Reni M A van Erp1, Ivan P J Huijnen1,2, Marluuke L G Jakobs3, Jos Kleijnen4, Rob J E M Smeets1,5. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Adelante, Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. CIR Rehabilitation Location Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent systematic reviews show promising effects for multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (BPS) interventions in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Nowadays, BPS interventions have also been developed for primary care physiotherapy settings. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of primary care BPS interventions in improving functional disability, pain, and work status for patients with CLBP. Secondly, we aimed to provide an elaborated overview of BPS intervention designs, physiotherapist training programs, and process-related factors (practical implementation). METHODS: We searched in scientific databases and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care physiotherapist-led BPS interventions in adults (≥18 years) with nonspecific CLBP (≥12 weeks) were included. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 943 references; 7 RCTs were included (1,426 participants). Results show moderate-quality evidence (3 trials; 991 participants) that a BPS intervention is more effective than education/advice for reducing disability and pain in the short, medium, and long term. Low-quality evidence (4 trials; 435 participants) was found for no difference with physical activity treatments. CONCLUSIONS: BPS interventions seem more effective than education/advice and were found to be as effective as physical activity interventions in patients with CLBP. BPS interventions with a clear focus on psychosocial factors (understanding pain, unhelpful thoughts, coping styles, and goal setting) seem most promising. Sufficient delivery of BPS elements is expected when physiotherapists participate in training programs with extensive support prior and during delivery (manual, supervision, and informative resources).
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent systematic reviews show promising effects for multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (BPS) interventions in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Nowadays, BPS interventions have also been developed for primary care physiotherapy settings. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of primary care BPS interventions in improving functional disability, pain, and work status for patients with CLBP. Secondly, we aimed to provide an elaborated overview of BPS intervention designs, physiotherapist training programs, and process-related factors (practical implementation). METHODS: We searched in scientific databases and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care physiotherapist-led BPS interventions in adults (≥18 years) with nonspecific CLBP (≥12 weeks) were included. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 943 references; 7 RCTs were included (1,426 participants). Results show moderate-quality evidence (3 trials; 991 participants) that a BPS intervention is more effective than education/advice for reducing disability and pain in the short, medium, and long term. Low-quality evidence (4 trials; 435 participants) was found for no difference with physical activity treatments. CONCLUSIONS:BPS interventions seem more effective than education/advice and were found to be as effective as physical activity interventions in patients with CLBP. BPS interventions with a clear focus on psychosocial factors (understanding pain, unhelpful thoughts, coping styles, and goal setting) seem most promising. Sufficient delivery of BPS elements is expected when physiotherapists participate in training programs with extensive support prior and during delivery (manual, supervision, and informative resources).
Authors: Ester García-Martínez; Jorge Soler-González; Joan Blanco-Blanco; Francesc Rubí-Carnacea; María Masbernat-Almenara; Fran Valenzuela-Pascual Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-01-14
Authors: Hedvig Zetterberg; Ida Flink; Sören Spörndly-Nees; Sofia Wagner; Rolf Karlsten; Pernilla Åsenlöf Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Katja Ryynänen; Petteri Oura; Anna-Sofia Simula; Riikka Holopainen; Maija Paukkunen; Mikko Lausmaa; Jouko Remes; Neill Booth; Antti Malmivaara; Jaro Karppinen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 5.024