In the first systematic review , the patients ' or HCPs ' overall judgment about the likely evolution of LBP was the factor most strongly linked to poor outcome , with predictive validity similar to that of multidimensional scales .
This result may be explained by the implicit aggregation of many prognostic factors underlying this judgment and suggests the relevance of considering the patients from biopsychosocial and longitudinal points of view .
It is unlikely that any intervention focusing on a single factor would ever fit the needs of most patients ; interventions targeting determinants from several fields ( mainly psychosocial , biomechanical , and occupational ) may be more relevant .
Finally , in the third study , the prevalence of psychosocial comorbidity in chronic LBP patients was not found to be significantly higher than in other patients consulting in primary care .
Rather than specifically screening for psychosocial conditions , this suggests taking into account any potential comorbidity in patients with chronic LBP , as in other patients .
As this condition is illustrative of many situations encountered in primary care , the strategies proposed here may benefit most patients consulting in this setting
Non-specific low back pain ( LBP ) affects many people and has major socio-economic consequences .
Traditional therapeutic strategies , mainly focused on biomechanical factors , have had moderate and short-term impact .
Certain psychosocial factors have been linked to poor prognosis of LBP and they are increasingly considered as promising targets for management of LBP .
Primary health care providers ( HCPs ) are involved in most of the management of people with LBP and they are skilled in providing comprehensive care , including consideration of psychosocial dimensions .
This review aims to discuss three pieces of recent research focusing on psychosocial issues in LBP patients in primary care .
Should treatment of (sub)acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Cluster randomised clinical trial in general practice
Abstract Objective To compare the effects of a minimal intervention strategy aim ed at assessment and modification of psychosocial prognostic factors and usual care for treatment of (sub)acute low back pain in general practice . Design Cluster r and omised clinical trial . Setting 60 general practitioners in 41 general practice s. Participants 314 patients with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks ' duration , recruited by their general practitioner . Interventions In the minimal intervention strategy group the general practitioner explored the presence of psychosocial prognostic factors , discussed these factors , set specific goals for reactivation , and provided an educational booklet . The consultation took about 20 minutes . Usual care was not st and ardised . Main outcome measures Functional disability ( Rol and -Morris disability question naire ) , perceived recovery , and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6 , 13 , 26 , and 52 weeks . Results The dropout rate was 8 % in the minimal intervention strategy group and 9 % in the usual care group . Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure during 12 months of follow-up in the whole group or in relevant subgroups ( patients with high scores on psychosocial measures at baseline or a history of frequent or prolonged low back pain ) . Conclusion This study provides no evidence that ( Dutch ) general practitioners should adopt our new treatment strategy aim ed at psychosocial prognostic factors in patients with (sub)acute low back pain . Further research should examine why our new strategy was not more effective than usual care
In the first systematic review , the patients ' or HCPs ' overall judgment about the likely evolution of LBP was the factor most strongly linked to poor outcome , with predictive validity similar to that of multidimensional scales .
This result may be explained by the implicit aggregation of many prognostic factors underlying this judgment and suggests the relevance of considering the patients from biopsychosocial and longitudinal points of view .
It is unlikely that any intervention focusing on a single factor would ever fit the needs of most patients ; interventions targeting determinants from several fields ( mainly psychosocial , biomechanical , and occupational ) may be more relevant .
Finally , in the third study , the prevalence of psychosocial comorbidity in chronic LBP patients was not found to be significantly higher than in other patients consulting in primary care .
Rather than specifically screening for psychosocial conditions , this suggests taking into account any potential comorbidity in patients with chronic LBP , as in other patients .
As this condition is illustrative of many situations encountered in primary care , the strategies proposed here may benefit most patients consulting in this setting
Non-specific low back pain ( LBP ) affects many people and has major socio-economic consequences .
Traditional therapeutic strategies , mainly focused on biomechanical factors , have had moderate and short-term impact .
Certain psychosocial factors have been linked to poor prognosis of LBP and they are increasingly considered as promising targets for management of LBP .
Primary health care providers ( HCPs ) are involved in most of the management of people with LBP and they are skilled in providing comprehensive care , including consideration of psychosocial dimensions .
This review aims to discuss three pieces of recent research focusing on psychosocial issues in LBP patients in primary care .