INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.CONCLUSIONS: Much heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.
LINK
Background: Self-management support is considered an important component in the physiotherapeutic treatment of people with chronic low back pain. The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise Low Back Pain is an example of a self-management intervention. More insight may contribute to improving blended interventions to stimulate self-management after treatment and thus hopefully prevent chronicity and/or relapses in patients with chronic low back pain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the self-management behaviour after a physiotherapist guided blended self-management intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Design: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews nested within a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-)effectiveness of e-Exercise Low Back Pain was conducted. Method: Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcriptions. A hybrid process of both deductive and inductive approaches was used. Results: After 12 interviews, data saturation was reached. Analysis of the data yielded six themes related to self-management behaviour: illness beliefs, coping, cognitions, social support and resource utilization, physiotherapeutic involvement and motivation. Conclusions: In our study the majority of the participants seemed to show adequate self-management behaviour when experiencing low back pain. Most participants first try to gain control over their low back pain themselves when experiencing a relapse before contacting the physiotherapist. Participants struggle in continuing health behaviour in pain free periods between relapses of low back pain. Physiotherapists are recommended to encourage long-term behaviour change. Additionally, better facilitation by the physiotherapist or additional functionalities in the app to stimulate social support might have a useful contribution.
LINK
QUESTION: Do negative expectations in patients after the onset of acute low back pain increase the odds of absence from usual work due to progression to chronic low back pain?DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective inception cohort studies.PARTICIPANTS: Adults with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain.OUTCOME MEASURE: Absence from usual work at a given time point greater than 12 weeks after the onset of pain due to ongoing pain.RESULTS: Ten studies involving 4683 participants were included in the review. Participants with acute or subacute pain and negative expectations about their recovery had significantly greater odds of being absent from usual work at a given time point more than 12 weeks after the onset of pain: OR 2.17 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.91). The exclusion of five studies with the greatest risk of bias showed that the result was similar when more rigorous quality criteria were applied: OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.47 to 4.31).CONCLUSION: The odds that adults with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain and negative recovery expectations will remain absent from work due to progression to chronic low back pain are two times greater than for those with more positive expectations. These results were consistent across the included studies despite variations in the risk of bias.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Illness Perceptions (IPs) may play a role in the management of persistent low back pain. The mediation and/or moderation effect of IPs on primary outcomes in physiotherapy treatment is unknown. Methods: A multiple single-case experimental design, using a matched care physiotherapy intervention, with three phases (phases A-B-A’) was used including a 3 month follow up (phase A’). Primary outcomes: pain intensity, physical functioning and pain interference in daily life. Analyzes: linear mixed models, adjusted for fear of movement, catastrophizing, avoidance, sombreness and sleep. Results: Nine patients were included by six different primary care physiotherapists. Repeated measures on 196 data points showed that IPs Consequences, Personal control, Identity, Concern and Emotional response had a mediation effect on all three primary outcomes. The IP Personal control acted as a moderator for all primary outcomes, with clinically relevant improvements at 3 month follow up. Conclusion: Our study might indicate that some IPs have a mediating or a moderating effect on the outcome of a matched care physiotherapy treatment. Assessing Personal control at baseline, as a relevant moderator for the outcome prognosis of successful physiotherapy management of persistent low back pain, should be further eplored.
