcomes. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are computerized systems that are increasingly used to facilitate safe and efficient health care. Their applications range in depth and can be found across health care specialties.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to explore the use of CDSSs in patients with spinal disorders.

METHODS

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for this scoping review and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) statement. Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and PsycINFO, were searched from inception until October 11, 2022. The included studies examined the use of digitalized CDSSs in patients with spinal disorders.

RESULTS

A total of 4 major CDSS functions were identified from 31 studies: preventing unnecessary imaging (n=8, 26%), aiding diagnosis (n=6, 19%), aiding prognosis (n=11, 35%), and recommending treatment options (n=6, 20%). Most studies used the knowledge-based system. Logistic regression was the most commonly used method, followed by decision tree algorithms. The use of CDSSs to aid in the management of spinal disorders was generally accepted over the threat to physicians' clinical decision-making autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the effectiveness was frequently evaluated by examining the agreement between the decisions made by the CDSSs and the health care providers, comparing the CDSS recommendations with actual clinical outcomes would be preferable. In addition, future studies on CDSS development should focus on system integration, considering end user's needs and preferences, and external validation and impact studies to assess effectiveness and generalizability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF Registries osf.io/dyz3f; https://osf.io/dyz3f.

Professional-Facing Digital Health Solutions for the Care of Patients With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent condition and one of the most common reasons why people seek health care. As a result, chronic pain has a significant personal and economic burden. The COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated the situation for patients with chronic pain through increased risk factors (eg, anxiety or depression) as well as decreased access to health care. Digital health solutions to support people with chronic pain are becoming increasingly popular. Most of the research has focused on patient-facing digital health solutions, although it is clear that the involvement of health and care professionals is crucial in chronic pain care. Certainly, digital health solutions intended for the use of health and care professionals in the care of patients with chronic pain (ie, professional facing) exist, for example, for clinical decision support; however, no review has investigated the studies reporting these interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of this scoping review is to identify the available professional-facing digital health solutions for the purpose of chronic pain management. The objectives of this review are to investigate the components, target populations, and user settings of the available professional-facing digital solutions; health and care professionals' perspectives on using digital health solutions (if reported); the methods in which the digital health solutions are developed; and the outcomes of using professional-facing digital health solutions.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Inspec will be searched for studies reporting professional-facing digital health solutions for chronic pain care, using a comprehensive search strategy developed for each of the specific databases. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts for review inclusion and then conduct full-text screening. Any conflicts in study inclusion will be resolved by a third reviewer at each stage of the screening process. Following data extraction and quality assessment, a qualitative content analysis of the results will be conducted. This review will identify the available professional-facing digital health solutions for chronic pain management. The results of this review are likely to be heterogeneous in terms of content (ie, the digital solutions will serve a variety of purposes, settings, target populations, etc) and methods (ie, experimental and nonexperimental designs).

RESULTS

The review is expected to finish in March 2024 and published in the summer of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol outlines the need for a scoping review to identify professional-facing digital health solutions for the management of chronic pain. Results from this review will contribute to the growing field of research into the utility of digital health for chronic pain management.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51311.

Evaluation of an electronic clinical decision support system (DeSSBack) to improve low back pain management: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for primary care consultation; yet doctors often find managing it challenging. An electronic decision support system for LBP (DeSSBack) was developed based on an evidence-based risk stratification tool to improve the management of patients with LBP in a Malaysian primary care setting. This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of DeSSBack for the conduct of a future definitive trial.

METHODS

A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.

CONCLUSIONS

A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).

