Tianyu Zhou

This study examined differences in perspectives and perceptual gaps in the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) between healthcare professionals-general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists-and people with CLBP in United Kingdom primary care. A cross-sectional online survey was completed by 32 GPs, 53 physiotherapists, and 138 people with CLBP. Closed- and open-ended questions assessed management strategies, perceived effectiveness, treatment goals, and alignment of perspectives. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative responses through content analysis. GPs most frequently recommended exercise (87.5%), analgesics (84.4%), and referral to physiotherapy (62.5%). Physiotherapists emphasised exercise (98%), pain education (73.6%), and active lifestyle advice (47.2%). Both groups prioritised active management, while patients most often reported analgesic use (44.9%) and passive treatments such as manual therapy (12.3%) and electrotherapy (12.3%). Regarding treatment goals, GPs and physiotherapists prioritised functional improvement, pain reduction, mental health, daily activity, and quality of life (all ≥80%), reflecting a biopsychosocial approach. Patients, however, focused mainly on pain relief (52.2%) and return to activity (33.3%), underscoring expectation gaps. While GPs and physiotherapists generally follow guideline-recommended, active strategies for CLBP, substantial differences remain between clinician recommendations and patient-reported practices and goals. Addressing these gaps requires enhanced communication, shared decision-making, and more person-centred care.

Objectives The aim of this study was to gather insights from a diverse group of stakeholders, identify existing challenges and explore associated solutions to develop a conceptual framework that assists in the development of a chronic low back pain (CLBP) self-management app. Design Codesign workshop methodology. Setting The study was conducted online, allowing for the participation of a diverse group of stakeholders. Participants Participants were recruited through social media platforms and professional networks, including individuals with LBP for at least 3 months, healthcare professionals experienced in CLBP management and app developers with a background in digital health applications. Interventions The study used codesign workshops focused on brainstorming, communication and reflection exercises designed to foster collaboration and gather insights from stakeholders. Outcome measures Identification of key challenges and potential solutions for mobile health (mHealth) apps targeting CLBP. Results Nine stakeholders identified four primary challenges in current back pain apps: belief and trust, motivation, safety and usability. The group also collaboratively developed and proposed practical solutions to these challenges. Conclusions This study illustrated the utility of the codesign workshop approach in generating critical insights for the development of a mHealth solution for CLBP. The insights gathered from these workshops can be used to inform future app development, potentially improving user engagement.

Purpose and Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches.Methods and Results: We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks.Conclusion: This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach.Conflicts of interest: NoneSources of funding: No funding obtainedThis study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem worldwide, with a lifetime prevalence of 84% in the general adult population. To rationalise the management of LBP, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been issued in various countries around the world. This study aims to identify and compare the recommendations of recent CPGs for the management of LBP across the world. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and major guideline databases were searched from 2017 to 2022 to identify CPGs. CPGs focusing on information regarding the management and/or treatment of non-specific LBP were considered eligible. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Results: Our analysis identified a total of 22 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria, and were of middle and high methodological quality as assessed by the AGREE II tool. The guidelines exhibited heterogeneity in their recommendations, particularly in the approach to different stages of LBP. For acute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For subacute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of NSAIDs, therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP, the guidelines recommended therapeutic exercise, the use of NSAIDs, spinal manipulation, and acupuncture. Conclusions: Current CPGs provide recommendations for almost all major aspects of the management of LBP, but there is marked heterogeneity between them. Some recommendations lack clarity and overlap with other treatments within the guidelines.

Background: With the rapid development of mobile health (mHealth) technology, many health apps have been introduced to the commercial market for people with back pain conditions. However, little is known about their content, quality, approaches to care for low back pain (LBP), and associated risks of use. Objective: The aims of this research were to (1) identify apps for the self-management of LBP currently on the market and (2) assess their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk-related approaches. Methods: The UK iTunes and Google Play stores were initially searched for apps related to the self-management of LBP in May 2022. A repeat search in June 2023 was conducted to ensure that any relevant new apps developed in the last year were incorporated into the review. A total of 3 keywords recommended by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group were used to search apps “low back pain,” “back pain,” and “lumbago.” The quality of the apps was assessed by using the 5-point Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Results: A total of 69 apps (25 iOS and 44 Android) met the inclusion criteria. These LBP self-management apps mainly provide recommendations on muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%), yoga (n=19, 27.5%), and information about LBP mechanisms (n=17, 24.6%). Most interventions (n=14, 78%) are consistent with the recommendations in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The mean (SD) MARS overall score of included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points. The functionality dimension was associated with the highest score (3.0), whereas the engagement and information dimension resulted in the lowest score (2.1). Regarding theoretical and risk-related approaches, 18 (26.1%) of the 69 apps reported the rate of intervention progression, 11 (15.9%) reported safety checks, only 1 (1.4%) reported personalization of care, and none reported the theoretical care model or the age group targeted. Conclusions: mHealth apps are potentially promising alternatives to help people manage their LBP; however, most of the LBP self-management apps were of poor quality and did not report the theoretical approaches to care and their associated risks. Although nearly all apps reviewed included a component of care listed in the NICE guidelines, the model of care delivery or embracement of care principles such as the application of a biopsychosocial model was unclear.

