Explore the vast range of titles available.

Chronic widespread pain (CWP) including fibromyalgia has a prevalence of up to 15% and is associated with substantial morbidity. Supporting psychosocial and behavioural self-management is increasingly important for CWP, as pharmacological interventions show limited benefit. We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of interventions applying self-management principles for CWP including fibromyalgia. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched for studies reporting randomised controlled trials of interventions adhering to self-management principles for CWP including fibromyalgia. Primary outcomes included physical function and pain intensity. Where data were sufficient, meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Studies were narratively reviewed where meta-analysis could not be conducted Evidence quality was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (PROSPERO-CRD42018099212). Thirty-nine completed studies were included. Despite some variability in studies narratively reviewed, in studies meta-analysed self-management interventions improved physical function in the short-term, post-treatment to 3 months (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.20, 0.64) and long-term, post 6 months (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.20, 0.53), compared to no treatment/usual care controls. Studies reporting on pain narratively had greater variability, however, those studies meta-analysed showed self-management interventions reduced pain in the short-term (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.70, -0.27) and long-term (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58, -0.19) compared to no treatment/usual care. There were few differences in physical function and pain when self-management interventions were compared to active interventions. The quality of the evidence was rated as low. Reviewed studies suggest self-management interventions can be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain in the short and long-term for CWP including fibromyalgia. However, the quality of evidence was low. Future research should address quality issues whilst making greater use of theory and patient involvement to understand reported variability.

Consultations between practitioners and patients are more than a hypothesis-chasing exploration, especially when uncertainty about etiology and prognosis are high. In this article we describe a single individual's account of their lived experience of pain and long journey of consultations. This personal account includes challenges as well as opportunities, and ultimately led to self-awareness, clarity, and living well with pain. We follow each section of this narrative with a short description of the emerging scientific evidence informing on specific aspects of the consultation. Using this novel structure, we portray a framework for understanding consultations for persistent musculoskeletal pain from a position of patient-centered research to inform practice.

Background Low back pain (LBP) remains a leading source of disability and societal cost. In the UK, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and chiropractors are front-line providers of LBP care. Despite widespread dissemination of clinical guidelines, little is known about how their clinical practice has changed over time. Methods We conducted national surveys of UK physiotherapists, osteopaths and chiropractors in 2003 and 2023, using an identical acute non-specific LBP vignette to assess reported use of investigations and interventions at both time points. Results A total of 1,758 eligible clinicians participated in 2003 (834 physiotherapists; 592 osteopaths; and 332 chiropractors), and 1,388 in 2023 (511 physiotherapists; 621 osteopaths; and 255 chiropractors). At both time-points, there were significant inter-professional differences and numerous departures from guideline recommendations. Substantial temporal changes were observed. Physiotherapists shifted towards more restrictive recommendations for work and bed-rest, towards the use of massage, away from spinal mobilization, away from specific exercises, and away from general advice on back care. Chiropractors shifted towards more restrictive recommendations for bed-rest, towards spinal mobilization and acupuncture, and away from spinal manipulation and ultrasound. Osteopaths shifted towards less restrictive recommendations for activity, work, and bed-rest, towards acupuncture, and away from spinal manipulation. Conclusions Between 2003 and 2023, UK physiotherapists, osteopaths, and chiropractors reported evolving management approaches to acute LBP. Substantial inter-professional differences and divergences from guideline recommendations were observed. Some inter-professional differences narrowed over time, suggesting partial convergence of practice.

BackgroundTo systematically review studies quantifying the association between primary chronic headaches and persistent low back pain (LBP).Main textWe searched five electronic databases. We included case-control, cross-sectional and cohort studies that included a headache and back pain free group, reporting on any association between persistent LBP and primary headache disorders. Methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our primary outcome was the association between primary headache disorders and persistent LBP. Our secondary outcomes were any associations between severity of LBP and severity of headache, and the relationship between specific headache sub-types classified as per International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and persistent LBP.We included 14 studies. The sizes of the studies ranged from 88 participants to a large international study with 404, 206 participants. Odds ratios for the association were between 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–2.11) and 8.00 (95% CI 5.3–12.1). Study heterogeneity meant statistical pooling was not possible. Only two studies presented data investigating persistent LBP and chronic headache disorders in accordance with ICDH criteria.ConclusionsWe identified a positive association between persistent LBP and primary headache disorders. The quality of the review findings is limited by diversity of populations, study designs and uncertainly about headache and LBP definitions.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018086557.

