Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) (trial registration: ISRCTN75449581 ) tested stratified primary care for sciatica by subgrouping patients into one of three groups based on prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one group were ‘fast-tracked’ for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and spinal specialist opinion. This paper reports qualitative research exploring patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives on the acceptability of this ‘fast-track’ pathway. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients and 20 clinicians (general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists, spinal surgeons). Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and ‘boundary objects’ concept. Results Whilst the ‘fast-track’ pathway achieved a degree of ‘coherence’ (i.e. made sense) to both patients and clinicians, particularly in relation to providing early reassurance based on MRI scan findings, it was less ‘meaningful’ to some clinicians for managing patients with acute symptoms, reflecting a reluctance to move away from the usual ‘stepped care’ approach. Both groups felt a key limitation of the pathway was that it did not shorten patient waiting times between their spinal specialist consultation and further treatments. Conclusion Findings contribute new knowledge about patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives on the role of imaging and spinal specialist opinion in the management of sciatica, and provide important insights for understanding the ‘fast-track’ pathway, as part of the stratified care model tested in the RCT. Future research into the early referral of patients with sciatica for investigation and specialist opinion should include strategies to support clinician behaviour change; as well as take into account the role of imaging in providing reassurance to patients with severe symptoms in cases where imaging reveals a clear explanation for the patient’s pain, and where this is accompanied by a thorough explanation from a trusted clinical expert.

Background Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of ‘wait and see’ for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial ( SC iatica O utcomes in P r i mary C are) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. Methods/Design Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. Discussion This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. Trial registration ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

ObjectivesTo summarise the evidence for generic prognostic factors across a range of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.Settingprimary care.Methods and outcomesComprehensive systematic literature review. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and EMBASE were searched for prospective cohort studies, based in primary care (search period—inception to December 2015). Studies were included if they reported on adults consulting with MSK conditions and provided data on associations between baseline characteristics (prognostic factors) and outcome. A prognostic factor was identified as generic when significantly associated with any outcome for 2 or more different MSK conditions. Evidence synthesis focused on consistency of findings and study quality.Results14 682 citations were identified and 78 studies were included (involving more than 48 000 participants with 18 different outcome domains). 51 studies were on spinal pain/back pain/low back pain, 12 on neck/shoulder/arm pain, 3 on knee pain, 3 on hip pain and 9 on multisite pain/widespread pain. Total quality scores ranged from 5 to 14 (mean 11) and 65 studies (83%) scored 9 or more. Out of a total of 78 different prognostic factors for which data were provided, the following factors are considered to be generic prognostic factors for MSK conditions: widespread pain, high functional disability, somatisation, high pain intensity and presence of previous pain episodes. In addition, consistent evidence was found for use of pain medications not to be associated with outcome, suggesting that this factor is not a generic prognostic factor for MSK conditions.ConclusionsThis large review provides new evidence for generic prognostic factors for MSK conditions in primary care. Such factors include pain intensity, widespread pain, high functional disability, somatisation and movement restriction. This information can be used to screen and select patients for targeted treatment in clinical research as well as to inform the management of MSK conditions in primary care.

Background Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and observational studies. Methods Source of studies CENTRAL database for RCTs and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and hand search of systematic reviews for cohort studies. Studies include individuals aged 18 or over, and concern non-specific LBP. Trials had to concern primary care treatments. Data were extracted on pain intensity. Meta-regression analysis was used to compare the pooled within-group change in pain in RCTs with that in cohort studies calculated as the standardised mean change (SMC). Results 70 RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included, out of 1134 and 653 identified respectively. LBP symptoms followed a similar course in RCTs and cohort studies: a rapid improvement in the first 6 weeks followed by a smaller further improvement until 52 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled SMC between RCTs and cohort studies at any time point:- 6 weeks: RCTs: SMC 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.2 (0.7to 1.7); 13 weeks: RCTs 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) and cohorts 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3); 27 weeks: RCTs 1.1 (1.0 to 1.2) and cohorts 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7); 52 weeks: RCTs 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6). Conclusions The clinical course of LBP symptoms followed a pattern that was similar in RCTs and cohort observational studies. In addition to a shared ‘natural history’, enrolment of LBP patients in clinical studies is likely to provoke responses that reflect the nonspecific effects of seeking and receiving care, independent of the study design.