DOCUMENT
Introduction Negative pain-related cognitions are associated with persistence of low-back pain (LBP), but the mechanism underlying this association is not well understood. We propose that negative pain-related cognitions determine how threatening a motor task will be perceived, which in turn will affect how lumbar movements are performed, possibly with negative long-term effects on pain. Objective To assess the effect of postural threat on lumbar movement patterns in people with and without LBP, and to investigate whether this effect is associated with task-specific pain-related cognitions. Methods 30 back-healthy participants and 30 participants with LBP performed consecutive two trials of a seated repetitive reaching movement (45 times). During the first trial participants were threatened with mechanical perturbations, during the second trial participants were informed that the trial would be unperturbed. Movement patterns were characterized by temporal variability (CyclSD), local dynamic stability (LDE) and spatial variability (meanSD) of the relative lumbar Euler angles. Pain-related cognition was assessed with the task-specific ‘Expected Back Strain’-scale (EBS). A three-way mixed Manova was used to assess the effect of Threat, Group (LBP vs control) and EBS (above vs below median) on lumbar movement patterns. Results We found a main effect of threat on lumbar movement patterns. In the threat-condition, participants showed increased variability (MeanSDflexion-extension, p<0.000, η2 = 0.26; CyclSD, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.14) and decreased stability (LDE, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14), indicating large effects of postural threat. Conclusion Postural threat increased variability and decreased stability of lumbar movements, regardless of group or EBS. These results suggest that perceived postural threat may underlie changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP. Since LBP is likely to impose such a threat, this could be a driver of changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP, as also supported by the higher spatial variability in the group with LBP and higher EBS in the reference condition.
LINK
Objective: Psychophysical lift capacity tests are lifting tests in which the performance, expressed in Newtons, is divided by the perceived exertion, expressed on a Borg scale. The aim of this study was to analyse test-retest reliability of psychophysical lift capacity tests.Subjects: Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (n=20) and healthy subjects (n=20).Methods: Psychophysical lift capacity tests were assessed during a back school intake at the Centre for Rehabilitation of the University Medical Centre Groningen. Patients on the waiting list and healthy subjects were assessed twice, with a 2-week interval between assessments. Intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. An ICC ≥0.75 was considered as an acceptable reliability. Limits of agreement as a measure for natural variation were calculated.Results: The psychophysical static and dynamic lift capacity tests showed good reliability (ICC ≥0.75). The limits of agreement are substantial, indicating a considerable natural variation between test-sessions for all psychophysical tests.Conclusion: The psychophysical static lift capacity and dynamic lifting capacity are reliable instruments for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and healthy subjects. However, a substantial amount of natural variation should be taken into account between 2 test sessions when interpreting the test results clinically.
DOCUMENT
The Dutch version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire is an appropriate instrument for measuring patients' perceptions in acute low back pain patients, showing acceptable internal consistency and reliability. Concurrent validity is adequate, however, the instrument may be unsuitable for detecting changes in low back pain perception over time.
LINK
BACKGROUND: The predictive validity of the Low Back Pain Perception Scale is determined in two studies in general practice and showed sufficient discriminative ability, although the psychometric properties of the scale have never been established until now.OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and validity of the Low Back Pain Perception Scale in acute nonspecific low back pain patients.METHODS: The Low Back Pain Perception Scale has been authorized translated into Dutch by two bilingual content experts. A sample of 84 acute low back pain patients in physiotherapy primary care, mean age (SD) age 42 (12) years participated in this study. Internal reliability and a test-retest procedure within one-week interval were evaluated.RESULTS: The internal consistency Cronbach α=0.38 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.56) and test - retest reliability within one week Intra Class Correlation coefficient=0.50 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.64). Minimal Detectable Change was measured 1.95. The concurrent validity demonstrates Pearson's r=0.35 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.53).CONCLUSIONS:The Low Back Pain Perception Scale demonstrates poor internal consistency and reliability and moderate concurrent validity. Extreme high or low scores may be clinical relevant therefore the scale can be used as a first screening instrument.
LINK
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare data on the level of aerobic capacity and body composition of nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients with normative data matched for sex, age and level of sporting activity. The study population consisted of 101 outpatients with nonspecific CLBP who had entered a rehabilitation programme. Results were as follows: the mean (standard deviation) aerobic capacity (VO2max) of CLBP patients was significantly (P<0.001) lower 7.3 (5.6) ml/kg lean body mass/min as compared with the normative data. The mean (standard deviation) body fat percentage of the patients was significantly (P<0.001) higher 3.9 % (5.9) as compared with the normative data. These results provide evidence of a reduced level of aerobic capacity and an increased body fat percentage in nonspecific CLBP patients compared with healthy participants.
DOCUMENT