ObjectivesPrevious work in South Africans living with HIV and chronic pain has raised questions regarding maintained levels of physical activity while in pain, patterns of pain disclosure and recruitment of social support. Recent data suggest that pain in people living with HIV may be more due to issues of poverty rather than HIV. We explored how South Africans with chronic pain living in a rural area: (1) understand and experience chronic pain, (2) how chronic pain affects activity levels and (3) the relationship between pain disclosure and social support.DesignWe conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews. Transcripts were analysed using thematic data analysis.SettingThe Ndlovu Care Group Research Centre in the rural Elandsdoorn, Dennilton area in Limpopo province, South Africa, between April and July 2019.Participants34 individuals (19 women, 15 men) with a mean age of 37 years (SD 8) living with chronic pain, half of whom were living with HIV, and half without.ResultsPerceived causes of pain included illness or injury, ‘thinking too much’ and non-Western perspectives. Three patterns of activity in response to chronic pain emerged: perseverance, reduced activity and complete inactivity. Reasons for perseverance included fear of losing income, perceived social stigma or no social support. Patterns of pain disclosure included full, selective (telling some people but not others depending on their perceived trustworthiness), partial (sharing pain presence but not how severe it was) and non-disclosure. Disclosing pain was common in women and was used to recruit practical support. Men rarely disclosed to recruit support, and if they did, would recruit for financial support. Disclosing pain was also a strategy to avoid the social stigma of being labelled ‘lazy’. Patterns of activity, disclosure and type of support recruited did not differ between those with and without HIV.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that activity levels, disclosure and recruitment of support in South Africans living with chronic pain are influenced by low income, social stigma and gender, rather than HIV.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. People with LBP may be referred to elective surgical clinics for further evaluation and consideration of surgery. Despite long waits for an initial appointment, many of these patients are not surgical candidates and may be discharged, receiving minimal‐to‐no care, advice or alternative treatment options, leaving a critical gap in care. Methods Approximately 25 participants with dominant, chronic non‐specific axial LBP who are (1) referred to and (2) discharged without spinal surgery following consultation in two elective spinal surgery clinics in Western Australia will participate in a one‐on‐one pre‐consultation semi‐structured interview and a similar post‐consultation qualitative interview. Purposive sampling will be used to recruit participants. Interviews will be audio‐recorded and transcribed, underpinned by a qualitative descriptive approach to explore participants' care journey, including pre‐consultation expectations and overall experiences post‐consultation. We will use inductive content analysis to analyse our data, allowing for the identification of themes that are generated from the participants' responses. Discussion/Conclusion This protocol outlines the methodological process for a qualitative study exploring the experiences and expectations of LBP patients before and after consulting in elective spinal surgery clinics in Western Australia. The findings may give rise to consumer‐focused solutions to improve the care journey and highlight gaps in patient expectations and understanding of non‐surgical management, informing the development of tailored educational resources, communication strategies and new care pathways. Patient or Public Contribution This study will incorporate patient and/or public involvement by engaging representatives from Musculoskeletal Australia (https://muscha.org/) to contribute to the study design and interpretation of findings. Specifically, a consumer with lived experience of low back pain will be invited to review and provide feedback on the semi‐structured interview questions, to ensure they are appropriate, accessible and reflective of patient experiences. Clinical Trial Registration This study is not a clinical trial and is therefore not registered.

