No abstract

Sensitization of the nervous system can present as pain hypersensitivity that may contribute to clinical pain. In spinal pain, however, the relationship between sensory hypersensitivity and clinical pain remains unclear. This systematic review examined the relationship between pain sensitivity measured via quantitative sensory testing (QST) and self-reported pain or pain-related disability in people with spinal pain. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched. Correlation coefficients for the relationship between QST and pain intensity or disability were pooled using random effects models. Subgroup analyses and mixed effects meta-regression were used to assess whether the strength of the relationship was moderated by variables related to the QST method or pain condition. One hundred and forty-five effect sizes from 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates for the correlation between pain threshold and pain intensity were -0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.18 to -0.11) and for disability -0.16 (95% CI: -0.22 to -0.10). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression did not provide evidence that these relationships were moderated by the QST testing site (primary pain/remote), pain condition (back/neck pain), pain type (acute/chronic), or type of pain induction stimulus (eg, mechanical/thermal). Fair correlations were found for the relationship between pain intensity and thermal temporal summation (0.26, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.42) or pain tolerance (-0.30, 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.13), but only a few studies were available. Our study indicates either that pain threshold is a poor marker of central sensitization or that sensitization does not play a major role in patients' reporting of pain and disability. Future research prospects are discussed.

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is prevalent, costly and disabling. A biopsychosocial treatment approach involving physical and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended for those with chronic LBP. It is not known if online psychological coaching tools might have a role in the secondary prevention of LBP related disability. To assess the effectiveness of an internet-delivered psychological program (MoodGYM) in addition to standard physical treatment in patients with chronic non-specific LBP at medium risk of ongoing disability.MethodsA multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted with 108 participants (aged mean 50.4 ± 13.6 years) with chronic LBP attending one of six private physiotherapy or chiropractic clinics. Disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and self-efficacy (Patient Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), were assessed at baseline, post-treatment (8-weeks) with follow-up at six- and twelve-months. Participants were randomized into either the intervention group, MoodGYM plus physical treatments, or the control group which received physical treatments alone.ResultsNo statistically significant between group differences were observed for either disability at post-treatment (Effect size (standardised mean difference) 95% CI) RMD − 0.06 (− 0.45,0.31), 6-months RMD 0.01 (− 0.38,0.39) and 12-months − 0.20 (− 0.62,0.17) or self-efficacy at post-treatment PSEQ 0.06 (− 0.31,0.45), 6-months 0.02 (− 0.36,0.41) and 12-months 0.21 (− 0.16,0.63).ConclusionThere was no additional benefit of an internet-delivered CBT program (MoodGYM) to physical treatments in those with chronic non-specific LBP at medium risk of ongoing disability measured at post-treatment, or at 6 and 12 months.Trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN) 12615000269538.

No abstract

Background: Although challenging to integrate within university curricula, evidence suggests that interprofessional education (IPE) positively impacts communication and teamwork skills in the workplace. The nature of Team-based learning (TBL) lends itself to interprofessional education, with the capacity to foster a culture of collaboration among health professional students. Our study was designed to pilot an interprofessional 'back pain' TBL module for physiotherapy and medical students, and to explore their experience of the TBL process, using the conceptual framework of 'knowledge reconsolidation' to discuss our finding. Methods: Three hundred and eleven students participated in the TBL session: 222/277 (80%) of Year 1 medical students and 89/89 (100%) of Year 2 physiotherapy students. Students completed one interprofessional Musculoskeletal Sciences TBL session on the topic of 'back pain'. A questionnaire including closed and open-ended items, was distributed to students immediately following completion of the TBL session. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to code and categorise qualitative data into themes. Pre-class quiz scores were compared between the groups using a one-way between groups Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with Tukeys Post Hoc test. Results: In total, 117/311 (38%) of participants completed the questionnaire. Both medicine and physiotherapy students appreciated the opportunity to learn about the curriculum of another healthcare discipline, and their scope of practice; gain multiple perspectives on a patient case from different disciplines; and recognised the importance of multidisciplinary teams in patient care. Students felt having an interprofessional team of facilitators who provided immediate feedback helped to consolidate student learning and promoted clinical reasoning. An analysis of variance revealed no difference between Physiotherapy and Medical students' pre-class quiz scores. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the small group and task-focused characteristics of TBL provided a studentcentred teaching strategy to support the achievement of interprofessional learning goals. Students valued their interactions with other students from a different professional degree, the opportunity to problem solve together, and learn different perspectives on a patient case. The pre-class quiz results demonstrate that both groups of students had a comparative level of prior knowledge to be able to work together on the in-class activities.