"I felt uncertain about my whole future"-a qualitative investigation of people's experiences of navigating uncertainty when seeking care for their low back pain

ABSTRACT

Uncertainty pervades low back pain (LBP). This study aimed to explore individuals' experiences of navigating uncertainty when seeking care for their LBP, with a view to better understanding the contexts in which they experience uncertainty and gaining insight into how uncertainty may be better navigated during clinical encounters. We conducted 15 semistructured interviews with people who have experienced LBP. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Analysis produced 4 themes. To reflect the unsettled nature of participants' discussions of navigating uncertainty, themes are framed as questions: (1) What will happen over time?; (2) Can clinicians help me? Are they willing to?; (3) What are clinicians talking about?; and (4) Am I being taken seriously? Participants also discussed how clinicians could better navigate these uncertainties. Suggestions included making time to (actively) listen to, and acknowledge, patients' concerns; asking open-ended questions; being honest about uncertainty; creating management plans and returning to them; challenging assumptions; remaining curious about patients' context; and providing guidance on how to manage LBP rather than simply giving certainty that symptoms will worsen, lessen, or continue. These findings indicate that many of the uncertainties individuals with LBP experience are intertwined with relational aspects of their interactions with clinicians. Clinicians therefore may need to consider these broader and relational aspects of care when navigating uncertainty with people who experience LBP, bringing attention to the importance of drawing from knowledge produced outside of the usual hierarchy of evidence (eg, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials).

Assessing Serious Spinal Pathology Using Bayesian Network Decision Support: Development and Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Identifying and managing serious spinal pathology (SSP) such as cauda equina syndrome or spinal infection in patients presenting with low back pain is challenging. Traditional red flag questioning is increasingly criticized, and previous studies show that many clinicians lack confidence in managing patients presenting with red flags. Improving decision-making and reducing the variability of care for these patients is a key priority for clinicians and researchers.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to improve SSP identification by constructing and validating a decision support tool using a Bayesian network (BN), which is an artificial intelligence technique that combines current evidence and expert knowledge.

METHODS

A modified RAND appropriateness procedure was undertaken with 16 experts over 3 rounds, designed to elicit the variables, structure, and conditional probabilities necessary to build a causal BN. The BN predicts the likelihood of a patient with a particular presentation having an SSP. The second part of this study used an established framework to direct a 4-part validation that included comparison of the BN with consensus statements, practice guidelines, and recent research. Clinical cases were entered into the model and the results were compared with clinical judgment from spinal experts who were not involved in the elicitation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curve were calculated for accuracy statistics.

RESULTS

The RAND appropriateness procedure elicited a model including 38 variables in 3 domains: risk factors (10 variables), signs and symptoms (17 variables), and judgment factors (11 variables). Clear consensus was found in the risk factors and signs and symptoms for SSP conditions. The 4-part BN validation demonstrated good performance overall and identified areas for further development. Comparison with available clinical literature showed good overall agreement but suggested certain improvements required to, for example, 2 of the 11 judgment factors. Case analysis showed that cauda equina syndrome, space-occupying lesion/cancer, and inflammatory condition identification performed well across the validation domains. Fracture identification performed less well, but the reasons for the erroneous results are well understood. A review of the content by independent spinal experts backed up the issues with the fracture node, but the BN was otherwise deemed acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAND appropriateness procedure and validation framework were successfully implemented to develop the BN for SSP. In comparison with other expert-elicited BN studies, this work goes a step further in validating the output before attempting implementation. Using a framework for model validation, the BN showed encouraging validity and has provided avenues for further developing the outputs that demonstrated poor accuracy. This study provides the vital first step of improving our ability to predict outcomes in low back pain by first considering the problem of SSP.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/21804.

A Computerized Pharmacy Decision Support System (PDSS) for Headache Management: Observational Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Headaches are common and often lead patients to seek advice from a pharmacist and consequently self-medicate for relief. Computerized pharmacy decision support systems (PDSSs) may be a valuable resource for health care professionals, particularly for community pharmacists when counseling patients with headache, to guide treatment with over-the-counter medications and recognize patients who require urgent or specialist care.

OBJECTIVE

This observational pilot study aimed to evaluate a newly developed PDSS web app for the management of patients seeking advice from a pharmacy for headache. This study examined the use of the PDSS web app and if it had an impact on patient or pharmacy personnel counseling, pharmacy personnel perception, and patient perception.

