IntroductionPatient education in combination with physical activity has been proposed as a way of increasing health-related quality of life and functional capacity in patients with osteoporosis. A randomised pilot study called the School of Osteoporosis in Linkoping (SOL) was conducted in 2018 for persons aged >= 60 years with established spinal osteoporosis. The SOL was scheduled for ten weeks with once-weekly theory education with or without additional supervised physical group training. The purpose of the present study was to explore the experiences of having participated in an osteoporosis school in persons with established spinal osteoporosis.Materials and methodsTen participants who had completed the SOL with patient education and supervised physical group training were invited to individual interviews, while six persons were accepted to participate. Qualitative content analysis was conducted with an inductive approach.FindingsThree main categories were identified from the interviews: The structure of the osteoporosis school; Gained knowledge related to the education in the osteoporosis school; and Experiences of health status one-year post-intervention. Seven associated subcategories were identified. Increased knowledge and perceptions of improved health acquired by the interventions were emphasised. However, continued supervised group training was requested and there were also concerns about worsened health at the one-year post-intervention follow-up.ConclusionThe tailored content and the group aspects of the structured osteoporosis school were experienced as the most important factors for successful results.

Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) is a recommended treatment for people with chronic pain. An inadequate description of the content of IPR programs makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding their effects. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward a content description of IPR programs for patients with chronic pain. Individual interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 11) working in IPR teams in Sweden were conducted between February and May 2019. Analysis of the interviews resulted in a theme: interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation is a complex intervention, with three categories: limitations in the description of IPR programs; lack of knowledge about IPR and chronic pain; and facilitating and hindering factors for using the content description of IPR programs. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals perceived that IPR programs could be described through a general content description. A general content description could enhance the quality of IPR programs through a better understanding of their content and a comparison of different IPR programs. Healthcare professionals also expressed the importance of a content description being a guide rather than a steering document.

BACKGROUND The BetterBack model of care (MoC) for low back pain (LBP) was recently developed in Swedish physiotherapy (PT) primary care.OBJECTIVE To evaluate if PTs’ adherence to LBP clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) improves after implementation of the BetterBack MoC (intervention).

METHODS This was a stepped, single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients nested in the three clusters were allocated to routine care (n = 222) or intervention (n = 278). The primary outcome was referral to specialist consultation. This was among five best practice recommendations divided into an assessment quality index (no referral to specialist consultation and no medical imaging) and a treatment quality index (use of educational interventions; use of exercise interventions; no use of non-evidence-based physiotherapy). For overall adherence, patients had to be treated with all five recommendations fulfilled. Logistic regression was used for between-group comparisons.

RESULTS The proportion of patients receiving referral to specialist consultation during the PT treatment period was low in both groups with no between-group differences. However, patients in the intervention group showed significantly higher assessment quality index, treatment quality index and overall adherence compared to routine care. Adherence to the separate recommendations showed improved stratified number of visits, use of exercise was maintained high, patient educational intervention increased and use of non-evidence-based physiotherapy decreased. A reduction of medical imaging during the physiotherapy treatment period was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS The adoption of CPGs could be substantially improved by introducing a MoC through PT training and supportive materials.

Chronic pain is a major public health issue. Mounting evidence suggests that interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programs (IMMRPs) performed in specialist pain care are an effective treatment for patients with chronic pain, but the effects of such treatment if performed in primary care settings have been less studied. The aims of this pragmatic study were to (1) describe characteristics of patients participating in IMMRPs in primary care; (2) examine whether IMMRPs in primary care improve pain, disability, quality of life, and sick leave 1-year post discharge in patients with chronic pain; and (3) investigate if outcomes differ between women and men. Data from 744 (645 women and 99 men, age range 18-65 years) patients with non-malignant chronic pain included in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation Primary Care were used to describe patient characteristics and changes in health and sick leave. At 1-year follow-up, the patients had improved significantly (p < 0.01) in all health outcome measures and had reduced sick leave except in men, where no significant change was shown in physical activity level. This study indicates that MMRPs in primary care improved pain and physical and emotional health and reduced sick leave, which was maintained at the 1-year follow-up.

Fragility fractures, in particular vertebral fractures, are associated with high morbidity, including chronic pain and reduced health-related quality of life. We aimed to investigate the short- and long-term effects of patient education, including interdisciplinary themes, with or without physical training or mindfulness/medical yoga for patients with established spinal osteoporosis in primary care. Osteoporotic persons aged sixty years or older with one or more vertebral fractures were randomized to theory only, theory and physical exercise, or theory and mindfulness/medical yoga and were scheduled to once a week for ten weeks. Participants were followed up by clinical tests and questionnaires. Twenty-one participants completed the interventions and the one-year follow-up. Adherence to interventions was 90%. Pooled data from all participants showed significant improvements after intervention on pain during the last week and worst pain, and reduced painkiller use (any painkillers at baseline 70% [opioids 25%] vs. post-intervention 52% [opioids 14%]). Significant improvements were seen regarding RAND-36 social function, Qualeffo-41 social function, balance, tandem walking backwards, and theoretical knowledge. These changes were maintained at the 1-year follow-up. Patient group education combined with supervised training seems to have positive effects on pain, and physical function in persons with established spinal osteoporosis. The improved quality of life was maintained at the 1-year follow-up.

Introduction: Illness perception is suggested to influence outcome in patients with low back pain (LBP). It is unknown if specific illness perceptions are of more importance for longitudinal outcomes, including development of self-management strategies.