Aims: Using qualitative interviews, this study explored the experiences of GPs, vocational advisers and patients towards a new vocational advice (VA) service in primary care. Methods: This study was nested within the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP) cluster randomised controlled trial. The SWAP trial located a VA service within three general practices in Staffordshire. Interviews took place with 10 GPs 12 months after the introduction of the VA service, four vocational advisers whilst the VA service was running and 20 patients on discharge from the VA service. The data were analysed using the constant comparative method, which is a variation of grounded theory. Results: The key factors determining the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the VA service from the perspective of the three groups of stakeholders were (1) the timing of referrals to the VA, (2) the perceived lack of patient demand for the service and (3) role uncertainty experienced by VAs. Conclusions: Early vocational intervention may not be appropriate for all musculoskeletal patients with work difficulties. Indeed, many patients felt they did not require the support of a VA, either because they had self-limiting work difficulties and/or already had support mechanisms in place to return to work. Future VA interventions may be better implemented in a targeted way so that appropriate patients are identified with characteristics which can best be addressed by the VA service.

ObjectivesStudies in Canada, the USA and Australia suggested low confidence among general practitioners (GPs) in diagnosing and managing shoulder pain, with frequent use of investigations. There are no comparable studies in the UK; our objective was to describe the diagnosis and management of shoulder pain by GPs in the UK.MethodsA national survey of a random sample of 5000 UK GPs collected data on shoulder pain diagnosis and management using two clinical vignettes that described primary care presentations with rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) and adhesive capsulitis (AdhC).ResultsSeven hundred and fourteen (14.7%) responses were received. 56% and 83% of GPs were confident in their diagnosis of RCT and AdhC, respectively, and a wide range of investigations and management options were reported. For the RCT presentation, plain radiographs of the shoulder were most common (60%), followed by blood tests (42%) and ultrasound scans (USS) (38%). 19% of those who recommended a radiograph and 76% of those who recommended a USS did so ‘to confirm the diagnosis’. For the AdhC presentation, the most common investigations were blood tests (60%), plain shoulder radiographs (58%) and USS (31%). More than two-thirds of those recommending a USS did so ‘to confirm the diagnosis’. The most commonly recommended treatment for both presentations was physiotherapy (RCT 77%, AdhC 71%) followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (RCT 58%, AdhC 74%). 17% opted to refer the RCT to secondary care (most often musculoskeletal interface service), compared with 31% for the AdhC.ConclusionsThis survey of GPs in the UK highlights reliance on radiographs and blood tests in the management of common shoulder pain presentations. GPs report referring more than 7 out of 10 patients with RCT and AdhC to physiotherapists. These findings need to be viewed in the context of low response to the survey and, therefore, potential non-response bias.

Background Musculoskeletal complaints have a significant impact on work in terms of reduced productivity, sickness absence and long term incapacity for work. This study sought to explore GPs’ and physiotherapists’ perceptions of sickness certification in patients with musculoskeletal problems. Methods Eleven (11) GPs were sampled from an existing general practice survey, and six (6) physiotherapists were selected randomly using ‘snowball’ sampling techniques, through established contacts in local physiotherapy departments. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with respondents lasting up to 30 minutes. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, following which they were coded using N-Vivo qualitative software and analysed thematically using the constant comparative methodology, where themes were identified and contrasted between and within both groups of respondents. Results Three themes were identified from the analysis: 1) Approaches to evaluating patients’ work problems 2) Perceived ability to manage ‘work and pain’, and 3) Policies and penalties in the work-place. First, physiotherapists routinely asked patients about their job and work difficulties using a structured (protocol-driven) approach, whilst GPs rarely used such structured measures and were less likely to enquire about patients’ work situation. Second, return to work assessments revealed a tension between GPs’ gatekeeper and patient advocacy roles, often resolved in favour of patients’ concerns and needs. Some physiotherapists perceived that GPs’ decisions could be influenced by patients’ demand for a sick certificate and their close relationship with patients made them vulnerable to manipulation. Third, the workplace was considered to be a specific source of strain for patients acting as a barrier to work resumption, and over which GPs and physiotherapists could exercise only limited control. Conclusion We conclude that healthcare professionals need to take account of patients’ work difficulties, their own perceived ability to offer effective guidance, and consider the ‘receptivity’ of employment contexts to patients’ work problems, in order to ensure a smooth transition back to work.