METHODS

The PDSS web app was developed according to Francophone des Sciences Pharmaceutiques Officinales (SFSPO) recommendations for headache management, and was made available to pharmacies in 2 regions of France: Hauts de France and New Aquitaine. Pharmacy personnel received 2 hours of training before using the PDSS web app. All people who visited the pharmacies for headache between June 29, 2020, and December 31, 2020, were offered an interview based on the PDSS web app and given information about the next steps in the management of headaches and advice on the proper use of their medication. Patients and pharmacy personnel reported satisfaction with the PDSS web app following consultations or during a follow-up period (January 18 to 25, 2021).

RESULTS

Of the 44 pharmacies that received the PDSS web app, 38 pharmacies representing 179 pharmacy personnel used the PDSS web app, and 435 people visited these pharmacies for headache during the study period. Of these, 70.0% (305/435) asked for immediate over-the-counter analgesics for themselves and consulted with pharmacy personnel with the use of the PDSS web app. The majority of these patients were given advice and analgesics for self-medication (346/435, 79.5%); however, 17.0% (74/435) were given analgesics and referred to urgent medical services, and 3.5% (15/435) were given analgesics and referred to their general practitioner. All pharmacy personnel (n=45) were satisfied or very satisfied with the use of the PDSS web app, and a majority thought it improved the quality of their care (41/44, 93.2%). Most pharmacy personnel felt that the PDSS web app modified their approach to management of headache (29/45, 64.4%). Most patients were very satisfied with the PDSS web app during their consultation (96/119, 80.7%), and all felt mostly or completely reassured.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the PDSS web app for the management of patients with headache improved the perceived quality of care for pharmacy personnel and patients. The PDSS web app was well accepted and effectively identified patients who required specialist medical management. Further studies should identify additional "red flags" for more effective screening and management of patients via the PDSS web app. Larger studies can measure the impact of the PDSS web app on the lives of patients and how safe or appropriate pharmacy personnel recommendations are.

Towards effective clinical decision support systems: A systematic review

Background

Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are used to assist the decision-making process in the healthcare field. Developing an effective CDSS is an arduous task that can take advantage from prior assessment of the most promising theories, techniques and methods used at the present time.

Objective

To identify the features of Clinical Decision Support Systems and provide an analysis of their effectiveness. Thus, two research questions were formulated: RQ1—What are the most common trend characteristics in a CDSS? RQ2—What is the maturity level of the CDSS based on the decision-making theory proposed by Simon?

Methods

AIS e-library, Decision Support Systems journal, Nature, PlosOne and PubMed were selected as information sources to conduct this systematic literature review. Studies from 2000 to 2020 were chosen covering search terms in CDSS, selected according to defined eligibility criteria. The data were extracted and managed in a worksheet, based on the defined criteria. PRISMA statements were used to report the systematic review.

Results

The outcomes showed that rule-based module was the most used approach regarding knowledge management and representation. The most common technological feature adopted by the CDSS were the recommendations and suggestions. 19,23% of studies adopt the type of system as a web-based application, and 51,92% are standalone CDSS. Temporal evolution was also possible to visualize. This study contributed to the development of a Maturity Staging Model, where it was possible to verify that most CDSS do not exceed level 2 of maturity.

Conclusion

The trend characteristics addressed in the revised CDSS were identified, compared to the four predefined groups. A maturity stage model was developed based on Simon’s decision-making theory, allowing to assess the level of maturity of the most common features of the CDSS. With the application of the model, it was noticed that the phases of choice and implementation are underrepresented. This constitutes the main gap in the development of an effective CDSS.