Objectives: This study explores whether patients' initial illness perceptions were associated with disability, pain, health-related quality of life, and self-care enablement outcomes in patients with LBP after 3 and 12 months.

Methods: Four hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients seeking physiotherapeutic primary care for LBP were eligible to participate in this prospective cohort study, providing data at baseline and after 3 and 12 months (mean age 45 years, 56% women). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to explore whether patients' illness perceptions at baseline were associated with outcome in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale–LBP (NRS-LBP), EuroQol Five Dimensions, and Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI).

Results: Stronger beliefs that the back problem will last a long time at baseline were associated with worse outcome in ODI, NRS-LBP, and PEI at 3 and 12 months and in EuroQol Five Dimensions at 12 months. Negative beliefs regarding treatment's ability to improve LBP were associated with worse outcome in NRS-LBP and PEI at 3 and 12 months and in ODI at 12 months.

Conclusions: Illness perceptions regarding prognosis and treatment's ability to improve symptoms were the most prominent perceptions explaining several longitudinal clinical outcomes. These expectations should be addressed in an early stage in the delivery of interventions for LBP. These expectations were also important for patients' development of coping and self-management strategies.

Objectives: Multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRPs) have been shown to be both cost-effective and an effective method for managing chronic pain in specialist care. However, while the vast majority of patients are treated in primary healthcare, MMRPs are rarely practiced in these settings. Limited time and resources for everyday activities alongside the complexity of chronic pain makes the management of chronic pain challenging in primary healthcare and the focus is on unimodal treatment. In order to increase the use of MMRPs incentives such as cost savings and improved health status in the patient group are needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MMRPs for patients with chronic pain in primary healthcare in two Swedish regions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MMRPs at one-year follow-up in comparison with care as usual for patients with chronic pain in primary healthcare in two Swedish regions. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a prospective cohort study comparing the MMRP with the alternative of continuing with care as usual. The health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using EQ5D, and working situation of 234 participants were assessed at baseline and one-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained while the secondary outcome was sickness absence. An extrapolation of costs was performed based on previous long-term studies in order to evaluate the effects of the MMRP over a five-year time period. Results: The mean (SD) EQ5D index, which measures HRQoL, increased significantly (p&lt;0.001) from 0.34 (0.32) to 0.44 (0.32) at one-year follow-up. Sickness absence decreased by 15%. The cost-utility analysis showed a cost per QALY gained of 18 704 (sic) at one-year follow-up. Conclusions: The results indicate that the MMRP significantly improves the HRQoL of the participants and is a cost-effective treatment for patients with chronic pain in primary healthcare when a newly suggested cost-effectiveness threshold of 19 734 (sic) is implemented. The extrapolation indicates that considerable cost savings in terms of reduced loss of production and gained QALYs may be generated if the effects of the MMRP are maintained beyond one-year follow-up. The study demonstrates potential benefits of MMRPs in primary healthcare for both the patient with chronic pain and the society as a whole. The cost-effectiveness of MMRPs in primary healthcare has scarcely been studied and further long-term studies are needed in these settings.

Low back pain (LBP) occurs in all ages and first-line treatment by physiotherapists is common. The main aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing a best practice model of care for LBP (intervention group—BetterBackJ MoC) compared to routine physiotherapy care (control group) regarding longitudinal patient reported outcomes. The BetterBackJ MoC contains clinical guideline recommendations and support tools to facilitate clinician adherence to guidelines. A secondary exploratory aim was to compare patient outcomes based on the fidelity of fulfilling a clinical practice quality index regarding physiotherapist care. A stepped cluster randomized design nested patients with LBP in the three clusters which were allocated to control (n = 203) or intervention (n = 264). Patient reported measures were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months and analyzed with mixed model regression. The primary outcome was between-group changes from baseline to 3 months for pain intensity and disability. Implementation of the BetterBackJ MoC did not show any between-group differences in the primary outcomes compared with routine care. However, the intervention group showed significantly higher satisfaction at 3 months and clinically meaningful greater improvement in LBP illness perception at 3 months and quality of life at 3 and 6 months but not in patient enablement and global impression of change compared with the control group. Physiotherapists’ care that adhered to all clinical practice quality indices resulted in an improvement of most patient reported outcomes with a clinically meaningful greater improved LBP illness perception at 3 month and quality of life at 3 and 6 months, significantly greater improvement in LBP illness perception, pain and satisfaction at 3 and 6 months and significantly better enablement at all time points as well as better global improvement outcomes at 3 months compared with non-adherent care. This highlights the importance of clinical guideline based primary care for improving patient reported LBP outcomes.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe patient experiences of received primary care for low back pain (LBP) according to the BetterBack Model of Care (MoC) with a focus on illness beliefs and self-management enablement. Methods: Individual interviews were conducted with 15 adults 4-14 months after receiving treatment according to the BetterBack MoC for LBP in primary care in Sweden. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results: When analysing the data, the following theme emerged; "Participant understanding of their treatment for low back pain and self-management strategies-a matter of support systems", comprising the following categories: "Knowledge translation", "Interaction and dialogue", "The health care professional support" and "Form organization". Participants experienced that they had better knowledge about their LBP and received tools to better manage their health condition. The participants expressed good communication with the treating physiotherapist and provided suggestions to further improve the treatment of LBP. Conclusions: Participants experienced that they had gained new knowledge about their health problems and after the treatment they had the tools to handle their back problems. This suggests that the BetterBack MoC may be used as a basis for a support system to provide valuable tools for self-management for patients with low back pain.

Background

Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.

Methods

The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.

Results

The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.

Conclusions

The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.