Improving the care for people with acute low-back pain by allied health professionals (the ALIGN trial): A cluster randomised trial protocol Evidence-based medicine and the challenge of low back pain: where are we now? Testing the effectiveness of an innovative information package on practitioner reported behaviour and beliefs: The UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low back pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) trial [ISRCTN77245761] Cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy for the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for nonspecific low back pain: design of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial The Effectiveness of a Posted Information Package on the Beliefs and Behavior of Musculoskeletal Practitioners: The UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths, and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low Back Pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) Randomized Trial How does the self-reported clinical management of patients with low back pain relate to the attitudes and beliefs of health care practitioners? A survey of UK general practitioners and physiotherapists Are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effective for the management of neck pain and associated disorders, whiplash-associated disorders, or non-specific low back pain? A systematic review of systematic reviews by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Adherence of Irish general practitioners to European guidelines for acute low back pain: a prospective pilot study. Implementation of clinical guidelines on diabetes and hypertension in urban Mongolia: a qualitative study of primary care providers’ perspectives and experiences
Background Variability between clinical practice guideline recommendations and actual clinical practice exists in many areas of health care . A 2004 systematic review examining the effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions concluded there was a lack of evidence to support decisions about effective interventions to promote the uptake of guidelines . Further , the review recommended the use of theory in the development of implementation interventions . A clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low-back pain has been developed in Australia ( 2003 ) . Acute low-back pain is a common condition , has a high burden , and there is some indication of an evidence - practice gap in the allied health setting . This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention which , if effective , may provide benefits for patients with this condition . Aims This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention  to increase allied health practitioners ' ( physiotherapists and chiropractors in Victoria , Australia ) compliance with a clinical practice guideline for acute non-specific low back pain ( LBP ) , compared with providing practitioners with a printed copy of the guideline . Specifically , our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of acute non-specific LBP patients who are either referred for or receive an x-ray  , and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-onset of acute LBP . Methods The design of the study is a cluster r and omised trial . Restricted r and omisation was used to r and omise 210 practice s ( clusters ) to an intervention or control group . Practitioners in the control group received a printed copy of the guideline . Practitioners in the intervention group received a theory-based intervention developed to address prospect ively identified barriers to practitioner compliance with the guideline . The intervention primarily consisted of an educational symposium .  Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific LBP of less than three months duration over a two-week data collection period , three months post the intervention symposia , are eligible for inclusion . Sample size calculations are based on recruiting between 15 to 40 patients per practice . Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation . Trial registration Australian New Zeal and Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 ( date registered 25th November 2009 Low  back pain  has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists . Management of  low back pain  has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary , inappropriate , or ineffective . Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisal s of the available literature . Evidence -based medicine , an approach to clinical problem solving , is predicated on the premise that high- quality health care will result from practice s consistent with the best evidence . In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion , authority , and un systematic clinical observations , evidence -based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisal s of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making . Evidence -based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies , particularly r and omized controlled trials , to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions . Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature , however , most clinicians are unable to keep up-to- date with all the new data . Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines . Like primary studies , systematic review s and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high method ologic st and ards to reduce error and bias . As in other areas of medicine , the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings . In addition to more rigorous primary studies , an increasing number of high- quality systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available . Although some research gaps and method ologic shortcomings persist , the richer evidence base has greatly improved our underst and ing of what does and does not work for low back pain . Despite these advances , the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain . Nonetheless , there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence -based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care . This article review s basic principles of evidence -based medicine , discusses evidence -based medicine in the context of low back pain management , and summarizes some useful evidence -based medicine re sources Background Low back pain ( LBP ) is a common and costly problem . Initiatives design ed to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for LBP include printed evidence -based clinical guidelines . The three professional groups of chiropractic , osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy in the UK share common ground with their approaches to managing LBP and are amongst those targeted by LBP guidelines . Even so , many seem unaware that such guidelines exist . Furthermore , the behaviour of at least some of these practitioners differs from that recommended in these guidelines .Few r and omised controlled trials evaluating printed information as an intervention to change practitioner behaviour have utilised a no-intervention control . All these trials have used a cluster design and most have method ological flaws . None specifically focus upon practitioner behaviour towards LBP patients . Studies that have investigated other strategies to change practitioner behaviour with LBP patients have produced conflicting results . Although numerous LBP guidelines have been developed worldwide , there is a paucity of data on whether their dissemination actually changes practitioner behaviour . Primarily because of its low unit cost , sending printed information to large numbers of practitioners is an attractive dissemination and implementation strategy . The effect size of such a strategy , at an individual practitioner level , is likely to be small . However , if large numbers of practitioners are targeted , this strategy might achieve meaningful changes at a population level . Methods The primary aim of this prospect i ve , pragmatic r and omised controlled trial is to test the short-term effectiveness ( six-months following intervention ) of a directly-posted information package on the reported clinical behaviour ( primary outcome ) , attitudes and beliefs of UK chiropractors , osteopaths and musculoskeletal physiotherapists . We sought to r and omly allocate a combined sample of 1,800 consenting practitioners to receive either the information package ( intervention arm ) or no information above that gained during normal practice ( control arm ) . We collected question naire data at baseline and six-months post-intervention . The analysis of the primary outcome will assess between-arm differences of proportions of responses to questions on recommendations about activity , work and bed-rest , that fall within categories previously defined by an expert consensus exercise as either ' guideline -consistent ' and ' guideline -inconsistent ' Background Low back pain ( LBP ) is one of the most prevalent and expensive health care problems in industrialised countries . LBP leads to high health care utility and productivity losses ; leaving the individual , the employer , and society with substantial costs . To improve the care for LBP patients and reduce the high societal and financial burden of LBP , in 2010 the ‘ Multidisciplinary care guideline for nonspecific low back pain ’ was developed in the Netherl and s. The current paper describes the design of a study aim ing to evaluate the ( cost- ) effectiveness of a multifaceted strategy to implement this guideline . Methods In a cluster-r and omised controlled trial , the ( cost- ) effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy will be compared to passive guideline dissemination . Using a stepped-wedge approach , participating general practitioners , physiotherapists , and occupational physicians are allocated into clusters and will attend a multidisciplinary continuing medical education training session . The timing these clusters receive the training is the unit of r and omisation . LBP patients visiting the participating health care providers are invited to participate in the trial and will receive access to a multimedia intervention aim ed at improving beliefs , cognitions , and self-management . The primary outcome measure of this study is patient back beliefs . Secondary outcome measures on patient level include pain , functional status , quality of life , health care utility , and productivity losses . Outcome measures on professional level include knowledge and attitude towards the guideline , and guideline adherence . A process evaluation for the implementation strategy will be performed among the health care providers and the patients . Furthermore , a qualitative subgroup analysis among patients with various ethnic background s will be performed . Discussion This study will give insight into the ( cost- ) effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy for the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for non-specific back pain to improve outcomes on patient and professional level . The valuable information gained with this study may prove useful for policy-makers , health care providers , and research ers who are in the process of reducing the burden of back pain