The (cost-)effectiveness of combined lifestyle interventions for people with persistent low-back pain who are overweight or obese: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Lifestyle factors are expected to contribute to the persistence and burden of low-back pain (LBP). However, there are no systematic reviews on the (cost-)effectiveness of combined lifestyle interventions for overweight or obese people with LBP. AIM: To assess whether combined lifestyle interventions are (cost-)effective for people with persistent LBP who are overweight or obese, based on a systematic review. DESIGN: Systematic review METHOD: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Wiley/Cochrane Library were searched from database inception till January 6th 2023. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data-extraction and risk of bias scoring using the Cochrane RoB tool 2 and/or the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. GRADE was used to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: In total 2510 records were screened, and 4 studies on 3 original RCTs with 216 participants were included. Low certainty evidence (1 study) showed that combined lifestyle interventions were not superior to usual care for physical functioning, pain and lifestyle outcomes. Compared to usual care, moderate certainty evidence showed that healthcare (-$292, 95%CI: 872; -33), medication (-$30, 95% CI -65; -4) and absenteeism costs (-$1000, 95%CI: 3573; -210) were lower for the combined lifestyle interventions. CONCLUSION: There is low certainty evidence from 3 studies with predominantly small sample sizes, short follow-up and low intervention adherence that combined lifestyle interventions are not superior to physical functioning, pain and lifestyle outcomes compared to usual care, but are likely to be cost-effective.

The Dutch Multidisciplinary Occupational Health Guideline to Enhance Work Participation Among Low Back Pain and Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome Patients.

Purpose Based on current scientific evidence and best practice, the first Dutch multidisciplinary practice guideline for occupational health professionals was developed to stimulate prevention and enhance work participation in patients with low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS). Methods A multidisciplinary working group with health care professionals, a patient representative and researchers developed the recommendations after systematic review of evidence about (1) Risk factors, (2) Prevention, (3) Prognostic factors and (4) Interventions. Certainty of the evidence was rated with GRADE and the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to formulate recommendations. High or moderate certainty resulted in a recommendation "to advise", low to very low in a recommendation "to consider", unless other factors in the framework decided differently. Results An inventory of risk factors should be considered and an assessment of prognostic factors is advised. For prevention, physical exercises and education are advised, besides application of the evidence-based practical guidelines "lifting" and "whole body vibration". The stepped-care approach to enhance work participation starts with the advice to stay active, facilitated by informing the worker, reducing workload, an action plan and a time-contingent increase of work participation for a defined amount of hours and tasks. If work participation has not improved within 6 weeks, additional treatments should be considered based on the present risk and prognostic factors: (1) physiotherapy or exercise therapy; (2) an intensive workplace-oriented program; or (3) cognitive behavioural therapy. After 12 weeks, multi-disciplinary (occupational) rehabilitation therapy need to be considered. Conclusions Based on systematic reviews and expert consensus, the good practice recommendations in this guideline focus on enhancing work participation among workers with LBP and LRS using a stepped-care approach to complement existing guidelines focusing on recovery and daily functioning.

Discontinuation of the PACE Plus trial: problems in patient recruitment in general practice.

BACKGROUND: The PACE Plus trial was a multi-center, double-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in patients from Dutch general practice to investigate the efficacy of paracetamol and NSAIDs in acute non-specific low back pain (LBP). Because insufficient numbers of patients could be recruited (only four out of the required 800 patients could be recruited over a period of 6 months), the trial was prematurely terminated in February 2017, 6 months after the start of recruitment. This article aims to transparently communicate the discontinuation of PACE Plus and to make recommendations for future studies. METHODS: General Practitioners (GPs) from 36 participating practices received a one-question survey in which they were asked to give the three most important factors that in their opinion contributed to failure of patient recruitment. RESULTS: GPs of 33 out of 36 (92%) participating practices sent a response. A total of 81 factors were reported. These have been categorized into patient factors (26 out of 81 comments, 32%), GP factors (39 out of 81 comments, 48%) and research factors (16 out of 81 comments, 20%). DISCUSSION: Patient recruitment in the PACE Plus trial may have failed due to inefficient medication distribution, recruitment of incident rather than prevalent cases, a design that was too complicated, adequate self-management of LBP, patient expectations different from the trial's scope and lack of time of participating GPs. Substantial differences in design may explain why the preceding PACE trial did manage to successfully complete patient recruitment. CONCLUSION: Although the PACE Plus trial was terminated as a result of insufficient patient inclusion, the research questions addressed in this trial remain relevant but unanswered. We hope that lessons learned from the discontinuation of PACE Plus and corresponding recommendations may be helpful in the design of upcoming research projects in LBP in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089, registered September 14th 2016.

