Current and Future Perspectives on Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: a UK survey exploring specialist multidisciplinary clinical opinion.
Author(s)
Deane, JA
Mcgregor, A
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objectives: Despite lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) being significantly associated
with non-specific low back pain and effective treatment remaining elusive, specialist
multidisciplinary clinical stakeholder opinion remains unexplored. The present study
examines the views of such experts.
Design: A reliable and valid electronic survey was designed to establish trends using
theoretical constructs relating to current assessment and management practices. Clinicians
from the Society of Back Pain Research (SBPR) U.K. were invited to take part. Quantitative
data was collated and coded using Bristol On-line Surveys (BOS) software, and content
analysis used to systematically code and categorise qualitative data.
Setting: Specialist multidisciplinary spinal interest group in the U.K.
Participants: 38/141 clinically active, multidisciplinary SBPR members with specialist
spinal interest participated. 84% had greater than 9 years postgraduate clinical experience.
Interventions: None
Outcome Measures: Frequency distributions were used to establish general trends in
quantitative data. Qualitative responses were coded and categorised in relation to each theme
and percentage responses calculated.
Results: LDDD symptom recurrence, in the absence of psychosocial influence, was
associated with physical signs of joint stiffness (26%), weakness (17%), joint hypermobility
(6%), while physical factors (21%) and the ability to adapt (11%) were postulated as reasons
why some experience pain and others do not. No one management strategy was supported
exclusively or with consensus. Regarding effective modalities, there was no significant
difference between AHP and Medic responses (p= 0.1-0.9). The future of LDDD care was
expressed in terms of improvements in patient communication (35%), patient education
(38%) and treatment stratification (24%).
with non-specific low back pain and effective treatment remaining elusive, specialist
multidisciplinary clinical stakeholder opinion remains unexplored. The present study
examines the views of such experts.
Design: A reliable and valid electronic survey was designed to establish trends using
theoretical constructs relating to current assessment and management practices. Clinicians
from the Society of Back Pain Research (SBPR) U.K. were invited to take part. Quantitative
data was collated and coded using Bristol On-line Surveys (BOS) software, and content
analysis used to systematically code and categorise qualitative data.
Setting: Specialist multidisciplinary spinal interest group in the U.K.
Participants: 38/141 clinically active, multidisciplinary SBPR members with specialist
spinal interest participated. 84% had greater than 9 years postgraduate clinical experience.
Interventions: None
Outcome Measures: Frequency distributions were used to establish general trends in
quantitative data. Qualitative responses were coded and categorised in relation to each theme
and percentage responses calculated.
Results: LDDD symptom recurrence, in the absence of psychosocial influence, was
associated with physical signs of joint stiffness (26%), weakness (17%), joint hypermobility
(6%), while physical factors (21%) and the ability to adapt (11%) were postulated as reasons
why some experience pain and others do not. No one management strategy was supported
exclusively or with consensus. Regarding effective modalities, there was no significant
difference between AHP and Medic responses (p= 0.1-0.9). The future of LDDD care was
expressed in terms of improvements in patient communication (35%), patient education
(38%) and treatment stratification (24%).
Date Issued
2016-09-15
Date Acceptance
2016-07-14
Citation
BMJ Open, 2016, 6
ISSN
2044-6055
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Open
Volume
6
Copyright Statement
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License URL
Sponsor
Arthritis Research UK
Arthritis Research UK
Grant Number
20172
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
e011075