Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem that many interpret within a biopsychosocial model. There is renewed concern that core-sets of outcome measures do not capture what is important. To inform debate about the coverage of back pain outcome measure core-sets, and to suggest areas worthy of exploration within healthcare consultations, we have synthesised the qualitative literature on the impact of low back pain on people’s lives.

In the context of uncertainty about aetiology and prognosis, good clinical practice commonly recommends both affective (creating rapport, showing empathy) and cognitive reassurance (providing explanations and education) to increase self-management in groups with nonspecific pain conditions. The specific impact of each of these components in reference to patients' outcomes has not been studied. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence from prospective cohorts in primary care that measured patient-practitioner interactions with reference to patient outcomes. We carried out a systematic literature search and appraisal of study methodology. We extracted measures of affective and cognitive reassurance in consultations and their associations with consultation exit and follow-up measures of patients' outcomes. We identified 16 studies from 16,059 abstracts. Eight studies were judged to be high in methodological quality. Pooling could not be achieved as a result of heterogeneity of samples and measures. Affective reassurance showed inconsistent findings with consultation exit outcomes. In 3 high-methodology studies, an association was found between affective reassurance and higher symptom burden and less improvement at follow-up. Cognitive reassurance was associated with higher satisfaction and enablement and reduced concerns directly after the consultations in 8 studies; with improvement in symptoms at follow-up in 7 studies; and with reduced health care utilization in 3 studies. Despite limitations, there is support for the notion that cognitive reassurance is more beneficial than affective reassurance. We present a tentative model based on these findings and propose priorities for future research.

Study Design. An integrated review of current knowledge about the biopsychosocial model of back pain for understanding etiology, prognosis, and interventions, as presented at the plenary sessions of the XII International Forum on LBP Research in Primary Care (Denmark; October 17–19, 2012). Objective. To evaluate the utility of the model in reference to rising rates of back pain-related disability, by identifying (a) the most promising avenues for future research in biological, psychological, and social approaches, (b) promising combinations of all 3 approaches, and (c) obstacles to effective implementation of biopsychosocial-based research and clinical practice. Summary of Background Data. The biopsychosocial model of back pain has become a dominant model in the conceptualization of the etiology and prognosis of back pain, and has led to the development and testing of many interventions. Despite this back pain remains a leading source of disability worldwide. Methods. The review is a synthesis based on the plenary sessions and discussions at the XII International Forum on LBP Research in Primary Care. The presentations included evidence-based reviews of the current state of knowledge in each of the 3 areas (biological, psychological, and social), identification of obstacles to effective implementation and missed opportunities, and identification of the most promising paths for future research. Results. Although there is good evidence for the role of biological, psychological, and social factors in the etiology and prognosis of back pain, synthesis of the 3 in research and clinical practice has been suboptimal. Conclusion. The utility of the biopsychosocial framework cannot be fully assessed until we truly adopt and apply it in research and clinical practice. Level of Evidence: N/A

The model of fear avoidance proposes that fear of movement in back pain patients is an obstacle to recovery and leads over time to increased disability. Therefore, fear of movement should be targeted explicitly by interventions. To review the evidence (1) for the causal components proposed by the model, and (2) about interventions that attempt to reduce fear of movement. In addition, we aim to propose alternatives and extensions to the current model in order to increase the clinical utility of the model. A collaborative narrative review. The fear avoidance model needs to be conceptually expanded and further tested to provide adequate and appropriate clinical utility. Currently, although there is experimental support for the model, observational studies in patients show contradictory results. Interventions based on the model have not delivered convincing results, only partly due to methodological shortcomings. Some assumptions inherent in the current model need adjusting, and other factors should be incorporated to indicate subgroupings within patients high in avoidance behavior. In addition, both theoretical and methodological limitations were identified in measurements of fear and avoidance. Future research should elucidate whether the proposed subgrouping of patients with avoidance behavior is helpful. Further research should focus on developing more accurate and psychometrically sound assessment tools as well as targeted interventions to improve activities and participation of patients with chronic disabling musculoskeletal pain disorders.

Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews.