Low back pain (LBP) is a problem that is frequently encountered in primary care, and current guidelines encourage care providers to take into account psychosocial risk factors in order to avoid transition from acute to chronic LBP. To review the effectiveness of interventions focusing on psychosocial risk factors for patients with non-chronic LBP in primary care. A systematic search was undertaken for controlled trials focusing on psychosocial factors in adult patients with non-chronic, non-specific LBP in primary care by exploring Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Francis, Web of Sciences and The Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of the studies included was assessed before analysing their findings. Thirteen studies were selected, seven being considered as having a low risk of bias. Information strategies were assessed by eight trials, with high-quality evidence of no effectiveness for pain, function, work issues and health care use, low-quality evidence of no effectiveness for self-rated overall improvement, satisfaction and pain beliefs and lack of evidence in terms of quality of life. Cognitive behavioural therapy was assessed by three trials, with very low-quality evidence of moderate effectiveness for pain, function, quality of life, work issues and health care use. There was lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness of individual and group education intervention or work coordination. Among the wide range of psychosocial risk factors, research has focused mainly on pain beliefs and coping skills, with disappointing results. Extended theoretical models integrating several psychosocial factors and multicomponent interventions are probably required to meet the challenge of LBP.

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) affects many people and has major socio-economic consequences. Traditional therapeutic strategies, mainly focused on biomechanical factors, have had moderate and short-term impact. Certain psychosocial factors have been linked to poor prognosis of LBP and they are increasingly considered as promising targets for management of LBP. Primary health care providers (HCPs) are involved in most of the management of people with LBP and they are skilled in providing comprehensive care, including consideration of psychosocial dimensions. This review aims to discuss three pieces of recent research focusing on psychosocial issues in LBP patients in primary care. In the first systematic review, the patients’ or HCPs’ overall judgment about the likely evolution of LBP was the factor most strongly linked to poor outcome, with predictive validity similar to that of multidimensional scales. This result may be explained by the implicit aggregation of many prognostic factors underlying this judgment and suggests the relevance of considering the patients from biopsychosocial and longitudinal points of view. The second review showed that most of the interventions targeting psychosocial factors in LBP in primary care have to date focused on the cognitive-behavioral factors, resulting in little impact. It is unlikely that any intervention focusing on a single factor would ever fit the needs of most patients; interventions targeting determinants from several fields (mainly psychosocial, biomechanical and occupational) may be more relevant. Should multiple stakeholders be involved in such interventions, enhanced interprofessional collaboration would be critical to ensure the delivery of coordinated care. Finally, in the third study, the prevalence of psychosocial comorbidity in chronic LBP patients was not found to be significantly higher than in other patients consulting in primary care. Rather than specifically screening for psychosocial conditions, this suggests taking into account any potential comorbidity in patients with chronic LBP, as in other patients. All these results support the adoption of a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach when dealing with patients with LBP in primary care. As this condition is illustrative of many situations encountered in primary care, the strategies proposed here may benefit most patients consulting in this setting.

Introduction. Multimorbidity adversely affects health-related quality of life. Methodological factors may impact the magnitude of this relationship.Objective. To evaluate how physical health-related quality of life varies in individuals with multimorbidity depending on the length of the list of candidate conditions considered.Methods. Secondary analysis from PRECISE, a cohort study of the general adult population of Quebec, Canada. Multimorbidity was measured using the 21-chronic condition list from the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment, and physical health-related quality of life was measured using the physical component summary (PCS) of SF-12v2. The PCS was calculated, (a) using 2 or more conditions from the 21-condition list (MM2+, 21) and then from a reduced 6-condition list (MM2+, 6) and (b) using three or more conditions from each list (MM3+, 21, and MM3+, 6).Results. The analysis included 1,710 individuals (mean age 51.3, 40.5% men). Multimorbidity prevalence ranged from 63.8% (MM2+, 21 conditions) to 3.8% (MM3+, 6 conditions). The mean [95% CI] PCS dropped from 45.7 [CI: 45.0–46.3] (MM2+, 21) to 40.2 [CI: 38.7–41.8] (MM2+, 6) and from 44.2 [CI: 43.4–44.9] (MM3+, 21) to 34.8 [CI: 31.9–37.6] (MM3+, 6).Conclusion. The length of the list of candidate conditions considered has a great impact on the estimations of physical health-related quality of life.