1. 2022;25;E597-E607Concordance of Patient Expectations Regarding Guideline Recommendations for Management of Psychosocial Factors in Low Back Pain: A Cross-sectional Study
   Cross-Sectional Study
   Simone Kiel, PhD, Elizabeth Sierocinski, MD, Christina Raus, BSc, Peggy Knauthe, PhD, and Jean-Francois Chenot, MD, PhD.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for low back pain (LBP) management recommend addressing psychosocial risk factors such as stress and depression, which have been shown to play a prognostic role in nonspecific LBP. LBP management has been found to diverge from published recommendations. The reasons why remain unclear and may be related to patient views and expectations regarding the causes and treatment of LBP.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the degree to which patient views regarding psychosocial factors coincided with core recommendations and statements of the German national guideline for nonspecific LBP, as well as factors affecting those views.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: Data were gathered from June 2018 through September 2018 in 13 general practices in Mecklenburg-Wets Pomerania, Germany.

METHODS: Practice staff approached all patients entering the practice, regardless of the reason for consultation, during 3 consecutive days and offered study participation. After providing informed consent, patients received a questionnaire to complete prior to consultation. Nonresponse bias was addressed by using inverse probability weights. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were performed.

RESULTS: A total of 977 patient questionnaires were included in the analysis. One-third to one-half of the patients disagreed and one-third agreed that psychological problems and their treatment play a role in LBP management. A significant proportion (13-25%) was undecided. However, relaxation techniques were well accepted. Patients with higher education levels, poorer health status, and more severe LBP but no pain medication in the last 12 months were more likely to expect psychosocial diagnostics and treatment and regarded relaxation techniques as potentially helpful. More severe pain and lower levels of education were associated with disagreement with guideline recommendations and statements regarding management of psychosocial factors.

LIMITATIONS: Recall bias is possible, as patients were asked to recall their LBP history. However, we limited the recall time to the last 12 months. Data on income, employment status and co-morbidities were not collected and may have affected the responses. However, educational status, health status, and age were collected.

CONCLUSION: A significant portion of patients did not agree that psychosocial aspects should be addressed in LBP. Pain severity, health status, level of education, and previous treatment experience appear to affect patient views. These results highlight the importance of careful patient counseling regarding psychosocial factors and screening for psychosocial problems in LBP, when indicated. Additionally, educational initiatives may help bring patient expectations into agreement with recommendations.

KEY WORDS: Low back pain, psychosocial treatment, distress, relaxation techniques, national disease management guideline for nonspecific low back pain, low back pain management, patient expectation, agreement with guideline recommendations