Background. Advice and education are considered vital components of back pain care within national guidelines. However, a recent systematic review only found low grade evidence for a small average effect. They also reported wide heterogeneity in intervention design and delivery. This review aimed to understand why intervention design varied and what limited effectiveness by examining the underlying theoretical foundations of the studies from that review. Method. Population, context, selection criteria, intervention(s), control, outcome measures, how the intervention was hypothesised to produce outcomes and author recommendations based on results of the study were extracted from text records. The extent to which the advice included matched a published international consensus statement on evidence-based advice for back pain was recorded. Whether interventions or settings were complex was determined using the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation guidance and the extent to which they met complexity reporting criteria was recorded. Results. The review included 26 trials conducted over 25 years. Differences In causal pathways could explain diversity in intervention design but these were not clearly described or evaluated. All studies were complex in terms of intervention and setting. This was rarely considered in intervention and trial design or when discussing the results. Although interventions were frequently described in detail only a few explained the process and justification of the design. Theories of education or behaviour change were rarely applied. Conclusion. These studies have not deepened our understanding of how education improves outcomes. Future RCTs should engage more with theory and other theory-based research methods should to be considered. Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding

Aims. Psychoeducative prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes is relatively novel in spinal fusion surgery and, like most rehabilitation treatments, they are rarely well specified. Spinal fusion patients experience anxieties perioperatively about pain and immobility, which might prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if a Preoperative Spinal Education (POSE) programme, specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) and designed to normalize expectations and reduce anxieties, was safe and reduced LOS. Methods. POSE was offered to 150 prospective patients over ten months (December 2018 to November 2019) Some chose to attend (Attend-POSE) and some did not attend (DNA-POSE). A third independent retrospective group of 150 patients (mean age 57.9 years (SD 14.8), 50.6% female) received surgery prior to POSE (pre-POSE). POSE consisted of an in-person 60-minute education with accompanying literature, specified using the RTSS as psychoeducative treatment components designed to optimize cognitive/affective representations of thoughts/feelings, and normalize anxieties about surgery and its aftermath. Across-group age, sex, median LOS, perioperative complications, and readmission rates were assessed using appropriate statistical tests. Results. In all, 65 (43%) patients (mean age 57.4 years (SD 18.2), 58.8% female) comprised the Attend-POSE, and 85 (57%) DNA-POSE (mean age 54.9 years (SD 15.8), 65.8% female). There were no significant between-group differences in age, sex, surgery type, complications, or readmission rates. Median LOS was statistically different across Pre-POSE (5 days ((interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 7)), Attend-POSE (3 (2 to 5)), and DNA-POSE (4 (3 to 7)), (p = 0.014). Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant differences between Pre-POSE and Attend-POSE LOS (p = 0.011), but not between any other group comparison. In the Attend-POSE group, there was significant change toward greater surgical preparation, procedural familiarity, and less anxiety. Conclusion. POSE was associated with a significant reduction in LOS for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery. Patients reported being better prepared for, more familiar, and less anxious about their surgery. POSE did not affect complication or readmission rates, meaning its inclusion was safe. However, uptake (43%) was disappointing and future work should explore potential barriers and challenges to attending POSE. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):135–144

Purpose of the study. The purpose of this project was to evaluate whether OHEIs could facilitate student physiotherapy placement training in their educational outpatient clinics. Background. The National Health Service (NHS) is actively promoting Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) to have a greater role in supporting healthcare delivery. There are challenges to increasing AHP numbers and one of these is providing enough student training placements to meet demand. Methods. This evaluation used quantitative and qualitative methods. The OHEI clinical tutors and students collected activity data Anonymised questionnaires for physiotherapy students examining expectation were completed online before placement and an experience questionnaire after placement. Interviews and focus groups were conducted to investigate the experiences of stakeholders involved in the project. This included physiotherapy and osteopathy students, clinic tutors, and placement coordinators in OHEIs and physiotherapy HEIs. Results. Four universities with physiotherapy courses participated, and 37 students in 2 cohorts completed either five- or six-week placements at three OHEI clinics between April and August 2021. Cohort 1 expressed uncertainties about roles and integration in clinic and with patients. Concerns were addressed for Cohort 2 and physiotherapy student learning experiences were much better with 83% of physiotherapy students satisfied or very satisfied with their placement. Conclusion. The placement of physiotherapists in OHEI clinics is feasible. Careful expectation management is essential. Future sustainability is dependent upon managing costs to the OHEIs as it is unlikely placements will generate income. The learning environment could be made more reciprocal with time and experience leading to better understanding of the different professions and enhanced multidisciplinary working. Conflicts of interest: Dawn Carnes and Carol Fawkes are both trained osteopaths. Sources of funding: Health Education England grant to the Institute of Osteopathy (the professional association for UK osteopaths)

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP > 12 weeks duration) are two of the most common and costly chronic musculoskeletal conditions globally. Healthcare service demands mean that group-based multiple condition interventions are of increasing clinical interest and a priority for research, but no reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of group-based physiotherapy-led self-management interventions (GPSMI) for both conditions concurrently. Rapid review methodologies are an increasingly valid means of expediting knowledge dissemination and are particularly useful for addressing focused research questions.

