Background. Criticisms about overuse of MRI in low back pain are well documented. Yet, with the exception of suspicion of serious pathology, little is known about factors that influence clinicians' preference for MRI. We investigated the factors associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI for patients consulting with benign low back and leg pain (LBLP) including sciatica. Methods. Data were collected from 607 primary care patients consulting with LBLP and assessed by 7 physiotherapists, in the ATLAS cohort study. Following clinical assessment, physiotherapists documented whether he/she wanted the patient to have an MRI. Factors potentially associated with clinicians' preference for imaging were selected a priori, from patient characteristics and clinical assessment findings. A mixed-effect logistic regression model examined the associations between these factors and physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Results. Physiotherapists expressed a preference for MRI in 32% (196/607) of patients, of whom 22 did not have a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (radiculopathy). Factors associated with preference for MRI included; clinical diagnosis of sciatica (OR 4.23: 95% CI 2.29,7.81), greater than 3 months pain duration (OR 2.61: 95% CI 1.58,4.30), high pain intensity (OR 1.24: 95%CI 1.11,1.37), patient's low expectation of improvement (OR 2.40: 95% 1.50,3.83), physiotherapist's confidence in the diagnosis (OR 1.19: 95% CI 1.07,1.33) with greater confidence associated with higher probability of preference for MRI. Conclusion. A clinical diagnosis of sciatica and longer symptom duration were most strongly associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Given current best practice guidelines, these appear to be justifiable reasons for wanting patients to have an MRI. Conflicts of interest: None. Funding. SE was supported through an NIHR internship linked to an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NEF (RP-01-015). NEF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. KK is supported through a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Aims. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

Purpose and background of the study. Self-management and behaviour change is at the core of back pain management. Despite the high-rate of recurrence and healthcare utilisation, clinical guidelines do not include guidance for clinicians on return consultations. This project aimed to identify primary care clinicians’ reported practices and experiences of delivering self-management advice for people returning with persistent low back pain (LBP), to inform future delivery of self-management care. Methods and Results. In this qualitative study involving 27 primary care clinicians, four focus groups and two semi-structure interviews were conducted online. GPs (n=5) and physiotherapists working in primary care roles (First contact practitioners n=7, community and interface roles n=7, and mixed roles n=8) in England and Scotland shared their experience of delivering self-management advice to people returning with persistent LBP. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Clinicians unanimously shared their frustrations identifying the challenges involved in supporting people who return with LBP. Helpful strategies to support self-management in return consultations were identified by clinicians in addition to service and system-level changes vital to optimise care. Patient-factors affecting delivery of care, lack of defined responsibility and challenges in meeting patients’ expectations illustrated the tensions that exist in return consultations. Conclusion. This novel study provides insight into the experiences and practices of the frontline primary care workforce seeing patients return with persistent or recurrent LBP. It identifies the tensions that exist between services, professional roles and between clinicians and patients regarding self-management. Important practice implications have been identified to improve information-sharing, agenda-setting, and exploring expectations. No conflicts of interest.  . Source of funding. Lisa Osborn-Jenkins is funded by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) Research & Development PhD Fellowship [GRT0723]

Purpose and background. Understanding patients’ expectations of back pain treatment can help improve their experiences, adherence and outcomes. Patients typically expect a diagnosis and exercise-based physiotherapy, but often undervalue the role of psychological factors. This study explored patients’ expectations of outpatient physiotherapy treatment for back pain in primary care. Methods and Results. The design, a secondary analysis of a qualitative cross-sectional study, involved 25 patients (13M:12F), aged 20–81, referred with low back pain (duration 7 weeks to 9 years). This sample did not include patients with serious spinal pathologies, known psychological disorders, or those unable to communicate without assistance. Face-to-face interviews were undertaken in patients’ homes, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the six stages of thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke. Patients expected a caring clinician and a strong therapeutic relationship, where they felt believed, openly communicated with and valued as an individual. Most patients expected a diagnosis and credible explanation for their pain. There was an almost equal split between those keen to take responsibility for their care and those who felt this was the clinicians’ role. Expectations of passive therapies were slightly higher in this study than existing research. Most patients were realistic about outcomes and expected treatment to reduce their pain, but not cure it. Conclusion. A positive experience mattered most to patients, valuing the relational aspects of their care more than the clinical content provided. Patients saw back pain through a biomedical lens, and most failed to recognise the role of psychosocial factors in their condition or treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis)

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)