Implementation initiatives to improve low back pain care in Australia: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to comprehensively review strategies for implementation of low back pain (LBP) guidelines, policies and models of care in the Australian healthcare system.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Amed and Web of Science to identify studies that aimed to implement or integrate evidence-based interventions/practices to improve LBP care within Australian settings.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies targeted primary care settings (n = 13). Other settings included tertiary care (n = 4), community (n = 4), pharmacies (n = 3). One study targeted both primary and tertiary care settings (n = 1). Only 40% of the included studies reported an underpinning framework, model or theory. Implementation strategies most frequently used were evaluative and iterative strategies (n = 14, 56%) and train and educate stakeholders (n = 13, 52%), followed by engage consumers (n = 6, 24%), develop stakeholder relationships (n = 4, 16%), change in infrastructure (n = 4, 16%) and support clinicians (n = 3, 12%). The most common implementation outcomes considered were acceptability (n = 11, 44%) and adoption (n = 10, 40%), followed by appropriateness (n = 7, 28%), cost (n = 3, 12%), feasibility (n = 1, 4%) and fidelity (n = 1, 4%). Barriers included time constraints, funding, and teamwork availability. Facilitators included funding and collaboration between stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation research targeting LBP appears to be a young field, mostly focusing on training and educating stakeholders in primary care. Outcomes on sustainability and penetration of evidence-based interventions are lacking. There is a need for implementation research guided by established frameworks that consider interrelationships between organisational and system contexts beyond the clinician-patient dyad.

What Constitutes "Appropriate Care" for Low Back Pain?: Point-of-Care Clinical Indicators From Guideline Evidence and Experts (the STANDING Collaboration Project)

STUDY DESIGN

Multiround wiki-based Delphi expert panel survey.

OBJECTIVE

To provide proof of concept for an alternative method for creating sets of nationally-agreed point-of-care clinical indicators, and obtain consensus among end-user groups on "appropriate care" for the assessment, diagnosis, acute, and ongoing care of people with low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The provision of inappropri ate and low value care for LBP is a significant healthcare and societal burden. Vague clinical practice guideline (CPG) recom mendations can be difficult to apply and measure in real world clinical practice, and a likely barrier to "appropriate care."

METHODS

Draft "appropriate care" clinical indicators for LBP were derived from CPG recommendations published between 2011 and 2017. Included CPGs were independently appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Headed by a Clinical Champion, a 20-member Expert Panel reviewed and commented on the draft indicators over a three-round modified e-Delphi process using a collaborative online wiki. At the conclusion of each review round, the research team and the Clinical Champion synthesized and responded to experts' comments and incorporated feedback into the next iteration of the draft indicators.

RESULTS

From seven CPGs and six qualitative meta-syntheses, 299 recommendations and themes were used to draft 42 "appropriateness" indicators. In total, 17 experts reviewed these indicators over 18 months. A final set of 27 indicators compris ing screening and diagnostic processes (n = 8), assessment (n = 3), acute (n = 5), and ongoing care (n = 9), and two which crossed the acute-ongoing care continuum. Most indicators were geared toward recommended care (n = 21, 78%), with the remainder focused on care to be avoided.

CONCLUSION

These 27 LBP clinical indicators can be used by healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers/ funders, and insurers to guide and monitor the provision of "appropriate care" for LBP.Level of Evidence: 4.

Improving COVID-19 Research of University Hospitals in Germany: Formative Usability Evaluation of the CODEX Feasibility Portal

BACKGROUND

 Within the German "Network University Medicine," a portal is to be developed to enable researchers to query on novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) data from university hospitals for assessing the feasibility of a clinical study.

OBJECTIVES

 The usability of a prototype for federated feasibility queries was evaluated to identify design strengths and weaknesses and derive improvement recommendations for further development.

METHODS

 In the course of a remote usability test with the thinking-aloud method and posttask interviews, 15 clinical researchers evaluated the usability of a prototype of the Feasibility Portal. The identified usability problems were rated according to severity, and improvement recommendations were derived.

RESULTS

 The design of the prototype was rated as simple, intuitive, and as usable with little effort. The usability test reported a total of 26 problems, 8 of these were rated as "critical." Usability problems and revision recommendations focus primarily on improving the visual distinguishability of selected inclusion and exclusion criteria, enabling a flexible approach to criteria linking, and enhancing the free-text search.

