Work disability due to low back pain (LBP) is a global concern, resulting in significant healthcare costs and welfare payments. In recognition of this, recent UK policy calls for healthcare to become more ‘work-focused’. However, an ‘evidence-policy’ gap has been identified, resulting in uncertainty about how this is to be achieved. Clear, evidence-based recommendations relevant to both policy-makers and healthcare practitioners are required. A policy theory approach combining scientific evidence with governance principles in a pragmatic manner was undertaken. This entailed extracting evidence from a recent review of the system influences on work disability due to LBP* (focused specifically on the healthcare system) and appraising it alongside the most recent review evidence on the implementation of clinical guidance, and policy material aimed at developing work-focused healthcare.Background
Methods
The musculoskeletal system is recognized as a possible source of pain in patients with chest pain. The objectives of the present study were (1) to investigate the interobserver reliability of an overall diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain using a standardized examination protocol in a cohort of patients with chest pain suspected to be of non-cardiac origin, (2) to investigate the interobserver reliability of the single components of the protocol, and finally, (3) to investigate the importance of clinical experience on the level of interobserver reliability. Eighty patients with acute chest pain were recruited from a cardiology department. Four observers (two chiropractors and two chiropractic students) performed a physical examination and an extended manual examination of the spine and chest wall. Percentage agreement, Cohen's Kappa and ICC were calculated for observer pairs and overall. Musculoskeletal chest pain was diagnosed in 44.0 % of patients. Interobserver kappa values were substantial for the chiropractors and overall, and moderate for the students. For single items of the protocol, both pairs showed fair to substantial agreement regarding pain provocation tests and poor to fair agreement regarding spinal segmental dysfunction tests.Background and purpose
Methods and results
