Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of catastrophizing on treatment efficacy and outcome in patients treated for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psychological factors including catastrophizing thoughts are thought to increase the risk for chronic low back pain. The influence of catastrophizing is debated. METHODS: In September 2012, the following databases were searched: BIOSIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, OTseeker, PeDRO, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. For 50 of 706 references, full text was assessed. Results based on 11 studies were included in this analysis. RESULTS: In the 11 studies, a total of 2269 patients were included. Seven studies were of good and 4 of moderate methodological quality. Heterogeneity in study settings, treatments, outcomes, and patient populations impeded meta-analysis. Catastrophizing at baseline was predictive for disability at follow-up in 4 studies and for pain in 2 studies. Three studies found no predictive effect of catastrophizing. A mediating effect was found in all studies (n = 5) assessing the impact of a decrease in catastrophizing during treatment. A greater decrease was associated with better outcome. Most studies that investigated the moderating effects on treatment efficacy found no effect (n = 5). However, most studies did not look for a direct interaction between the treatment and catastrophizing thoughts. No study investigated the influence of catastrophizing on work-related outcomes including return to work. CONCLUSION: Catastrophizing predicted degree of pain and disability and mediated treatment efficacy in most studies. The presence of catastrophizing should be considered in patients with persisting back pain. Limited evidence was found for the moderating effects on treatment efficacy. Future research should aim to clarify the role of catastrophizing as a moderator of outcome and investigate its importance for work-related outcomes.Level of Evidence: 1.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) remains a large public health problem despite attempts to minimize its impact. Evidence- based guidelines (EBG) are well defined and their efficacy demonstrated, yet clinical adherence is inconsistent. Various explanations for non-adherence to the evidence include clinician beliefs that guidelines are incongruent with patient expectations and clinician desire to satisfy patients' request for non-guideline care. PURPOSE: This study systematically explored the low back pain literature to synthesize what is known about patient expectations of care, and investigated the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of patients with LBP regarding seeking care and how they use this information to guide their health care choices. The purpose was to explore patient perceptions on topics related to LBP including natural history, red flags, management, and attitudes about patient-clinician shared decision making. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This pilot study is a mixed methods design combining a systematic review with qualitative study design. Subjects were recruited at the New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC) Spine Center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ten adult volunteer subjects with recurrent chronic LBP seeking care from a spine specialist were recruited at the NYULMC Spine Center. OUTCOME MEASURES: Domains related to patient attitudes and beliefs, and their impact on health care consumption for managing LBP were extracted from the admissible evidence. These domains were then compared with coded and synthesized interview data to either support or refute the patient narrative. METHODS: Literature review: A systematic literature search was performed with a NYULMC clinical librarian. Two researchers systematically screened the references using pre-defined inclusion-exclusion criteria. Structured interviews: Subjects with recurrent chronic LBP were recruited for a semi structured interview developed by a multidisciplinary team of LBP experts. Themes were extracted using !

The aim of the pilot study was to evaluate a multidisciplinary program for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) at a major U.S. Navy base. In this single blinded randomized clinical trial, subjects were drawn from a larger, prospective cohort of active duty service members seeking care for NSLBP pain at a U.S. Navy Branch Medical Clinic. Outcome measures included return to work, self-reported pain, function, and psychological distress. Subjects were randomly allocated to one of two study arms: a multidisciplinary reconditioning program or the current standard of care for low back pain. The intervention lasted 4 weeks with a 12-week follow-up. Thirty-three subjects were enrolled. Subjects allocated to multidisciplinary care reported significantly lower perceived disability (p = 0.014) and less pain than those allocated to usual care at the end of the intervention period. All subjects returned to their usual duty following the conclusion of the intervention. The implementation of the intervention program was successful. Subjects in the multidisciplinary program showed a clinically significant improvement in the perception of disability compared to the usual care group. This is an important finding since perception of disability is associated with long-term functional outcome.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Musculoskeletal disorders of the spine in the US military account for the single largest proportion of the absence of sickness causes leading to early termination. We explored if selected psychological and physical factors were associated with poor outcome after episodes of low back pain (LBP). PURPOSE: To identify clinical, demographic, and psychological factors predictive of work duty status after a complaint of LBP. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical cohort of US Navy personnel treated for LBP. PATIENT SAMPLE: Eligible cases were active duty US Navy or Marine Corps personnel presenting to an emergency clinic or primary care clinic with a complaint of LBP, where the index episode of LBP was no more than 12 weeks duration before enrollment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The subject's work status (full duty, light duty, sick in quarters [SIQ], limited duty, or medically released to full duty) was abstracted from the subject's electronic medical record at approximately 4 weeks and then again 12 weeks after study enrollment. Work status in this study population is assigned by a Navy health-care provider at the time of a clinical visit and based on the health-care provider's determination of medical fitness for duty. This study collapsed work status into two groups, "full duty" (consisting of "full duty" and "medically released to full duty") and "not at full duty" (consisting of "light duty," "SIQ," and "limited duty"). METHODS: Volunteers completed a baseline questionnaire consisting of recommended well-validated measures, including attitudes and beliefs about LBP and work (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire [FABQ] and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), distress (the Pain Catastrophizing Scale), clinical depression (The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale), a numeric pain intensity scale, self-perceived disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and general health status (12-Item Short Form Health Survey). Navy health-care providers conducted a back pain-specific medical evaluation. Associations are expressed as multivariate-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) estimated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three participants were enrolled. Work status outcome was collected for 239 participants. Predictors of "not at full duty" at 4 weeks after enrollment included having back pain for 4 weeks or less before study enrollment (PR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.21-5.97) and increased FABQ Work subscale score (PR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). The sole predictor of work status at 12 weeks after enrollment was increased FABQ Physical Activity (FABQ Physical) subscale score (PR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: The findings that fear-avoidance beliefs were predictive of subsequent work status among active duty service personnel in this study population (after adjusting for clinical, demographic, and psychological covariates) suggest the clinical utility of addressing these factors during treatment of back pain episodes in the military. These findings reflect the important role that psychological factors may play in the return to work process in an active duty military population.

