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 .
Mini-Intervention for Subacute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Design . R and omized controlled trial . Objectives . To investigate the effectiveness and costs of a mini-intervention , provided in addition to the usual care , and the incremental effect of a work site visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain . Summary of Background Data . There is lack of data on cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with prolonged low back pain . Methods . A total of 164 patients with subacute low back pain were r and omized to a  mini-intervention group ( A ) , a work site visit group ( B ) , or a usual care group ( C ) . Groups A ( n = 56 ) and B ( n = 51 ) underwent one assessment by a physician plus a physiotherapist . Group B received a work site visit in addition . Group C served as controls ( n = 57 ) and was treated in municipal primary health care . All patients received a leaflet on back pain . Pain , disability , specific and generic health-related quality of life , satisfaction with care , days on sick leave , and use and costs of health care consumption were measured at 3- , 6- , and 12-month follow-ups . Results . During follow-up , fewer subjects had daily pain in Groups A and B than in Group C ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.002 ; Group B vs. Group C , P = 0.030 ) . In Group A , pain was less bothersome ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.032 ) and interfered less with daily life ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.040 ) than among controls . Average days on sick leave were 19 in Group A , 28 in Group B , and 41 in Group C ( Group A vs. Group C , P = 0.019 ) . Treatment satisfaction was better in the intervention groups than among the controls , and costs were lowest in the mini-intervention group . Conclusions . Mini-intervention reduced daily back pain symptoms and sickness absence , improved adaptation to pain and patient satisfaction among patients with subacute low back pain , without increasing health care costs . A work site visit did not increase effectiveness
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 .