Skip to main content

Table 6 Summary of panel’s agreement levels concerning the patient’s beliefs/characteristics (Round 2; n = 23)

From: Musculoskeletal practitioners’ perceptions of contextual factors that may influence chronic low back pain outcomes: a modified Delphi study

Rank

Sub-set

Statement

Mean (S.D.)

[95% CIs]

Agreement levels

Panel consensus

Percentage Disagree

Patient’s beliefs and characteristics (k = 25 statements)

1

Patient’s treatment history

Reframing misinformed beliefs from previous healthcare experiences (e.g., 'my spine is crumbling', 'my spinal curve is abnormal', 'my back is worn out')

4.91 (± 0.29)

[4.79, 5.04]

91.3% Strongly Agree

8.7% Agree

Yes (100%)

0%

2

Patient’s treatment history

Actively investigating patient’s needs, feelings, preferences, and previous experiences

4.83 (± 0.39)

[4.66, 4.99]

82.6% Strongly Agree

17.4% Agree

Yes (100%)

0%

3

Patient’s treatment history

Supporting the patient in reframing negative memories (e.g., reinterpret an X-ray/scan or explain radiology reports/GP letters)

4.78 (± 0.42)

[4.60, 4.96]

78.3% Strongly Agree

21.7% Agree

Yes (100%)

0%

4.5

Reducing negative outcomes

Allocating time for patients to ask about negative aspects of treatment to address their concerns openly and honestly

4.70 (± 0.47)

[4.49, 4.90]

69.6% Strongly Agree

30.4% Agree

Yes (100%)

0%

4.5

Reducing negative outcomes

Anticipating and helping reduce patient’s anxiety about the treatment/procedure

4.70 (± 0.64)

[4.42, 4.97]

78.3% Strongly Agree

13.0% Agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

7*

Cognitive behavioural approach

Explaining routine activities, movement, or exercise can help 'rewire' perceived pain pathways (e.g., some pain or discomfort is normal but is not a sign their LBP is "worsening")

4.65 (± 0.57)

[4.40, 4.90]

69.6% Strongly Agree

26.1% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

7

Cognitive behavioural approach

Clarifying maladaptive perceptions (e.g., catastrophising: ‘My vertebrae are out of line. I stopped gardening, so I won’t end up in a wheelchair’)

4.65 (± 0.57)

[4.40, 4.90]

69.6% Strongly Agree

26.1% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

7

Cognitive behavioural approach

Developing patient’s self-confidence in performing or persisting with a new behaviour or goal

4.65 (± 0.65)

[4.37, 4.93]

73.9% Strongly Agree

17.4% Agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

10*

Patient’s treatment history

Exploring the patient’s current or pre-existing beliefs about the cause(s) of their LBP

4.61 (± 0.50)

[4.39, 4.82]

60.9% Strongly Agree

39.1% Agree

Yes (100%)

0%

10

Cognitive behavioural approach

Reframing patient’s prior misconceptions about treatment (e.g., ‘bed rest does not usually help patients recover faster but modified activity can’)

4.61 (± 0.58)

[4.36, 4.86]

65.2% Strongly Agree

30.4% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

10

Cognitive behavioural approach

Assisting in decreasing fear-avoidance and harm beliefs by recognising, confronting, and correcting them

4.61 (± 0.58)

[4.36, 4.86]

65.2% Strongly Agree

30.4% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

12.5

Cognitive behavioural approach

Helping patients plan and monitor treatment success (e.g., explain outcome measures; co-create short-term and long-term goals or target-driven stages of improvement)

4.57 (± 0.59)

[4.31, 4.82]

60.9% Strongly Agree

34.8% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

12.5

Creating positive outcomes

Communicating an intervention is likely to be effective using positive verbal instructions (e.g., 'I expect your pain will improve after treatment')

4.57 (± 0.59)

[4.31, 4.82]

60.9% Strongly Agree

34.8% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

14

Cognitive behavioural approach

Reframing patient’s prior misconceptions about their anatomy/physiology (e.g., ‘your spine is flexible not fragile’)

