No abstract

Background. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) has been translated into different languages, and several studies on its measurement properties have been done.Purpose. The purpose of this review was to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties, when possible, of all language versions of the QBPDS by systematically reviewing the methodological quality and results of the available studies.Method. Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles with the key words "Quebec," "back," "pain," and "disability" in combination with a methodological search filter for finding studies on measurement properties concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of the QBPDS in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Assessment of the methodological quality was carried out by the reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for both the original language version of the QBPDS in English and French and all translated versions. The results of the measurement properties were rated based on criteria proposed by Terwee et al. Results.The search strategy resulted in identification of 1,436 publications, and 27 articles were included in the systematic review. There was limited-to-moderate evidence of good reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QBPDS for the different language versions, but for no language version was evidence available for all measurement properties. Conclusion.For research and clinical practice, caution is advised when using the QBPDS to measure disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Strong evidence is lacking on all measurement properties for each language version of the QBPDS. O ne of the leading causes of disability worldwide is low back pain (LBP). Most of the time, LBP is benign and self-limiting and can be considered as nonspecific LBP, as no specific musculoskeletal pathology is found. [1][2][3] It occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, interferes with quality of life and work performance, and is the most common reason for medical consultation. 4,5 To measure the construct of disability in patients with LBP, several self-report back-specific questionnaires have been developed. They are recommended by the World Health Organization as instruments to evaluate the efficacy of treatments. 4 Two of the most commonly investigated questionnaires are the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) 6 -10 and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI). 11-15 However, previous systematic reviews on available questionnaires to measure disability in patients with LBP indicate that the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) 16 -18 is another well-validated and often recommended questionnaire. 17,19 -21 The QBPDS also is commonly used in randomized controlled trials. 20,[22][23][24] The QBPDS (Appendix) was developed in 1995 in English and French. 16,17,25,26 Contrary to the RMDQ and ODI, the QBPDS is based on a concept...

Background: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients' physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short-(3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP.

Background Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy. Trial Registration ISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z