Background Sciatica is a painful condition managed by a stepped care approach for most patients. Currently, there are no decision-making tools to guide matching care pathways for patients with sciatica without evidence of serious pathology, early in their presentation. This study sought to develop an algorithm to subgroup primary care patients with sciatica, for initial decision-making for matched care pathways, including fast-track referral to investigations and specialist spinal opinion. Methods This was an analysis of existing data from a UK NHS cohort study of patients consulting in primary care with sciatica ( n  = 429). Factors potentially associated with referral to specialist services, were identified from the literature and clinical opinion. Percentage of patients fast-tracked to specialists, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for identifying this subgroup, were calculated. Results The algorithm allocates patients to 1 of 3 groups, combining information about four clinical characteristics, and risk of poor prognosis (low, medium or high risk) in terms of pain-related persistent disability. Patients at low risk of poor prognosis, irrespective of clinical characteristics, are allocated to group 1. Patients at medium risk of poor prognosis who have all four clinical characteristics, and patients at high risk of poor prognosis with any three of the clinical characteristics, are allocated to group 3. The remainder are allocated to group 2. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of the algorithm for patient allocation to fast-track group 3, were 51, 73 and 22% respectively. Conclusion We developed an algorithm to support clinical decisions regarding early referral for primary care patients with sciatica. Limitations of this study include the low positive predictive value and use of data from one cohort only. On-going research is investigating whether the use of this algorithm and the linked care pathways, leads to faster resolution of sciatica symptoms.

Background Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with fibromyalgia, and its cardinal feature chronic widespread pain (CWP). Prediction models have now been developed which identify groups who are at high-risk of developing CWP. It would be beneficial to be able to prevent the development of CWP in these people because of the high cost of symptoms and because once established they are difficult to manage. We will test the hypothesis that among patients who are identified as at high-risk, a short course of telephone-delivered CBT (tCBT) reduces the onset of CWP. We will further determine the cost-effectiveness of such a preventative intervention. Methods The study will be a two-arm randomised trial testing a course of tCBT against usual care for prevention of CWP. Eligible participants will be identified from a screening questionnaire sent to patients registered at general practices within three Scottish health boards. Those returning questionnaires indicating they have visited their doctor for regional pain in the last 6 months, and who have two of, sleep problems, maladaptive behaviour response to illness, or high number of somatic symptoms, will be invited to participate. After giving consent, participants will be randomly allocated to either tCBT or usual care. We aim to recruit 473 participants to each treatment arm. Participants in the tCBT group will have an initial assessment with a CBT therapist by telephone, then 6 weekly sessions, and booster sessions 3 and 6 months after treatment start. Those in the usual care group will receive no additional intervention. Follow-up questionnaires measuring the same items as the screening survey questionnaire will be sent 3, 12 and 24 months after start of treatment. The main outcome will be CWP at the 12 month questionnaire. Discussion This will be the first trial of an intervention aimed at preventing fibromyalgia or CWP. The results of the study will help to inform future treatments for the prevention of chronic pain, and aetiological models of its development. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02668003URL: Please check that the following URLs are working. If not, please provide alternatives: NCT02668003Alternative is: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02668003> . Date registered: 28-Jan-2016.