A normative, single-group study was conducted. To determine whether there is a difference in electromyographic activation of specific lumbopelvic muscles with the adoption of common postures in a pain-free population. Clinical observations indicate that adopting passive postures such as sway standing and slump sitting can exacerbate pain in individuals with low back pain. These individuals often present with poor activation of the lumbopelvic stabilizing musculature. At this writing, little empirical evidence exists to document that function of the trunk and lumbopelvic musculature are related to the adoption of standardized standing and sitting postures. This study included 20 healthy adults, with equal representation of the genders. Surface electromyography was used to measure activity in the superficial lumbar multifidus, internal oblique, rectus abdominis, external oblique, and thoracic erector spinae muscles for four standardized standing and sitting postures. The internal oblique, superficial lumbar multifidus, and thoracic erector spinae muscles showed a significant decrease in activity during sway standing (P = 0.027, P = 0.002, and P = 0.003, respectively) and slump sitting (P = 0.007, P = 0.012, and P = 0.003, respectively), as compared with erect postures. Rectus abdominis activity increased significantly in sway standing, as compared with erect standing (P = 0.005). The findings show that the lumbopelvic stabilizing musculature is active in maintaining optimally aligned, erect postures, and that these muscles are less active during the adoption of passive postures. The results of this study lend credence to the practice of postural retraining when facilitation of the lumbopelvic stabilizing musculature is indicated in the management of specific spinal pain conditions.

In people with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), what is the predictive and discriminative validity of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) for pain intensity, self-reported LBP-related disability, and global self-perceived change at 1-year follow-up? What is the profile of the SBT risk subgroups with respect to demographic variables, pain intensity, self-reported LBP-related disability, and psychological measures? Prospective cohort study. A total of 290 adults with dominant axial LBP of≥3months' duration recruited from the general community, and private physiotherapy, psychology, and pain-management clinics in Western Australia. The 1-year follow-up measures were pain intensity, LBP-related disability, and global self-perceived change. Outcomes were collected on 264 participants. The SBT categorised 82 participants (28%) as low risk, 116 (40%) as medium risk, and 92 (32%) as high risk. The risk subgroups differed significantly (p<0.05) on baseline pain, disability, and psychological scores. The SBT's predictive ability was strongest for disability: RR was 2.30 (95% CI 1.28 to 4.10) in the medium-risk group and 2.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 5.11) in the high-risk group. The SBT's predictive ability was weaker for pain: RR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.51) in the medium-risk group and 1.26 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.52) in the high-risk group. For the SBT total score, the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.77) for disability and 0.63 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.71) for pain. This was the first large study to investigate the SBT in a population exclusively with chronic LBP. The SBT provided an acceptable indication of 1-year disability, had poor predictive and discriminative ability for future pain, and was unable to predict or discriminate global perceived change. In this cohort with chronic non-specific LBP, the SBT's predictive and discriminative abilities were restricted to disability at 1year. [Kendell M, Beales D, O'Sullivan P, Rabey M, Hill J, Smith A (2018) The predictive ability of the STarT Back Tool was limited in people with chronic low back pain: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 107-113].

Background: Back pain is complex. Social support and significant other interactions influence the pain experience. Purpose: To statistically derive subgroups of people with chronic low back pain based upon their interactions with significant others, and profile subgroups across multidimensional variables. Research Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Study Sample: People with chronic axial low back pain (n = 262). Data Collection and Analysis: Latent class analysis of significant other interaction data was used to derive subgroups of people with chronic low back pain. Subgroups were profiled across baseline multidimensional variables and one-year follow-up pain intensity, disability and bothersomeness. Results: Three clusters were identified: Cluster 1 (7.6%) characterised by the lowest distracting, punishing and solicitous interactions. Cluster 2 (16.0%) characterised by the highest distracting and solicitous responses and social support. Cluster 3 (76.3%) characterised by the highest punishing and lowest social support. Cluster 1 reported less disability than Clusters 2 and 3. Mindfulness was significantly different across all subgroups with Cluster 1 being most mindful and Cluster 3 least mindful. Depression, anxiety and stress were significantly higher in Cluster 3 than Cluster 1. Pain catastrophising was higher for Cluster 2 than Clusters 1 and 3. Cluster 2 had lower pressure pain threshold than Clusters 1 and 3. Conclusions: These results support the association between significant other interactions and the experience of back pain. Considering significant other interactions in clinical practice may be important for managing some people’s presentation.