Background

Implementation fidelity is the extent to which an intervention is delivered as intended by intervention developers, and is extremely important in increasing confidence that changes in study outcomes are due to the effect of the intervention itself and not due to variability in implementation. Growing demands on healthcare services mean that multiple condition interventions involving highly prevalent musculoskeletal pain conditions such as chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or osteoarthritis (OA) are of increasing clinical interest. This is the first in-depth review of implementation fidelity within self-management interventions for any musculoskeletal pain condition.

Purpose and Background. Patients with low back pain are increasing globally. Physical dysfunction and psychosocial factors such as stress, anxiety, and fear of movement, often referred to as yellow flags, play a role in the persistence of low back pain. What is not known is the extent to which yellow flags are screened for and treatment adjusted accordingly by Physiotherapists in India. The aim was to determine the current knowledge and awareness of physiotherapists in India regarding psychosocial factors for managing patients with low back pain. Methods. Semi-structured interviews gathered data from of six physiotherapists, The interviews were conducted online. The data was transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results. The main finding was that the physiotherapists in India had a limited knowledge regarding psychosocial factors for management of low back pain. They were not supportive of adding yellow flag screening into their routine treatments due to lack of t awareness of such screening tools Physical elements of low back pain were focused on during treatment by the therapists and recommended by management. The physiotherapists noted that high daily patient volume left them with limited time to alter treatment protocols. Conclusion. There appears to be limited information and education delivered to the physiotherapists in India regarding psychosocial factors for managing low back pain. The addition of these factors in the education and treatment protocols could address these important factors when managing patients with low back pain in India. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Purposes and background. Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition with substantial associated disability and costs, best understood using a biopsychosocial approach. Research demonstrates LBP beliefs are important, with biomedical beliefs influencing practitioner's management. LBP beliefs can be inconsistent amongst medical students. The aim of this study was to investigate graduate medical student's beliefs of LBP and what influences them. Method and results. A cross sectional study of phase one and phase three students at the University of Warwick was conducted. Participants were recruited via voluntary response sampling. A survey investigated LBP beliefs, utilising the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). Qualitative data was collected on what influences beliefs about the causes and management of LBP, which was analysed descriptively using thematic analysis. Fifty-seven students completed the questionnaire. Median BBQ and HC-PAIRS scores were consistent between both year groups. Three main themes emerged from the qualitative data: Sources of influence, influence of personal experience and influence of medical education. Participants discussed single or multiple sources influencing their beliefs. Another main theme was the influence of experiencing LBP personally or through discussions with others. The final main theme described the influence of medical education. Conclusions. Students in this sample tended to have positive beliefs about the outcome of LBP and functional expectations of chronic LBP patients. The mean BBQ and HC-PAIRS scores are comparable to studies of medical students. The findings from qualitative data suggest how medical students form beliefs about the causes and management of LBP is complex. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained. This work has not been previously published or presented at any national or international meeting

Background. A local authority approached us, for a cost-beneficial solution to their increasing low back pain referrals. We proposed developing a student-led clinic – an intervention delivered by students but supervised by clinicians. We then conducted scoping reviews on student-led clinics in the management of health conditions and on the self-management of back pain. The findings suggested that student-led self-management interventions for low back health should be feasible. The next step was to co-construct the intervention with key stakeholders. Co-Construction. A hybrid of Action Research and Design Science methodology was used to co-construct the intervention with five key stakeholder groups (council staff, managers and human resources, employee healthcare, students, and lecturers). Three rounds of focus groups explored the ‘problem’, the possible solutions, the process, and the content. Themes were taken from each of these focus groups and the similarities and differences were analysed. This analysis and subsequent synthesis with the evidence base created potential intervention models, which were discussed and refined with the stakeholder groups. Intervention. The proposed intervention is focused on providing evidence informed biopsychosocial support for work-relevant back pain, based on identifying obstacles and solutions to improve coping with back health at work. An onboarding workshop challenges positively their thinking around back pain and work. This is followed by up to three 1:1 sessions that support the individual to identify work-relevant back health goals and agree a plan to achieve them using techniques to facilitate behaviour change. Conclusion. The intervention is evidence informed and aims to address the prioritised needs of the stakeholders. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. National Health Service Education

