Key Factors in Back Disability Prevention: A Consensus Panel on Their Impact and Modifiability - Back Pain Research

Key Factors in Back Disability Prevention: A Consensus Panel on Their Impact and Modifiability
April 10, 2007
The Week in Chiropractic

Study Design. Modified Delphi panel using Q-methodology.

Objective. To reach consensus on the relative impact and modifiability of factors that might prevent participation restrictions in people with back pain as defined by the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

Summary of Background Data. Back disability prevention should focus on factors with large impact that are relatively easy to change and supported by most stakeholders. An evidence-based consensus panel can provide interim direction until definitive evidence is available.

Methods. Evidence summaries for 32 factors were used by 33 researchers and stakeholders in a 3-round Delphi process to rank the factors' relative impact and modifiability. Consensus was judged as strong (>85% of panel members), moderate (50%-84%), or low (33%-49%).
Results. Most available research focused on return to work and often left unexplored other participation domains and environmental factors at home. The panel had substantial disagreements, particularly on the impact of changes to physical functioning and activities required at work. After 3 rounds, there was strong consensus that care provider reassurance had a high impact. There was moderate consensus that expectation of recovery and decreased fears had a high impact. Back supports, care provider reassurance, and patient knowledge were deemed most modifiable.

Conclusions. Until definitive evidence is available, back disability prevention interventions will likely need to address multiple factors simultaneously and emphasize efforts to improve care provider reassurance. Consensus findings may vary depending on the panel. Research on nonoccupational participation, environmental factors at home, and reasons for discordant interpretation of evidence is needed.
Guzman J, et al. Spine. April 1, 2007; Vol. 32, Iss. 7, pp. 807-815.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inclusion of information in The Week in Chiropractic does not imply endorsement from FCER nor does inclusion imply agreement with FCERÌs views.
For a complete copy of an article abstracted in "Research Review," please check your local medical or chiropractic college library. Articles may also be ordered from FCERÌs Literature Search Service at 800-743-3282.
Copyright 2007 Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research
You can reprint any part of this newsletter with the following attribution: ÏReprinted with permission of the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, The Week in Chiropractic. Subscribe for free at www.fcer.org.
FCER Members can now access the Manual and Alternative Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS) database for FREE. For more informationÛincluding Account number and Password (required for access to MANTIS)Ûplease call FCER at 800-637-6244, or send a request for information to FCER@fcer.org. Not a member? Find out how at www.FCER.org. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week in Chiropractic is a weekly e-mail newsletter published by the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, PO Box 400, 380 Wright Rd, Norwalk, IA 50211, Tele: 800-622-6309, Fax: 515-981-9427, E-mail FCER@fcer.org. Send editorial correspondence to Robin R. Merrifield, Editor, 1304 Perry Ave, Bremerton, WA 98310. E-mail: FCERedit@aol.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit FCER's web site at www.FCER.org