Although various measures of low back pain (LBP) recurrence have been proposed, none have been tested to determine if they are consistent with what those with LBP perceive a "recurrence" to be. To further the understanding of LBP recurrence and how to measure it, we examined how individuals with a history of LBP describe their back pain experiences. A qualitative approach was chosen and six mixed-gender focus groups were conducted. Discussions were facilitated by two researchers and structured around predetermined questions. All four authors were involved in the data analysis and thematic congruence was achieved through an iterative process of coding and discussion. Participants included 31 individuals (14 female, 17 male), with ages ranging from early 20s to mid 70s. When asked about LBP recurrence, participants had difficulty understanding the concept. There was a sense that, although the pain may disappear, the condition was always there. Three states were defined: "normal," "flared-up," and "attack." "Normal" could include experiencing pain, but generally represented a tolerable state. "Flared-up" was associated with increased pain, the use of strategies to overcome difficulties, and modified participation. "Attack" state was described as severely disabled: "I just have to lay there." Participants described their experiences in a way that is consistent with the idea that LBP is a fluctuating and disabling health condition. Results cast doubt on the validity of currently available measures of LBP recurrence. Focusing on recurrence of pain without consideration of broader contextual factors will result in an incomplete understanding of the meaning of the pain experience.

IntroductionCentralized intake is integral to healthcare systems to support timely access to appropriate health services. The aim of this study was to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate centralized intake systems for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsPhase 1 involved stakeholder meetings including healthcare providers, managers, researchers and patients to obtain input on candidate KPIs, aligned along six quality dimensions: appropriateness, accessibility, acceptability, efficiency, effectiveness, and safety. Phase 2 involved literature reviews to ensure KPIs were based on best practices and harmonized with existing measures. Phase 3 involved a three-round, online modified Delphi panel to finalize the KPIs. The panel consisted of two rounds of rating and a round of online and in-person discussions. KPIs rated as valid and important (≥7 on a 9-point Likert scale) were included in the final set.ResultsTwenty-five KPIs identified and substantiated during Phases 1 and 2 were submitted to 27 panellists including healthcare providers, managers, researchers, and patients in Phase 3. After the in-person meeting, three KPIs were removed and six were suggested. The final set includes 9 OA KPIs, 10 RA KPIs and 9 relating to centralized intake processes for both conditions. All 28 KPIs were rated as valid and important.ConclusionsArthritis stakeholders have proposed 28 KPIs that should be used in quality improvement efforts when evaluating centralized intake for OA and RA. The KPIs measure five of the six dimensions of quality and are relevant to patients, practitioners and health systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0843-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The overall injury incidence in MMA competitors appears slightly higher than for boxers, but MMA fighters experience more minor contusion/bruising injuries. Boxers are more likely to experience serious injury such as concussion/head trauma involving loss of consciousness or eye injury such as retinal detachment.