Purpose and background. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES), a rare (<1 per 100,000) and potentially devasting condition, involves compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots. If not quickly identified and treated, it can lead to lasting disability, and high medicolegal costs (>£186 million in the decade to 2018). This study identified why people with suspected CES attend the emergency department (ED) and explored any delays in attending. Methods and Results. The design was a secondary analysis of a qualitative dataset comprising patients with back pain who attended the ED, undertaken using an interpretivist approach. Fourteen patients (8M:6F, aged 23–63 years) with suspected CES were purposively sampled from 4 EDs (2 Northern and 2 Southern) in England between August and December 2021. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Acopia with pain was the biggest factor in a participant's decision to attend the ED, along with the need for a diagnosis. This pain was the worst ever experienced and debilitating, leaving people unable to cope and desperate for relief. 12/14 were advised to attend the ED following identification of red flags by: GPs (n=9); physiotherapists (n=2); surgical colleague (n=1); and 111 (n=1). Factors such as guilt, previous experience of being disregarded, and symptom misattribution were seen to cause delays in seeking care. Conclusion. This paper revealed a disconnect between the priorities of patients and clinicians prior to attending the ED. Clinicians need to validate the pain experience, communicate clearly why signs and symptoms are concerning, and convey the urgency and potential impact of CES. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National. Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Although clinical guidelines recommend that low back pain (LBP) is best managed in primary or community care, in the UK and globally, LBP accounts for around 4% of emergency department (ED) attendances. Organising and delivering healthcare to be safe, effective, and acceptable requires hearing patients’ perspectives; this study therefore aimed to explore patients’ experiences of attending the ED for LBP. Methods and results. This was a multisite qualitative interview study with 47 adults (aged 23–79 years) who, in the past six weeks, had attended one of four UK NHS emergency departments for LBP (all types and durations). Purposive sampling was used to gain variation in the recruiting site, and LBP and demographic characteristics. Data were collected using individual, semi-structured, telephone interviews (median 45mins). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. We identified significant variation in patients’ experiences of ED care for LBP, which we argue reflects contrasting cultures of ED care. We present three cultures, emergency screening only, ‘cynicism and neglect’, and ‘kindness’; these cultures differ in how they navigate the tension between the ED remit and patients’ perceived needs of care. We draw on Bourdieu's notions of field and habitus and professional identity theory to help explain these findings. Conclusion. Our findings suggest unwarranted variation in ED care for LBP. Implications include the need for urgent access to primary and community care and clarity about best practice managing LBP in the ED; best practice guidance and strategies to implement this should be informed by notions of culture and professional identity. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Low back pain (LBP), a leading cause of chronic disability, is associated with high and disproportionate socioeconomic costs. Clinical assessment and triage via the NHS 111 service aims to reduce pressure on the urgent and emergency care system. Studies show that many attend the emergency department (ED) against advice, when they could be better managed elsewhere. The aim of this research was to explore how patients with LBP perceive and interact with NHS 111, and how this may have influenced their decision to attend ED. Methods and Results. This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional, qualitative dataset of 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) purposively sampled with LBP, who attended 1 of 4 EDs in the UK in 2021, (during the pandemic). The participants took part in online, semi-structured interviews, mean duration 45-minutes (range 23–156 minutes), within six weeks of their ED visit. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Three key themes were identified: purpose, process and performance. The themes showed mixed understanding and low awareness of the purpose of NHS 111, despite its strong triage role. Long waits for call backs however, sometimes resulted in patients attending ED, along with previous negative perspectives and experiences. Conclusion. This research suggests enhanced visibility and knowledge of NHS 111 would increase its use by people with LBP. Further exploration comparing outcomes of callers to NHS 111 with those who seek care elsewhere, could help evaluate how NHS 111 can best help people with LBP and prevent unnecessary ED attendance. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Introduction. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) are increasingly recognized as a common anatomical variant and is the most common congenital anomaly of the lumbosacral spine. Patients can have symptomatic LSTV, known as Bertolotti's Syndrome, where transitional anatomy can cause back, L5 distribution leg, hip, and groin pain. We propose an outline for diagnosis and treatment of Bertolotti's Syndrome. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed over 500 patients presenting to the primary author with low back, buttock, hip, groin and/or leg pain from April 2009 through April 2024. Patients with radiographic findings of an LSTV and clinical presentation underwent diagnostic injections to confirm diagnosis of Bertolotti's syndrome. Treatment was determined based on patient's LSTV classification. 157 patients with confirmed Bertolotti's syndrome underwent surgical treatment. Results. Over 500 patients presented with an appropriate clinical presentation and radiographic findings of an LSTV. Diagnostic injections were targeted into the transitional anatomy confirming the LSTV as the primary pain generator to make the diagnosis of Bertolotti's syndrome. The decision in the type of surgical intervention, resection or fusion, was made based on patient's LSTV anatomy. 157 patients with confirmed Bertolotti's Syndrome underwent surgical treatment (121 fusions (77%), 36 resections (23%)). The classification system and surgical outcomes, in part, have been previously published in World Neurosurgery. Conclusion. We have outlined the best practice of diagnosis and treatment selection for Bertolotti's syndrome. We have shown significant improvement in outcomes based on this method. We hope to aid in both patient education and provide an outline on how clinicians can become knowledgeable on Bertolotti's syndrome. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained

Purpose and background. Low back pain burdens individuals, society and services, including Emergency Departments (ED), straining services and prolonging wait times. Despite reported personal influences on deciding to attend ED, the role of third-party advice remains underexplored. Sparse guidance for clinicians and service-users highlights the need for effective back pain management strategies, to alleviate system pressure and optimise patient outcomes. This study explored how advice influences the decision to attend the ED for back pain. Methods and Results. From a subtle realist stance, the design was a secondary analysis of qualitative data, where 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) with back pain were purposively sampled from four EDs (2 Northern and 2 Southern) in England between August and December 2021. Eight patients had previously visited ED for this episode of back pain. As this was during the pandemic, semi-structured interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflective thematic analysis. Three themes were identified as crucial in making the decision to attend ED: The Healthcare professional; Trusted others; and the Individual. Healthcare professionals often dictated decisions, leaving participants feeling powerless. Trusted others provided varying support levels, often acting as allies. Individuals grappled with anxieties around their condition and treatment expectations. Conclusion. This study highlights the need for clinicians to provide clarity and guidance to individuals and their Trusted others, seeking advice regarding escalation to visit the ED with back pain. There was evidence that worrying about pain was a significant motivator for attending ED, resulting in malalignment with current practice guidelines. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Cauda equina syndrome (CES) leads to nerve compression in the lumbar spine, and requires immediate treatment to prevent permanent neurological dysfunction, including urinary/anorectal incontinence. The consequences for the patient are significant as, in the decade to 2018, CES has cost the NHS £186,134,049. No study has reported patients’ experiences of being managed with suspected CES in an emergency department (ED), and this study explores patients’ experiences and how the NHS can optimise care for patients experiencing this condition. Methods and Results. In this qualitative secondary analysis, 14 participants (aged 23–63 years) with suspected CES were purposively sampled from 4 EDs in England. Online, semi-structed interviews were undertaken (in 2021, during the pandemic), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a Framework approach and analysed thematically. Three themes were identified: quality of care; environmental factors; and expectations. The quality of care included managing uncertainty, the importance of communication, appropriate assessment and follow-up care. Environmental factors, including the chairs, waiting times and the busy nature of the ED, negatively impacted patients’ experiences. Furthermore, an expectation gap was identified, as most individuals came to the ED expecting to receive a scan, an accurate diagnosis and a cure. Despite frustrations, patients expressed gratitude towards the ED staff. Conclusion. This study highlights the importance of empathically acknowledging the patient's pain and providing comprehensive assessments and management plans for people attending ED with suspected CES. Optimising the ED environment to minimise patients’ pain and distress while waiting to access care is paramount and overdue. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to discover if student led clinics (SLC) are feasible delivery mechanisms for Low back pain (LBP) self-management support and to develop a service model. Background. LBP is the most commonly reported musculoskeletal disorder worldwide. The increasing service and workforce demands of LBP are challenging for providers and policy makers. self-management is appropriate for many people living with LBP yet guidance for self-management is lacking. One potential delivery mechanism is through SLC. These are ‘clinics’ run by students, supervised by clinicians. Methods and Results. A scoping review has found that SLC can be effective for supporting self-management of various long-term conditions and can provide cost benefits compared with traditional clinical services. In principle, their use for providing LBP services could have similar advantages as well as mitigating the clinical placement shortage. A further scoping review of self-management support for LBP was used to develop a model for student-led LBP clinics. The proposed model is a student led LBP supported self-management service. The service users will be triaged using the Psychosocial Flags Framework to identify obstacles to participation, followed by 1–6 sessions of self-management support comprising of; 1) empathetic listening and education to build a therapeutic relationship and to dispel LBP myths; 2) collaboratively setting meaningful goals; 3) imparting knowledge and skills to overcome the identified obstacles; 4) developing an evidence-informed plan for self-management, agreed with relevant stakeholders. Conclusion. Previous experience and the evidence-base suggest that SLC are feasible for delivering self-management support for LBP. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Purpose and Background. Patients’ engagement with self-management strategies (SMS) is key when managing low back pain (LBP) and relies on appropriate information being delivered by the treating Clinician. However, patients have differing coping mechanisms which may affect success with SMS. This study aimed to determine Patient and Physiotherapist's perceptions of coping responses and SMS in patients with LBP. Methods. Patient completed a Pain Coping strategies questionnaire, before and after LBP treatment. Semi-structured interviews gathered data from of 10 patients (6 males; and 6 physiotherapists. Questionnaire data was described descriptively, and qualitative data was transcribed/analysed thematically. Results. 5 patients were categorized as ‘active copers’ and 5 as ‘passive copers’ before treatment. SMS success appeared to be impacted by patient coping strategies they adopted. Spiritual religious coping strategies linked to cultural beliefs was a common strategy for all patients. However, the active copers were more likely to engage with active strategies compared to passive copers. All patients felt they had not received full education/details about the home exercises. One patient became an ‘active coper’ following treatment demonstrating high self-confidence to self-manage pain and accepted exercises as a lifestyle. Physiotherapists did not use a valid method for screening purposes for coping, although they referred to ascertaining this verbally and they did tailor exercises differently for passive and active copers. Conclusion. Screening for individual coping strategies would enhance targeting treatments and all patients would benefit from full exercise programmes for self- management and pain self-efficacy approaches to change patients ‘behaviour and enhance patients’ self-confidence. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The study is sponsored by Kuwait Government