on individuals and society . Trial Registration Netherl and s Trial Register ( NTR ) : NTR4329 . Registered December 20th , 2013 Study Design . R and omized controlled trial . Objective . To investigate the effect of a printed information package on the low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs and reported behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners ( chiropractors , osteopaths , and musculoskeletal physiotherapists ) across the United Kingdom . Summary of Background Data . A substantial proportion of musculoskeletal practitioners in United Kingdom does not follow current LBP guideline recommendations . Methods . In total , 1758 practitioners were r and omly allocated to either of the 2 study arms . One arm was posted a printed information package containing guideline recommendations for the management of LBP ( n = 876 ) and the other received no intervention ( n = 882 ) . The primary outcome measure consisted of 3 “ quality indicators ” ( activity , work , and bed-rest ) relating to a vignette of a patient with LBP , in which responses were dichotomized into either “ guideline -inconsistent ” or “ guideline -consistent . ” The secondary outcome was the practitioners ' LBP-related beliefs , measured using the Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale . Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6 months . Results . Follow-up at 6 months was 89 % . The changes in reported behavior on the quality indicators were as follows : activity , odds ratio ( OR ) 1.29 ( 95 % confidence interval , 1.03–1.61 ) and number needed to be treated ( NNT ) , 19 ( 15–28 ) ; work , OR 1.35 ( 1.07–1.70 ) and NNT 19 ( 14–29 ) ; and bed-rest , OR 1.31 ( 0.97–1.76 ) and NNT 47 ( 33–103 ) . The composite NNT for a change from guideline -inconsistent to guideline -consistent behavior on at least 1 of the 3 quality indicators was 10 ( 9–14 ) . LBP-related beliefs were significantly improved in those who were sent the information package ( P = 0.002 ) , but only to a small degree ( mean difference , 0.884 scale points ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.319–1.448 ) . Conclusion . Printed educational material can shift LBP-related beliefs and reported behaviors of musculoskeletal practitioners , toward practice that is more in line with guideline recommendations & NA ; Guidelines for the management of low back pain ( LBP ) have existed for many years , but adherence to these by health care practitioners ( HCPs ) remains suboptimal . The aim of this study was to measure the attitudes , beliefs and reported clinical behaviour of UK physiotherapists ( PTs ) and general practitioners ( GPs ) about LBP and to explore the associations between these . A cross‐sectional postal survey of GPs ( n = 2000 ) and PTs ( n = 2000 ) was conducted that included the  Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale ( PABT.PT )  , and a vignette of a  patient with non‐specific LBP ( NSLBP )  with questions asking about recommendations for work , activity and bedrest . Data from 1022 respondents ( 442 GPs and 580 PTs ) who had recently treated patients with LBP were analysed . Although the majority of HCPs reported providing advice for the vignette patient that was broadly in line with guideline recommendations , 28 % reported they would advise this patient to remain off work . Work advice was significantly related to the PABS.PT scores with higher biomedical ( F1,986 = 77.5 , p < 0.0001 ) and lower behavioural ( F1,981 = 31.9 , p < 0.001 ) scores associated with advice to remain off work . We have demonstrated that the attitudes and reported practice behaviour of UK GPs and PTs for patients with NSLBP are diverse . Many HCPs held the belief that LBP necessitates some avoidance of activities and work . The attitudes and beliefs of these HCPs were associated with their self‐reported clinical behaviour regarding advice about work . Future studies need to investigate whether approaches aim ed at modifying these HCP factors can lead to improved patient outcomes Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs ) for the management of neck pain and associated disorders ( NAD ) , whiplash-associated disorders , and non-specific low back pain ( LBP ) with or without radiculopathy . Methods We systematic ally search ed six data bases from 2000 to 2014 . R and om pairs of independent review ers critically appraised eligible systematic review s using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria . We included systematic review s with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis . Results We screened 706 citations and 14 systematic review s were eligible for critical appraisal . Eight systematic review s had a low risk of bias . For recent-onset NAD , evidence suggests that intramuscular NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes as combined manipulation and soft tissue therapy . For NAD ( duration not specified ) , oral NSAIDs may be more effective than placebo . For recent-onset LBP , evidence suggests that : ( 1 ) oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes to placebo or a muscle relaxant ; and ( 2 ) oral NSAIDs with bed rest lead to similar outcomes as placebo with bed rest . For persistent LBP , evidence suggests that : ( 1 ) oral NSAIDs are more effective than placebo ; and ( 2 ) oral NSAIDs may be more effective than acetaminophen . For recent-onset LBP with radiculopathy , there is inconsistent evidence on the effectiveness of oral NSAIDs versus placebo . Finally , different oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes for neck and LBP with or without radiculopathy . Conclusions