4.52 (± 0.67)

[4.23, 4.81]

60.9% Strongly Agree

30.4% Agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

16

Reducing negative outcomes

Reinforcing a shift in patient’s negative thoughts to positive ones (e.g., monitor outcomes to highlight progress)

4.48 (± 0.59)

[4.22, 4.73]

52.2% Strongly Agree

43.5% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

16

Creating positive outcomes

Being optimistic during treatment by providing a prognosis (e.g., 'I believe you will recover and get back to your usual level of functioning')

4.48 (± 0.67)

[4.19, 4.77]

56.5% Strongly Agree

34.8% Agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

16*

Creating positive outcomes

Instilling genuine hope in patients regarding how their life can change for the better

4.48 (± 1.08)

[4.01,4.95]

65.2% Strongly Agree

30.4% Agree

No (95.6%)

4.3% Not Valid

18*

Reducing negative outcomes

Explaining that calming their stress response is a part of everyday self-care for physical pain and healing. (n = 22)a

4.45 (± 0.91)

[4.05, 4.86]

59.1% Strongly Agree

36.4% Agree

No (95.5%)

4.5% Strongly Disagree

20*

Cognitive behavioural approach

Explaining basic pain science (i.e., perceived pain is not necessarily actual physical pain from nerve or tissue damage, but whilst very real, is more of a 'learned' response to prior experiences)

4.43 (± 0.59)

[4.18, 4.69]

47.8% Strongly Agree

47.8% Agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

20

Cognitive behavioural approach

Explaining the multi-dimensional nature (biopsychosocial aspects) of pain (i.e., beliefs, emotions, and behaviours (movement and lifestyle)) via suitable educational materials

4.43 (± 0.79)

[4.09, 4.78]

60.9% Strongly Agree

21.7% Agree

Yes (82.6%)

17.4% (unsure)

20*

Reducing negative outcomes

Using simple, everyday analogies to alter patient's negative illness perceptions (e.g., ‘rusty hinges often work well despite their appearance’)

4.43 (± 0.79)

[4.09, 4.78]

60.9% Strongly Agree

21.7% Agree

Yes (82.6%)

17.4% (unsure)

22

Reducing negative outcomes

Avoiding negative phrases (e.g., ‘wear and tear’, ‘damage’, ‘degeneration’, 'abnormal')

4.35 (± 0.71)

[4.04, 4.66]

47.8% Strongly Agree

39.1% Agree

Yes (87.0%)

13.0% (unsure)

23.5

Reducing negative outcomes

Rephrasing negative information (e.g., leg flexion test: ‘this procedure might be a bit uncomfortable but only temporarily’)

4.26 (± 0.69)

[3.96, 4.56]

39.1% Strongly Agree

47.8% Agree

Yes (87.0%)

13.0% (unsure)

23.5*

Reducing negative outcomes

Explaining imaging is usually unnecessary because scans may not explain the extent of their pain and/or dysfunction

4.26 (± 0.96)

[3.84, 4.68]

47.8% Strongly Agree

39.1% Agree

No (87.0%)

8.7% (unsure)

4.3% Strongly Disagree

25

Creating positive outcomes

Emphasising positive outcomes such as overall pain-reducing effects (e.g., ‘manual or physical therapies are often as effective as painkillers’)

4.22 (± 0.85)

[3.85, 4.59]

47.8% Strongly Agree

26.1% Agree

No (73.9%)

26.1% (unsure)

  1. If two or more statements had equal means, then fractional ranks were computed by averaging the ordinal ranks to reflect ties. For example, a rank of 4.5 indicates joint “fourth/fifth” (i.e., (4 + 5)/2 = 4.5) and three statements ranked combined “seventh” (i.e., (6 + 7 + 8)/3 = 7) and so forth
  2. *A new item suggested by a panel member during the first round
  3. aWhere n is < 23, the corresponding responses were excluded from the analysis if the response option ‘Do not recall/use’ was selected