STUDY DESIGN.: A fully blocked experimental design using clinical vignettes to query primary care physicians on prescription for management of acute nonspecific low back pain. OBJECTIVE.: To identify how nonclinical patient factors, specifically sex, patient presentation, and socioeconomic status, influence physician treatment recommendations for assessing and treating acute nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines for nonspecific low back pain remains inconsistent. Therefore, it is important to understand what factors guide physician management of these cases. METHODS.: One vignette and questionnaire was distributed to primary care and emergency department clinical physicians during meetings at five teaching hospitals. The questionnaire asked for diagnostic and treatment recommendations including specific tests, medications, therapeutic procedures, activity, referral to other services, and patient education for the case represented in the vignette. RESULTS.: Subjects included 284 physicians and approximately 75% had less than 5 years of clinical practice experience. Multivariate logistic regression showed seven significant associations of patient factors with treatment recommendations for acute nonspecific low back pain (one sex, two socioeconomic status, and four patient presentation; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION.: All three assessed nonclinical factors influenced physician decisions regarding diagnostic and treatment recommendations for acute nonspecific low back pain. Patient presentation, suggestive of a patient's emotional state, was shown to be the most influential

Background Job stress has been associated with poor outcomes. In focus groups and small-sample surveys, physical therapists have reported high levels of job stress. Studies of job stress in physical therapy with larger samples are needed. Objective The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine the levels of psychological job demands and job control reported by physical therapists in a national sample, (2) to compare those levels with national norms, and (3) to determine whether high demands, low control, or a combination of both (job strain) increases the risk for turnover or work-related pain. Design This was a prospective cohort study with a 1-year follow-up period. METHODS:/b> Participants were randomly selected members of the American Physical Therapy Association (n=882). Exposure assessments included the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), a commonly used instrument for evaluation of the psychosocial work environment. OUTCOMES: included job turnover and work-related musculoskeletal disorders. RESULTS: /b> Compared with national averages, the physical therapists reported moderate job demands and high levels of job control. About 16% of the therapists reported changing jobs during follow-up. Risk factors for turnover included high job demands, low job control, job strain, female sex, and younger age. More than one half of the therapists reported work-related pain. Risk factors for work-related pain included low job control and job strain. Limitations The JCQ measures only limited dimensions of the psychosocial work environment. All data were self-reported and subject to associated bias. CONCLUSIONS:/b> Physical therapists' views of their work environments were positive, including moderate levels of demands and high levels of control. Those therapists with high levels of demands and low levels of control, however, were at increased risk for both turnover and work-related pain. Physical therapists should consider the psychosocial work environment, along with other factors, when choosing a job

BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) have a significant impact on physical therapists, but few studies have addressed the issue. Research is needed to determine the scope of the problem and the effects of specific risk factors. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine the 1-year incidence rate of WMSDs in physical therapists and (2) to determine the effects of specific risk factors. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Subjects were randomly selected American Physical Therapy Association members (N=882). Exposure assessment included demographic data, physical risk factors, job strain, and specific physical therapy tasks. The primary outcome was WMSDs, with a severity rating of at least 4/10 and present at least once a month or lasting longer than a week. RESULTS: The response rate to the baseline questionnaire was 67%. Ninety-three percent of the subjects who responded to the baseline questionnaire responded to the follow-up questionnaire. The 1-year incidence rate of WMSDs was 20.7%. Factors that increased the risk for WMSDs included patient transfers, patient repositioning, bent or twisted postures, joint mobilization, soft tissue work, and job strain. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation of this study was the number of therapists who had a change in their job situation during the follow-up year. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are prevalent in physical therapists. Physical therapy exposures, patient handling, and manual therapy, in particular, increase the risk for WMSDs