For NAD , oral NSAIDs may be more effective than placebo . Oral NSAIDs are more effective than placebo for persistent LBP , but not for recent-onset LBP . Different oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes for neck pain and LBP There are no national low back pain ( LBP ) clinical guidelines in Irel and , and neither the level of adherence of General Practitioners ( GPs ) to the European guidelines , nor the cost of LBP to the patient and the state , have been investigated . A prospect i ve pilot study was conducted on 54 consenting patients ( 18 M , 36F : mean age ( SD ) : 40.5 ( 14.3 ) years ) with a new episode of acute LBP ( <3 months ) attending one of nine participating GPs . Baseline demographic , LBP classification [ i.e. simple back ache ( SBA ) , nerve root pain ( NRP ) , serious spinal pathology ( SSP ) ] and primary care management data were recorded over a three month period . Adherence and costs were estimated based on : medication prescription , referral for investigations , treatment or consultations , and wage replacement costs ( time signed off work ) . For both SBA and NRP , medication prescriptions were consistent with European guideline recommendations , but not for referral for further treatment ( 39 % of SBA patients were referred on first visit ) , secondary care ( 54 % of NRP patients were referred on first visit ) , or discontinuation of work ( 50 % NRP patients on first GP visit ) . The average total cost ( direct and wage replacement ) for a single episode of LBP over 12 weeks was 20,531 Euros ( 20,300 - 20,762 ) . Direct costs accounted for 43 % [ 8874.36 Euros , ( 8643.37 - 9105.37 Euros ) ] and wage replacement costs 57 % ( 11,657 Euros ) . In conclusion , management of acute LBP in a cohort of GPs in Irel and was not consistent with European clinical guideline recommendations , and warrants higher levels of postgraduate education among GPs , as well as restructuring of primary care services , which should improve patient outcome and reduce costs Background Hypertension and diabetes , key risk factors for cardiovascular disease , are significant health problems globally . As cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of mortality in Mongolia since 2000 , clinical guidelines on arterial hypertension and diabetes were developed and implemented in 2011 . This paper explores the barriers and enablers influencing the implementation of these guidelines in the primary care setting . Methods A phenomenological qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted to explore the implementation of the diabetes and hypertension guidelines at the primary care level , as well as to gain insight into how practitioners view the usability and practicality of the guidelines . Ten family health centres were r and omly chosen from a list of all the family health centres ( n = 136 ) located in Ulaanbaatar City . In each centre , a focus group discussion with nurses ( n = 20 ) and individual interviews with practice doctors ( n = 10 ) and practice managers ( n = 10 ) were conducted . Data was analysed using a thematic approach utilising the Theoretical Domains Framework . Results The majority of the study participants reported being aware of the guidelines and that they had incorporated them into their daily practice . They also reported having attended guideline training sessions which were focused on practice skill development . The majority of participants expressed satisfaction with the wide range of re sources that had been supplied to them by the Mongolian Government to assist with the implementation of the guidelines . The re sources , supplied from 2011 onwards , included screening devices , equipment for blood tests , medications and educational material s. Other enablers were the participants ’ commitment and passion for guideline implementation and their belief in the simplicity and practicality of the guidelines . Primary care providers reported a number of challenges in implementing the guidelines , including frustration caused by increased workload and long waiting times , time constraints , difficulties with conflicting tasks and low patient health literacy . Conclusions This study provides evidence that comprehensive and rigorous dissemination and implementation strategies increase the likelihood of successful implementation of new guidelines in low re source primary care setting s. It also offers some key lessons that might be carefully considered when other evidence -based clinical guidelines are to be put into effect in low re source setting s and elsewhere
Clinicians believed that guidelines were categorical , prescriptive , and constrained professional practice ; however , popular clinical practice s superseded the guidelines .
Imaging referrals were used to manage consultations and to obtain definitive diagnoses .
Clinicians ' perceptions reflected a lack of content knowledge and underst and ing of how guidelines are developed .
DISCUSSION Addressing misconceptions and other barriers to uptake of evidence -based guidelines for managing LBP is needed to improve knowledge transfer and close the evidence - practice gap in the treatment of this common condition
INTRODUCTION Despite the availability of evidence -based guidelines for the management of low back pain ( LBP ) that contain consistent messages , large evidence - practice gaps in primary care remain .
OBJECTIVES To perform a systematic review and meta synthesis of qualitative studies that have explored primary care clinicians ' perceptions and beliefs about guidelines for LBP , including perceived enablers and barriers to guideline adherence .