Background There is a need to improve consultations between patients with persistent musculoskeletal low back pain and orthopaedic spine clinicians when surgery is not indicated. Poor communication and lack of education about self- management in these consultations have been shown to be associated with increased distress and higher subsequent health care seeking. Aim To develop a standardised intervention to improve spine care consultations for patients for whom surgery is not beneficial. Method The intervention was developed in six stages. The first three stages included: interviews with patients, an interactive workshop with clinicians from a mix of disciplines, and interviews with spine clinicians about their perspective of the recommendations, their perceived difficulties and potential improvements. Information from these stages was synthesised by an expert panel, creating a draft intervention structure and content. The main features of the intervention and the materials developed were then reviewed by patients and spine clinicians. Finally, the research team incorporated the recommended amendments to produce the intervention. Results In total, 36 patients and 79 clinicians contributed to the development of the intervention. The final intervention includes three components: a pre-consultation letter with information suggesting that surgery is one possible intervention amongst many, introducing the staff, and alerting patients to bring with them a potted history of interventions tried previously. The intervention includes short online training sessions to improve clinicians’ communication skills, during the consultation, in reference to listening skills, validation of patients’ pain, and use of appropriate language. Clinicians are also supplied with a list of evidence-based sources for advice and further information to share with patients. Finally, post consultation, a follow up letter includes a short summary of the patients’ clinical journey, the results of their examination and tests, and a reminder of recommendations for self-management. Conclusion The intervention includes aspects around patient education and enhanced clinician skills. It was developed with input from a multitude of stakeholders and is based on patients’ perceptions of what they would find reassuring and empowering when surgery is excluded. The intervention has the potential to improve the patients care journey and might lead to changes in practice in spine clinicians.

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for chronic pain is often limited, and there is growing concern about the adverse effects of these treatments, including opioid dependence. Nonpharmacological approaches to chronic pain may be an attractive alternative or adjunctive treatment. We describe the effectiveness of a novel, theoretically based group pain management support intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain. We conducted a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) trial across 27 general practices and community musculoskeletal services in the UK. We recruited 703 adults with musculoskeletal pain of at least 3 mo duration between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012, and randomised participants 1.33:1 to intervention (403) or control (300). Intervention participants were offered a participative group intervention (COPERS) delivered over three alternate days with a follow-up session at 2 wk. The intervention introduced cognitive behavioural approaches and was designed to promote self-efficacy to manage chronic pain. Controls received usual care and a relaxation CD. The primary outcome was pain-related disability at 12 mo (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] disability subscale); secondary outcomes included the CPG disability subscale at 6 mo and the following measured at 6 and 12 mo: anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire), social integration (Health Education Impact Questionnaire social integration and support subscale), pain-related self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), pain intensity (CPG pain intensity subscale), the census global health question (2011 census for England and Wales), health utility (EQ-5D-3L), and health care resource use. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, accounted for clustering by course in the intervention arm, and used multiple imputation for missing or incomplete primary outcome data. The mean age of participants was 59.9 y, with 81% white, 67% female, 23% employed, 85% with pain for at least 3 y, and 23% on strong opioids. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were common (baseline mean HADS scores 7.4 [standard deviation 4.1] and 9.2 [4.6], respectively). Overall, 282 (70%) intervention participants met the predefined intervention adherence criterion. Primary outcome data were obtained from 88% of participants. There was no significant difference between groups in pain-related disability at 6 or 12 mo (12 mo: difference -1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or the census global health question. Anxiety, depression, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, and social integration were better in the intervention group at 6 mo; at 12 mo, these differences remained statistically significant only for depression (-0.7, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Intervention participants received more analgesics than the controls across the 12 mo. The total cost of the course per person was £145 (US$214). The cost-utility analysis showed there to be a small benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.0325, 95% CI -0.0074 to 0.0724), and on the cost side the intervention was a little more expensive than usual care (i.e., £188 [US$277], 95% CI -£125 [-US$184] to £501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5,786 (US$8,521) per QALY. Limitations include the fact that the intervention was relatively brief and did not include any physical activity components. While the COPERS intervention was brief, safe, and inexpensive, with a low attrition rate, it was not effective for reducing pain-related disability over 12 mo (primary outcome). For secondary outcomes, we found sustained benefits on depression and social integration at 6 and 12 mo, but there was no effect on anxiety, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, pain intensity, or the census global health question at 12 mo. There was some evidence that the intervention may be cost-effective based on a modest difference in QALYs between groups. ISRCTN Registry 24426731.