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Background. Advanced spinal practitioner physiotherapists (ASPPs) assess and manage spinal referrals, as advocated by the National Low Back Pain Pathway in the United Kingdom. The ASPP pathway relies on multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings where potential surgically appropriate or complex cases can be discussed. Meetings were held with two different Consultant Spinal Neurosurgeons (total 2 meetings per month). The aim of this service evaluation was to assess MDT meeting outcomes and surgical listing. Methods. This retrospective service evaluation used routinely collected MDT meeting documentation between May 2019 and October 2021. Data was extracted by two ASPPs, and 20% checked by a third ASPP. Extracted data included: number of patients discussed, Consultant, reason for discussion, and outcome (surgical listing or other). Data was analysed by two ASPPs using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel and was reported using counts and percentages across month and year. Results. The majority of MDT discussions were for a surgical opinion (n=293, 25% clinician led, n=351, 30% patient led). Of these, 46% (n=135) of clinician surgical opinions were directly listed compared to 20% (n=70) of patient led discussions. Similar rates of consultant clinic review were seen between the two groups (22% and 32%), suggesting that the majority of patients discussed for surgical consideration were appropriate. 517 (45%) were discussed for management opinion. Conclusions. This evaluation demonstrates that a majority of cases (68%) identified by ASPPs for surgical opinion were either directly listed or had consultant clinic surgical review. The results and trends identified will guide future patient pathway development and ASPP training. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No sources of funding

Aims. Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. Methods. A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had ‘suspected CES’; ‘early CES’; ‘incomplete CES’; or ‘CES with urinary retention’. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss’s kappa. Results. Each of the 100 participants were rated by four medical students, five neurosurgical registrars, and four consultant spinal surgeons. No groups achieved reasonable inter-rater agreement for any of the categories. CES with retention versus all other categories had the highest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.31); minimal agreement). There was no improvement in inter-rater agreement with clinical experience. Across all categories, registrars agreed with each other most often (kappa 0.41), followed by medical students (kappa 0.39). Consultant spinal surgeons had the lowest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.17). Conclusion. Inter-rater agreement for categorizing CES is low among clinicians who regularly manage these patients. CES categories should be used with caution in clinical practice and research studies, as groups may be heterogenous and not comparable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1007–1012

This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review

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. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches. Methods and Results. We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks. Conclusion. This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. This study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Background and study purpose. A recent systematic review with meta-analysis of eight randomised controlled trials concluded that Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) for low back pain might be effective in reducing disability, pain and fear-avoidance beliefs. However, the descriptions of a CFT intervention are not always clear. This study aimed to rate the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups in the systematic review. Methods. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the study articles, protocols and appendices into Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. This checklist has 12 items to describe the ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’, ‘modifications’, and ‘how well’ for each intervention. We rated the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups as ‘reported’, ‘partially reported’ and ‘not reported’ and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Results. No studies reported 100% of the TIDieR items; the mean ‘reported’ rating was 54% (range 33–67%) for the CFT interventions and 35% (range 8–67%) for controls. The six most replicable items were the same for both CFT and control groups. These were ‘brief name’ (CFT=100%; control=100%), ‘why’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘how’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘what procedures’ (CFT=88%; control=63%), ‘where’ (CFT=88%; control=75%) and ‘planned adherence’ (CFT=75%; control=38%). Items that were not sufficiently ‘reported’ for either CFT or control groups included ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’ and ‘adherence’. Conclusion. Incomplete descriptions of CFT interventions mean that clinicians and patients cannot implement those that have demonstrated effectiveness, and poor descriptions of control groups prevent researchers from replicating them in future studies. Conflict of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained

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. Guidelines recommend biopsychosocial care for chronic, complex musculoskeletal conditions, including non-specific low back pain. The aims were: 1/ to assess how patients with low back pain respond to osteopathic treatment, both before and after an osteopath has completed a Biopsychosocial Pain Management (BPM) course; and 2/ to assess if it is feasible and acceptable for osteopath participants to receive weekly SCED data and use it to guide patient management. Methods and Results. A multiple baseline single case experimental design trial (. clinicaltrials.gov. , on 18/10/2021, ID number NCT05120921) with 11 UK osteopaths was conducted. Patients were randomised to early, middle or late treatment start dates. Statistical analysis assessed the change between baseline, intervention and follow-up periods. Primary outcomes were the Numeric Pain Rating (NPR) and Patient Specific Function Scales (PSFS), measured during the baseline, the 6-week intervention, and during a 12-week follow-up period. At baseline, the osteopaths reported stronger biopsychosocial attitudes to pain, compared to biomedical beliefs (PABS: 34 behavioural scale; 29 biomedical scale). Overall, patient participants showed daily increases in symptoms during the pre-treatment phase (+0.24/day, p<0.001), and daily decreases during treatment (−2.94 over the treatment phase, p<0.001), which continued post-treatment (−3.36 over 12 weeks, p=0.04). Similar improvements were observed for function. Conclusion. Osteopathic care was shown to help patients with persistent low back pain. Patient recruitment was challenging because of the randomisation. With further development, the method shows feasibility as a means of enhancing research activity among practising clinicians. Previous presentations or publications of the work. The protocol was published (. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2023.100660. ) and presented at SBPR in 2022. The results were presented to an osteopathic conference in October 2023. Ethics approval was received from the University College of Osteopathy Research Ethics Committee. Conflicts of interests. Jerry Draper-Rodi receives fees from the sales of the e-learning course on the biopsychosocial management on the UCO CPD platform. Sources of funding. The research was funded by the Osteopathic Foundation