CONCLUSION

 Improvement proposals were developed for these user problems which will guide further development and the adaptation of the portal to user needs. This is an important prerequisite for correct and efficient use in everyday clinical work in the future. Results can provide developers of similar systems with a good starting point for interface conceptualizations. The methodological approach/the developed test guideline can serve as a template for similar evaluations.

Construction of a Non-Mutually Exclusive Decision Tree for Medication Recommendation of Chronic Heart Failure

Objective: Although guidelines have recommended standardized drug treatment for heart failure (HF), there are still many challenges in making the correct clinical decisions due to the complicated clinical situations of HF patients. Each patient would satisfy several recommendations, meaning the decision tree of HF treatment should be nonmutually exclusive, and the same patient would be allocated to several leaf nodes in the decision tree. In the current study, we aim to propose a way to ensemble a nonmutually exclusive decision tree for recommendation system for complicated diseases, such as HF.

Methods: The nonmutually exclusive decision tree was constructed via knowledge rules summarized from the HF clinical guidelines. Then similar patients were defined as those who followed the same pattern of leaf node allocation according to the decision tree. The frequent medication patterns for each similar patient were mined using the Apriori algorithms, and we also carried out the outcome prognosis analyses to show the capability for the evidence-based medication recommendations of our nonmutually exclusive decision tree.

Results: Based on a large database that included 29,689 patients with 84,705 admissions, we tested the framework for HF treatment recommendation. In the constructed decision tree, the HF treatment recommendations were grouped into two independent parts. The first part was recommendations for new cases, and the second part was recommendations when patients had different historical medication. There are 14 leaf nodes in our decision tree, and most of the leaf nodes had a guideline adherence of around 90%. We reported the top 10 popular similar patients, which accounted for 32.84% of the whole population. In addition, the multiple outcome prognosis analyses were carried out to assess the medications for one of the subgroups of similar patients. Our results showed even for the subgroup of the same similar patients that no one medication pattern would benefit all outcomes.

Conclusion: In the present study, the methodology to construct a nonmutually exclusive decision tree for medication recommendations for HF and its application in CDSS was proposed. Our framework is universal for most diseases and could be generally applied in developing the CDSS for treatment.

The effect of decision support systems on pain in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to systematically examine the effect of decision support systems (DSSs) applied to patients with cancer on pain severity.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was done on Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCOhost/CINAHL Complete, Scopus, Springer Link, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases, which covered a period until September 2021. Meta-analysis of the data was conducted on the CMA 3 software package. Comprehensive reviews were conducted by two independent researchers in line with the PICOS criteria. The study was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist.

FINDINGS

Five randomized controlled trials with 1.880 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In the study, visits, consultations, simulation of patient outcomes, telephone support, and email applications were employed for periods ranging from 6 weeks to 6 months. The evaluation of the meta-analysis results indicated that DSSs had positive effects on pain severity in patients with cancer (Hedge's g = 0.22; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that DSSs can be used as an effective and comfortable technological application in reducing the severity of pain in patients with cancer.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of DSSs for pain severity in patients with cancer is an effective method. In line with the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis, awareness and knowledge levels of all health disciplines about DSSs will increase. It is believed that the use of DSSs to improve patient-centered care will be guiding.

Osteoarthritis management: Does the pharmacist play a role in bridging the gap between what patients actually know and what they ought to know? Insights from a national online survey

BACKGROUND

Guidelines encourage engagement in self-care activities for osteoarthritis (OA), but there are gaps in consumers' knowledge about suitable choices for self-care. Community pharmacists are in an ideal position to contribute to OA management through screening and supporting evidence-based pain management choices. Prior research established an association between health literacy and advice-seeking and appropriateness of analgesics choices (both lower in participants with limited health literacy) amongst people living with OA. This article explores the implications of these data for pharmacists in OA management.