BACKGROUND With the rapid development of mobile health (mHealth) technology, many health apps have been introduced to the commercial market for people with back pain conditions. However, little is known about their content, quality, approaches to care for low back pain (LBP), and associated risks of use. OBJECTIVE The aims of this research were to (1) identify apps for the self-management of LBP currently on the market and (2) assess their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk-related approaches. METHODS The UK iTunes and Google Play stores were initially searched for apps related to the self-management of LBP in May 2022. A repeat search in June 2023 was conducted to ensure that any relevant new apps developed in the last year were incorporated into the review. A total of 3 keywords recommended by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group were used to search apps “low back pain,” “back pain,” and “lumbago.” The quality of the apps was assessed by using the 5-point Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). RESULTS A total of 69 apps (25 iOS and 44 Android) met the inclusion criteria. These LBP self-management apps mainly provide recommendations on muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%), yoga (n=19, 27.5%), and information about LBP mechanisms (n=17, 24.6%). Most interventions (n=14, 78%) are consistent with the recommendations in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The mean (SD) MARS overall score of included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points. The functionality dimension was associated with the highest score (3.0), whereas the engagement and information dimension resulted in the lowest score (2.1). Regarding theoretical and risk-related approaches, 18 (26.1%) of the 69 apps reported the rate of intervention progression, 11 (15.9%) reported safety checks, only 1 (1.4%) reported personalization of care, and none reported the theoretical care model or the age group targeted. CONCLUSIONS mHealth apps are potentially promising alternatives to help people manage their LBP; however, most of the LBP self-management apps were of poor quality and did not report the theoretical approaches to care and their associated risks. Although nearly all apps reviewed included a component of care listed in the NICE guidelines, the model of care delivery or embracement of care principles such as the application of a biopsychosocial model was unclear.

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting 60–80% of the general population within their lifetime. Given the large numbers of people affected, self-management approaches have been introduced as a way to manage this condition with endorsement by the national institute for health and care excellence. Interventions are often termed self-management without defining either content or goals. Our study sought to determine the content, characteristics, and evidence for self-management of CLBP. Methods: This narrative review was conducted using a systematic approach to search journal articles in English that focused on CLBP self-management. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were used to identify publications with terms relating to back pain and self-management from January 2016 until January 2022. Results: In total, 15 studies were found suitable for inclusion in the review. Core components of self-management strategies include exercise, education, and psychological interventions, but there was a lack of consistency with respect to content. Intervention characteristics were either under-reported or varied. Furthermore, outcome measures used to assess these self-management programmes were diverse, mainly focusing on functional disability and pain intensity. Conclusions: Inconsistencies in the content of self-management interventions, intervention characteristics, and outcome measures used for assessing self-management programmes were found across the literature. Current self-management approaches do not consider the complex biopsychosocial nature of CLBP. A consensus on the key components of self-management interventions, and how they should be evaluated, will pave the way for research to determine whether self-management can effectively manage CLBP.

Background: Asthma is a common chronic airway inflammatory disease. Exacerbations of asthma not only accelerate the progression of the disease but also increase the incidence of hospitalization and death. Studies have shown that air pollution is a high-risk factor for asthma exacerbations. However, few treatment strategies have been recommended to reduce the risk of severe air pollution-related asthma exacerbations. Methods/design: This is a single-centre, prospective, randomized and standard treatment parallel control clinical trial. Seventy-two asthma patients in the nonexacerbation stage according to GINA guidelines 2017 will be recruited and randomized into the rescue intervention strategy (RIS) group and control group. Original treatments for the participants will include no use of inhaled medicine, the use of short-acting β-agonists (SABA) on demand or the use of budesonide/formoterol (160 μg/4.5 μg/dose, 1–2 dose/time, b.i.d.). The rescue intervention strategy for the RIS group will be budesonide/formoterol plus the original treatment until the severe pollution ends (air quality index, AQI < 200). The control group will maintain the original treatment. The follow-up observation period will last 1 year. The primary outcome is the frequency of asthma exacerbations per year. Secondary outcomes include the mean number of unplanned outpatient visits, emergency visits, hospitalizations, medical costs and mortality caused by asthma exacerbations per patient per year. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide a novel strategy to guide clinical practice in decreasing the risk of asthma exacerbations under severe air pollution. Trial registration: ChiCTR ChiCTR1900026757. Registered on 20 October 2019—retrospectively registered

Background: Adult intussusception is less common than paediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical presentation, aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of adult intussusception. Methods: Adults (> 18 years) with intussusception treated by surgical or conservative measures were included from January 2005 to January 2018, and the manifestation, types, diagnosis and treatment of adult intussusception in our centre were reviewed. Results: A total of 150 patients with adult intussusception were included in this study. The clinical manifestations included 111 cases (74%) of abdominal pain, 38 cases (25.3%) of bloody stool, 37 cases (24.7%) of bowel obstructions, 33 cases (22%) of abdominal distension, 29 cases (19.3%) of nausea and vomiting, 19 cases (12.7%) of an abdominal mass, and 12 cases (8.0%) of diarrhoea. The types of intussusception were classified into 36 cases (24%) of enteric intussusception, 87 cases (58%) of intestine-colon intussusception and 27 cases (18%) of colonic intussusception. Surgical intervention was applied in 139 cases (92.7%), including 115 patients who underwent open surgery, and laparoscopy-assisted surgery was performed in 24 patients. The main pathogenesis of intussusception was malignant tumors in 51 cases (36.7%) and benign tumors and polyps in 49 cases (35.3%). Conclusion: Malignant and benign tumors are the main causes of adult intussusception. Abdominal CT is the preferred evaluation method for the preoperative diagnosis of this condition. The choice of surgical procedure depends on the location and type of intussusception.