CRD 42014009964. [Synnott A, O'Keeffe M, Bunzli S, Dankaerts W, O'Sullivan P, O'Sullivan K (2015) Physiotherapists may stigmatise or feel unprepared to treat people with low back pain and psychosocial factors that influence recovery: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy61: 68-76].

A mix of interpersonal, clinical, and organizational factors are perceived to influence patient-therapist interactions, although research is needed to identify which of these factors actually influence patient-therapist interactions. Physical therapists' awareness of these factors could enhance patient interactions and treatment outcomes. Mechanisms to best enhance these factors in clinical practice warrant further study.

Background In contrast to best practice guidelines for knee osteoarthritis (OA), findings from several different healthcare settings have identified that nonsurgical treatments are underused and TKA is overused. Empirical evidence and qualitative observations suggest that patients’ willingness to accept nonsurgical interventions for knee OA is low. A qualitative investigation of why patients may feel that such interventions are of little value may be an important step toward increasing their use in the treatment of knee OA Questions/purposes This qualitative study was embedded in a larger study investigating patient-related factors (beliefs/attitudes toward knee OA and its treatment) and health-system related factors (access, referral pathways) known to influence patients’ decisions to seek medical care. In this paper we focus on the patient-related factors with the aim of exploring why patients may feel that nonsurgical interventions are of little value in the treatment of knee OA. Methods A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single tertiary hospital in Australia. Patients with endstage knee OA on the waiting list for TKA were approached during their preadmission appointment and invited to participate in one-to-one interviews. As prescribed by the qualitative approach, data collection and data analysis were performed in parallel and recruitment continued until the authors agreed that the themes identified would not change through interviews with subsequent participants, at which point, recruitment stopped. Thirty-seven patients were approached and 27 participated. Participants were 48% female; mean age was 67 years. Participants’ beliefs about knee OA and its treatment were identified in the interview transcripts. Beliefs were grouped into five belief dimensions: identity beliefs (what knee OA is), causal beliefs (what causes knee OA), consequence beliefs (what the consequences of knee OA are), timeline beliefs (how long knee OA lasts) and treatment beliefs (how knee OA can be controlled). Results All participants believed that their knee OA was “bone on bone” (identity beliefs) and most (> 14 participants) believed it was caused by “wear and tear” (causal beliefs). Most (> 14 participants) believed that loading the knee could further damage their “vulnerable” joint (consequence beliefs) and all believed that their pain would deteriorate over time (timeline beliefs). Many (>20 participants) believed that physiotherapy and exercise interventions would increase pain and could not replace lost knee cartilage. They preferred experimental and surgical treatments which they believed would replace lost cartilage and cure their knee pain (treatment beliefs). Conclusions Common misconceptions about knee OA appear to influence patients’ acceptance of nonsurgical, evidence-based treatments such as exercise and weight loss. Once the participants in this study had been “diagnosed” with “bone-on-bone” changes, many disregarded exercise-based interventions which they believed would damage their joint, in favor of alternative and experimental treatments, which they believed would regenerate lost knee cartilage. Future research involving larger, more representative samples are needed to understand how widespread these beliefs are and if/how they influence treatment decisions. In the meantime, clinicians seeking to encourage acceptance of nonsurgical interventions may consider exploring and targeting misconceptions that patients hold about the identity, causes, consequences, timeline, and treatment of knee OA. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Synopsis Pain-related fear is implicated in the transition from acute to chronic low back pain and the persistence of disabling low back pain, making it a key target for physical therapy intervention. The current understanding of pain-related fear is that it is a psychopathological problem, whereby people who catastrophize about the meaning of pain become trapped in a vicious cycle of avoidance behavior, pain, and disability, as recognized in the fear-avoidance model. However, there is evidence that pain-related fear can also be seen as a common-sense response to deal with low back pain, for example, when one is told that one's back is vulnerable, degenerating, or damaged. In this instance, avoidance is a common-sense response to protect a "damaged" back. While the fear-avoidance model proposes that when someone first develops low back pain, the confrontation of normal activity in the absence of catastrophizing leads to recovery, the pathway to recovery for individuals trapped in the fear-avoidance cycle is less clear. Understanding pain-related fear from a common-sense perspective enables physical therapists to offer individuals with low back pain and high fear a pathway to recovery by altering how they make sense of their pain. Drawing on a body of published work exploring the lived experience of pain-related fear in people with low back pain, this clinical commentary illustrates how Leventhal's common-sense model may assist physical therapists to understand the broader sense-making processes involved in the fear-avoidance cycle, and how they can be altered to facilitate fear reduction by applying strategies established in the behavioral medicine literature. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(9):628-636. Epub 13 Jul 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7434.

No abstract