BackgroundPeople with pulmonary hypertension (PH) are not routinely referred for exercise rehabilitation despite the potential for reducing breathlessness and improving quality of life. We describe the development of a supervised pulmonary hypertension exercise rehabilitation (SPHERe) programme for people with PH.MethodsDevelopment was completed in three phases: (1) systematic review, (2) stakeholder engagement with consensus from patients and experts and (3) prepilot intervention acceptability testing. We completed systematic reviews to identify international cardiopulmonary rehabilitation guidance and trials of exercise-based interventions for people with PH. Evidence from systematic reviews and stakeholder consensus shaped the SPHERe intervention, including addition of individual behavioural support sessions to promote exercise adherence. The draft SPHERe intervention was ratified through discussions with multidisciplinary professionals and people living with PH. We acceptability tested the centre-based intervention with eight participants in a prepilot development phase which identified a number of condition-specific issues relating to safety and fear avoidance of activity. Comprehensive intervention practitioner training manuals were produced to ensure standardised delivery. Participant workbooks were developed and piloted. Trial recruitment began in January 2020 but was subsequently suspended in March 2020 further to COVID-19 pandemic ‘lockdowns’. In response to the pandemic, we undertook further development work to redesign the intervention to be suitable for exclusively home-based online delivery. Recruitment to the revised protocol began in June 2021.DiscussionThe final SPHERe intervention incorporated weekly home-based online group exercise and behavioural support ‘coaching’ sessions supervised by trained practitioners, with a personalised home exercise plan and the optional loan of a stationary exercise bike. The intervention was fully manualised with clear pathways for assessment and individualised exercise prescription. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of the SPHERe online rehabilitation intervention is currently being tested in a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial.Trial registration numberISCRTN10608766.

Background Stakeholder involvement is a core element of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions, but approaches to involve stakeholders are not well‐reported. We outline how stakeholders contributed to co‐designing a Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long‐term for persistent Pain led by Pharmacists working in primary care Teams (the PROMPPT intervention—a review and pharmacist training package). Methods We brought key stakeholders together to co‐design the PROMPPT intervention using a person‐based approach, alongside evidence from best practice guidance. We established a community of practice comprising three complementary groups: a patient advisory group, a pharmacist advisory group and a mixed stakeholder group. Patient stakeholders were identified from an existing patient involvement group. Professional stakeholders were identified using networks and social media. The three groups met in iterative workshops with predefined aims. We offered reimbursement for the stakeholders' time. Outcomes The patient advisory group (n = 10), pharmacist advisory group (n = 6) and mixed stakeholder group (n = 16) each met for 2 or 3 workshops between April 2019 and February 2020. Stakeholders had expertise, often cross‐cutting, in lived experience, persistent pain, opioids, delivering primary healthcare and/or promoting behaviour change. Patient stakeholders provided their perspectives of consulting about their pain and opioids. Pharmacist stakeholders provided their perspectives on how pain reviews were happening in practice and on considerations for training (e.g., vignettes and experiential learning were considered important). The mixed stakeholder group provided a breadth of views highlighting current practice, including the value of engaging the wider GP practice team, issues around clinical responsibility for prescribing and the fact that international clinical guidance was not always relevant to UK primary care. Conclusions By understanding the context of the PROMPPT intervention, stakeholders worked to develop a new pharmacist‐led primary care review ahead of feasibility testing. We make recommendations for future developers of complex interventions. Patient and Public Contribution Patient stakeholders, including a lay co‐applicant (C.S.) supported by a PPI support worker (A.H.), helped develop and refine the intervention. C.S. and A.H. read and contributed to the initial manuscript and approved the final manuscript.