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

Purpose and background. Back pain guidelines endorse giving advice to enable people to self-manage and continue normal activities. Little is known however, about the content of advice that clinicians give and this project aimed to identify the advice given by physiotherapists to patients with back pain at their initial consultation. Patients and methods. Twenty-five audio-recordings of patients with back pain and physiotherapists in a primary care outpatient department were collected, transcribed, coded and thematically analysed using a Framework approach to identify the content of advice given. Results. The mean duration of consultation was 38 minutes 59 seconds (range 26:21–53:16). Advice was given in 88% (n=22/25) consultations and 96% included additional exercise instruction. Cognitive reassurance was evident, focussing on getting people confident to ‘move your back’ despite pain and encouraging active lifestyle changes. Beyond reassurance and discussion to enhance confidence, the key topics of advice given were: activity promotion; postural changes; practical self-help advice regarding ways to sit; pain-management advice including medication and the use of heat. Gaps were identified in the completeness of the advice given and there was a lack of specificity, especially relating to the frequency of recommended tasks and activities. Conclusion. Advice and reassurance are integral to enabling people to self-manage their back pain. Despite its importance, little is known about the advice offered by clinicians. This novel, observational study identifies the topics of advice given by clinicians in back pain consultations and recognises the need for guidance to be patient-centred and specific. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The data were collected as part of Lisa Roberts's Arthritis Research UK academic fellowship [17830]. Lisa Roberts currently holds an NIHR senior clinical lectureship (round 3)

Background. Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual, health care and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) is investigating whether stratified primary care for sciatica is more effective and cost-effective than usual, non-stratified primary care. Stratified care involves subgrouping patients to one of three groups based on a combination of prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one of these groups are ‘fast-tracked’ with an MRI scan to spinal specialist opinion. Our aim was to understand the perspectives of clinicians on the acceptability of this ‘fast-track’ pathway. Methods. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists and spinal surgeons (n=20 in total). Interviews were fully transcribed, and data were analysed using the constant comparison method. Results. Across all groups, clinicians identified potential added value in ‘fast-tracking’ some sciatica patients in terms of patient reassurance based on MRI scan findings. Whilst spinal physiotherapists felt that most ‘fast track’ patients were appropriate, some spinal physiotherapists and GPs had concerns that patients with symptom durations of less than 6 weeks might be inappropriately fast-tracked since their symptoms may still resolve without the need for invasive treatments. Spinal surgeons felt it was acceptable for patients with short symptom durations to be ‘fast-tracked’, but to provide early reassurance rather than direct treatment. Conclusion. Whilst clinicians saw added value in a group of sciatica patients being ‘fast-tracked’ to specialist opinion, there was some reservation about moving away from the usual stepped care, ‘wait and see’ approach for patients with short symptom duration. Conflicts of interest statement. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Funding support is also received from an NIHR Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015), who is an NIHR Senior Investigator, and a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award for Kika Konstantinou. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. The study was approved by the NRES Committee West Midlands – Solihull, 17/03/2015, ref: 15/WM/0078. Trial registration: ISRCTN75449581

Purpose:. To explore clinicians' perceptions of empathy during musculoskeletal clinical consultations. Background:. Empathy is considered essential to creating a positive experience within healthcare for both the patient and clinician, improving adherence, creating trust and improving patient experience. However, little is known about how clinicians acquire and display empathic communication skills during musculoskeletal consultations. Methods:. In this qualitative study, 11 physiotherapists and 6 students participated in three focus groups, separated by clinical grade. The definition of empathy, its acquisition and impact on clinical practice were discussed, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed. Data were managed using a Framework approach, and key themes identified. Results:. The data from 17 participants comprised 149 minutes of audio recording. Six key themes and 48 sub-themes were identified. Empathy was considered a key component of communication and similarly defined in all three focus groups; however divergence surrounded how it is acquired, the extent it can be taught and whether a clinician's personality influences their career pathway. Experienced clinicians highlighted greater importance and impact of empathic communication in practice than novices, whilst novices considered a lack of time a key barrier in preventing empathic communication. Discussion:. There is a mismatch between the importance attributed to empathic communication in the literature and by clinicians, compared with the time and energy spent acquiring and developing these skills. Conclusion:. Displaying genuine empathy is considered essential to building rapport and optimising non-specific treatment effects in clinical practice, however clinicians need greater awareness and engagement to further these skills for patient benefit