Efficacy of paracetamol, diclofenac and advice for acute low back pain in general practice: design of a randomized controlled trial (PACE Plus).

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is common and associated with a considerable burden to patients and society. There is uncertainty regarding the relative benefit of paracetamol and diclofenac and regarding the additional effect of pain medication compared with advice only in patients with acute low back pain. This trial will assess the effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. Furthermore, this trial will assess the additional effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo compared with advice only for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. METHODS: The PACE Plus trial is a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care, with a follow-up of 12 weeks. Patients with acute low back pain aged 18-60 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients are randomized into four groups: 1) Advice only (usual care conforming with the clinical guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners); 2) Advice and paracetamol; 3) Advice and diclofenac; 4) Advice and placebo. The primary outcome is low back pain intensity measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10). Secondary outcomes include compliance to treatment, disability, perceived recovery, costs, adverse reactions, satisfaction, sleep quality, co-interventions and adequacy of blinding. Between group differences for low back pain intensity will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. An economic evaluation will be performed using a cost-effectiveness analysis with low back pain intensity and a cost-utility analysis with quality of life. Explorative analyses will be performed to assess effect modification by predefined variables. Ethical approval has been granted. Trial results will be released to an appropriate peer-viewed journal. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the design of the PACE Plus trial: a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care that will assess the effectiveness of advice only, paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089 , registered September 14th, 2016. PROTOCOL: Version 4, June 2016.

Development of the Psychiatric Nursing Intervention Providing Structure: An International Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric nurses commonly refer to "providing structure" (PS) as a key intervention. But no consensus exists about what PS entails. PS can be understood as a complex intervention. In four previous studies, a definition, activities, and context variables were described that were presented to experts in a Delphi study. OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus about the definition of PS, its activities, and context variables. DESIGN: In a qualitative study, a Delphi study is used to gather the opinions of experts. The Delphi study consisted of three rounds with statements to score in each round. RESULTS: Experts reached consensus about a definition of PS, its activities, and context variables. Eleven statements related to the definition were accepted. Fourteen statements of a total of 17 statements related to the specific activities reached sufficient agreement, and 4 statements related to context variables were accepted. CONCLUSIONS: A definition could be given of PS with 4 general PS activities, 15 specific activities, and 3 context variables. Psychiatric nurses can use the information about PS to reflect on the use of PS activities within their own working environment, and these insights can help nurses develop their professional growth.

An Interview Study on "Providing Structure" as an Intervention in Psychiatric Inpatient Care: The Nursing Perspective.

PURPOSE: To gain insight into nurses' perceptions and use of providing structure (PS) as an intervention during psychiatric inpatient care. DESIGN AND METHODS: Interviews were conducted with nurses (n = 18) from two inpatient wards in psychiatry immediately following the occurrence of a PS event. This was done immediately following the occurrence of a PS event. Transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative coding process. FINDINGS: Four general and 14 specific PS activities were described associated with the nursing intervention PS. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Nurses can now refer to specific activities of PS. An elaborated definition of PS is provided to facilitate a better understanding and using of PS as a psychiatric nursing intervention.