METHODS

A national online survey was conducted amongst 628 adults aged 45-74 years, currently residing in Australia, with self-reported symptoms of OA. All data were collected using a customized online questionnaire, which was completed only once. 'Self-reported symptoms of OA' was based on six validated screening questions to identify people with OA without a formal clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Respondents matched the typical profile of people diagnosed with OA; more than half were female (56%), knees (59%) and hips (31%) were the primary affected joints and 74% were either overweight or obese. Self-identification of OA was limited (41%). Overall, 38% self-managed their pain, and limited health literacy was associated with less advice-seeking. Efficacy and ease of use were the main reasons cited for prompting use across all classes of nonprescription analgesic, with less than 20% reporting recommendation from a pharmacist. Participants were managing their pain with an average of 1.74 (95% confidence interval: 1.60-1.88) analgesics, but 73% reported inadequate pain relief and 54% had disrupted sleep.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight three key themes: lack of self-identification of OA, suboptimal pain relief and limited use of the community pharmacist as a source of management advice. Equipping community pharmacists with tools to identify OA could bridge this gap. More research is needed to determine if it will improve consumers' ability to appropriately manage OA pain.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Consumers living with OA contributed to the study outcomes, reviewed the survey questionnaire for face validity and advised on plain language terminology.

Establishing and Evaluating a Study Questionnaire on Knowledge and Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals Towards Recreational and Medical Cannabis Across Europe

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The present survey was a preliminary to a European research project on the attitude and knowledge of healthcare professionals towards the use of medical cannabis. The objective was to evaluate the readability, understandability, and relevance of a first version of the study questionnaire before preparing the finalized questionnaire, which will be subsequently proposed to European healthcare professionals on a large scale.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2019 and May 2020. We established an electronic evaluation questionnaire relating to the study questionnaire. This evaluation questionnaire was proposed to multidisciplinary experts from all over Europe. Feedback from the evaluation questionnaire was considered for improving and finalizing the study questionnaire.

RESULTS

66 evaluation questionnaires were collected from nine European countries (Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom), which corresponded to a participation rate of 41.5%. Most participants were women (65.2%, n = 43). The mean age was 39.5 years ± 11.6. Each participant could specify several occupations. There were 25 pharmacologists, 24 physicians, ten pharmacists, four university teachers, three epidemiologists or public health experts, one nurse, one biotechnologist, one microbiologist, and one police researcher. Overall, 84.8% of participants were interested in the topic of the survey on the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards recreational and medical cannabis across Europe. Participants were satisfied with all but six of the proposed questions. In addition, two additional questions were subject for comments despite a high level of satisfaction. Consequently, the concerned questions (n = 8) were modified.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation survey was a necessary step to improve the quality of the future research project. The positive feedback encourages the authors to proceed with the project on a European scale, scheduled for 2021.

The role of the pharmacist in low back pain management: a narrative review of practice guidelines on paracetamol vs non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly condition and a leading cause of disabilities across the globe. In Australia and other countries, there has been changes in LBP management guidelines and evidence in recent years, including the use of pharmacotherapy. Inadequately treated LBP is a burden with significant health and economic impacts. Although there is some variability, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have largely replaced paracetamol as the first-choice analgesic for non-specific LBP in many international clinical guidelines, including the current Australian Therapeutic Guidelines. More recent clinical evidence also supports that targeting LBP with the use of NSAIDs can provide superior and more effective relief of LBP symptoms compared with paracetamol. Community pharmacists are one of the most accessible and frequently visited health professionals that offer vital primary healthcare services aimed to provide enhanced clinical outcomes for patients. The position of a community pharmacist is pivotal in LBP assessment and management, from both a pharmacological and non-pharmacological standpoint, including the use of clinical guidelines, yet their roles are often not fully utilized in LBP therapy. Studies investigating the community pharmacist’s views, practices, knowledge, and roles, specifically in LBP management in Australia are variable and limited. This narrative review will briefly cover the impacts of LBP, and to provide a summary on recent evidence, updates and a comparison of the Australian and international low back pain management guidelines on paracetamol vs NSAIDs in LBP, as well as pharmacists’ roles and interventions in a primary healthcare setting in this context.