Back pain: a National Health Priority Area in Australia?
Authors: Rachelle Buchbinder and Andrew M Briggs
Published online: 19 October 2009
In reply: The two preceding letters highlight that there are many stakeholders with an interest in back pain in Australia. Many craft groups are involved with the provision of postgraduate education and have contributed to the musculoskeletal core competencies initiative. Vaughan and colleagues describe promising results from using a clinical decision tool for acute back pain in an emergency department. On a national scale, implementation of such a tool in all emergency departments may significantly improve outcomes and reduce costs. Making back pain a national priority would provide unique opportunities to rigorously study these types of approaches.
A timely illustration of our concern about vested interests potentially promoting ineffective or unproven interventions1 is the lively debate centred on the recently published United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance for the early management of persistent non-specific low back pain.2 The recommendation that injections of therapeutic substances into the back for non-specific low back pain should not be offered, as the evidence of effectiveness is lacking, led to the forced resignation of the president of the British Pain Society because of his refusal to denounce the guidelines he helped to formulate.3
To suggest that the title of the Spine journal article is misleading and mischievous is patently incorrect, as the title, “Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain”, simply summarises the main study findings.4 Based on 3831 responses from general practitioners in New South Wales and Victoria, collected in 1997, 2000 and 2004, doctors who reported a special interest in low back pain were significantly more likely to believe that patients with acute low back pain should be prescribed complete bed rest until the pain goes away (relative risk [RR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.53–2.33); that they should not return to work until they are almost pain-free (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31–1.83); and that lumbar spine x-rays are useful in their work-up (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.21–1.52). We also reject the suggestion that we made disparaging remarks about doctors with a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. After adjusting for the presence of special interests in back pain, there were no important differences in back pain beliefs between those with and without a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. While we cited a survey that found that Australian Association of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AAMM) members see a high caseload of patients with back pain,5 we made no claims about the knowledge base of AAMM members.
References
- Briggs AM, Buchbinder R. Back pain: a National Health Priority Area in Australia? Med J Aust 2009; 190: 499-502.
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Low back pain. Early management of persistent non-specific low back pain. Clinical guideline CG88. London: NICE, May 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG88 (accessed Sep 2009).
- Kmietowicz Z. President of British Pain Society is forced from office after refusing to denounce NICE guidance on low back pain. BMJ 2009; 339: b3049. 0_pgfId-1902588
- Buchbinder R, Staples M, Jolley D. Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain.Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 1218-1226. 0_i1091855
- Kent P, Keating J. Do primary-care clinicians think that nonspecific low back pain is one condition? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 1022-1031. 0_i1091859