Joint position sense error in people with neck pain: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several studies in recent decades have examined the relationship between proprioceptive deficits and neck pain. However, there is no uniform conclusion on the relationship between the two. Clinically, proprioception is evaluated using the Joint Position Sense Error (JPSE), which reflects a person's ability to accurately return his head to a predefined target after a cervical movement. OBJECTIVES: We focused to differentiate between JPSE in people with neck pain compared to healthy controls. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. METHOD: Our data sources were Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and Pubmed Publisher. To be included, studies had to compare JPSE of the neck (O) in people with neck pain (P) with JPSE of the neck in healthy controls (C). RESULTS/FINDINGS: Fourteen studies were included. Four studies reported that participants with traumatic neck pain had a significantly higher JPSE than healthy controls. Of the eight studies involving people with non-traumatic neck pain, four reported significant differences between the groups. The JPSE did not vary between neck-pain groups. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature shows the JPSE to be a relevant measure when it is used correctly. All studies which calculated the JPSE over at least six trials showed a significantly increased JPSE in the neck pain group. This strongly suggests that 'number of repetitions' is a major element in correctly performing the JPSE test.

The patient's perspective on "providing structure" in psychiatric inpatient care: an interview study.

PURPOSE: To gain insight into the patients' experiences on providing structure (PS) as a nursing intervention during psychiatric inpatient care. DESIGN AND METHOD: Interviews were conducted with patients (n = 17) from two inpatient wards within a mental healthcare organization. For data analysis, a qualitative coding process was followed. FINDINGS: The patients' expectations for PS were described. One expectation seemed to reflect key concern: the need to maintain autonomy. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The study reveals the patients' views about PS. When the importance of PS is mentioned, nurses can refer to our description of PS. We were able to further stipulate the required activities of PS and provide for an adapted definition of PS.

An observational study of providing structure as a psychiatric nursing intervention.

PURPOSE: To observe the actions of psychiatric nurses when providing structure and identify results in order to better understand providing structure as a complex nursing intervention. DESIGN AND METHOD: Participant observation data were collected on a dual diagnosis ward and a crisis intervention ward in a mental healthcare organization. A total of 52 events were selected that involved providing structure. FINDINGS: Three phases in the processing of providing structure were identified: the start of the interaction, the interaction phase, and the end of the interaction. For each phase in the intervention, both critical nurse and patient responses were coded. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this observational study contribute to a formalization of the nursing intervention "providing structure" in the Nursing Interventions Classification.

"Providing structure" as a psychiatric nursing intervention: a review of the literature.

PURPOSE: The focus is on a nursing intervention called "providing structure" (PS). This label does not exist in the Nursing Interventions Classification. The following three questions were asked: (a) How is PS defined? (b) What are the goals of PS? and (c) What is the evidence regarding the effectiveness of PS? DESIGN AND METHOD: A systematic literature review. Forty articles, predominantly qualitative studies of PS, were selected for review. FINDINGS: Regarding PS, three elements were mentioned: to impose and maintain rules and limits; to assess the condition of the patient; and to interact with the patient. The goals for PS related to patient security, making expectations explicit, and recovering from illness. Major findings were reviewed, but little was found about the effectiveness of PS.

Setting the agenda: does the medical literature set the agenda for articles about medicines in the newspapers?

The source of ideas and information on medicines most important to journalists in the Netherlands, and most commonly consulted by them, is known to be the scientific medical literature. In this study we therefore, explored the relation between the kind of medicines discussed in the scientific medical literature and those discussed in newspapers. A content analysis of scientific medical journals was combined with a content analysis of Dutch daily newspapers. The results show an agreement in the main groups of medicines discussed in the scientific medical literature and newspapers. In both the newspapers and the professional journals anti-infective medication and drugs for the central nervous system are the groups of medicines most frequently discussed. Although it has been suggested that 'bad news' is more newsworthy then 'good news', the negative consequences of the use of medicines received proportionally more attention in the professional literature than in the newspapers.