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 .
NICE guidance on long-term sickness and incapacity.
Long-term  sickness absence and incapacity benefits ( disability pension ) rates have increased across industrialised countries . Effective measures are needed to support return to work . The recommendations of this guidance were informed by the most appropriate available evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness . Public health evidence was provided by research using a variety of study design s that attempted to determine the outcome of a particular intervention by evaluating status before and after the intervention had been effected , and was not limited to r and omised control trials . Where the evidence base was depleted or underdeveloped , expert witnesses were called to give their opinion on the best available evidence and emerging interventions . The process enabled challenge and contestability from stakeholder groups at different points as the guidance was developed . Forty-five heterogeneous studies were included in the review of interventions to reduce long-term sickness absence and transitions from short-term to long-term absence ( mainly covering the former and also mainly examining musculoskeletal conditions ) . The analysis of evidence was restricted to descriptive synthesis . Three general themes emerged from an analysis of the studies that were more likely to report positive results : early interventions ; multidisciplinary approaches ; and interventions with a workplace component . Two further review s were undertaken , one on interventions to reduce the re-occurrence of sickness absence , which identified seven studies on lower back pain , and concluded that early intervention and direct workplace input are important factors . The final evidence review focused on six studies of interventions for those in receipt of incapacity benefit . The evidence was that work-focused interviews coupled with access to tailored support are effective and cost-effective interventions . Practitioners should consider the impact of interventions and management options on work ability for patients of working age . Work ability should be considered a key outcome for future intervention studies
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 .