Background. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) needs to be diagnosed and managed promptly to ensure the best outcome for patients. Our current spinal service has been centralised, with referrals currently delivered via an online system. This means that patients aren't seen by spinal specialists until confirmed radiological diagnosis. To ensure patient safety, we must make sure that our CES pathway is as robust as possible. Methods & Results. A Google Forms questionnaire was emailed to various health professionals involved in the CES patient journey throughout the Lancashire & South Cumbria region. Participants were asked to identify problems with our current pathway and to provide possible solutions for improvement. 64 responses were received from 5 different departments throughout 6 NHS employers: 21 (33%) consultants, 6 (9%) middle grade doctors, 31 physiotherapists (48%), 3 (5%) GPs and 3 (5%) others. Many common themes were identified: the need to improve CES education to both referrers and patients (22% responses), addressing the issue of scan availability (39% responses), the need for a clearer pathway for GPs (26% responses) among others. Participants were asked to rate their confidence in the management of both suspected (mean=7.6 +/−2.3) and diagnosed CES (mean=8.0 +/− 2.0). Discussion. These results have made it evident that there is a need for improvement to our current CES pathway at all levels. Our current system is overloaded with poor referrals that backlog the MRI scanner, leading to delays. Providing training for referrers in the first instance may improve things, however a more thorough overhaul of the pathway is required. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Background. Low back pain (LBP) is a major problem across the globe and is the leading cause worldwide of years lost to disability. Self-management is considered an important component the treatment of people with non-specific LBP. However, it seems that the self-management support for people with non-specific LBP provided by physiotherapists can be improved. Moreover, the way exercise therapists (ET) address self-management in practice is unknown. Purpose. To investigate the ideas, opinions and methods used by physiotherapists and ET with regard to self-management and providing self-management support to patients with non-specific LBP. Methods. This study was a qualitative survey. An online questionnaire with open-ended questions was developed. The survey was conducted among physiotherapists and ET working in the Netherlands. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. Results. Respondents considered self-management support an important topic in physiotherapy and exercise therapy for people with non-specific LBP. In the self-management support provided by the respondents, providing information and advice were frequently mentioned. The topics included in the support given by the respondents covered a broad range of important factors. The topics frequently focused on biomechanical factors. Therapists mainly provided patient education rather than self-management support. Moreover, important self-management skills were generally not addressed sufficiently. The majority of respondents had a need with regard to self-management or providing self-management support. These needs include having more knowledge, skills and tools aimed at facilitating self-management. Conclusion. The way physiotherapists and ET address self-management in people with non-specific LBP is not optimal and should be improved. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained. Previous publication: This work was published in a scientific journal: Hutting N, Oswald W, Staal JB, Heerkens YF. Self-management support for people with non-specific low back pain: A qualitative survey among physiotherapists and exercise therapists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020 Dec; 50:102269. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102269. This work was never presented at a conference

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care