Vanderstraeten, Rob; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Demoulin, Christophe; Michielsen, Jozef; Bastiaens, Hilde; Roussel, Nathalie; Anthierens, Sibyl<\/p>
What do physiotherapists find useful in e-learning interventions to improve their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on low back pain management: a nested qualitative study from an educational randomized clinical trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>BMC Primary Care, <\/span>vol. 26, <\/span>no. 1, <\/span>pp. 325, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 2731-4553<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_what_2025,\r\ntitle = {What do physiotherapists find useful in e-learning interventions to improve their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on low back pain management: a nested qualitative study from an educational randomized clinical trial},\r\nauthor = {Rob Vanderstraeten and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Christophe Demoulin and Jozef Michielsen and Hilde Bastiaens and Nathalie Roussel and Sibyl Anthierens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\nissn = {2731-4553},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-10-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-27},\r\njournal = {BMC Primary Care},\r\nvolume = {26},\r\nnumber = {1},\r\npages = {325},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>BMC Primary Care, <\/span>vol. 26, <\/span>no. 1, <\/span>pp. 325, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 2731-4553<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_what_2025,\r\ntitle = {What do physiotherapists find useful in e-learning interventions to improve their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on low back pain management: a nested qualitative study from an educational randomized clinical trial},\r\nauthor = {Rob Vanderstraeten and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Christophe Demoulin and Jozef Michielsen and Hilde Bastiaens and Nathalie Roussel and Sibyl Anthierens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\nissn = {2731-4553},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-10-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-27},\r\njournal = {BMC Primary Care},\r\nvolume = {26},\r\nnumber = {1},\r\npages = {325},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_what_2025,\r\ntitle = {What do physiotherapists find useful in e-learning interventions to improve their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on low back pain management: a nested qualitative study from an educational randomized clinical trial},\r\nauthor = {Rob Vanderstraeten and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Christophe Demoulin and Jozef Michielsen and Hilde Bastiaens and Nathalie Roussel and Sibyl Anthierens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\nissn = {2731-4553},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-10-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-27},\r\njournal = {BMC Primary Care},\r\nvolume = {26},\r\nnumber = {1},\r\npages = {325},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{vanderstraeten_what_2025,\r\ntitle = {What do physiotherapists find useful in e-learning interventions to improve their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on low back pain management: a nested qualitative study from an educational randomized clinical trial},\r\nauthor = {Rob Vanderstraeten and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Christophe Demoulin and Jozef Michielsen and Hilde Bastiaens and Nathalie Roussel and Sibyl Anthierens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4},\r\nissn = {2731-4553},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-10-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-27},\r\njournal = {BMC Primary Care},\r\nvolume = {26},\r\nnumber = {1},\r\npages = {325},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1186\/s12875-025-03032-4<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Braem, Lalit E.; Lacour, Fanny; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Panchout, Etienne; Reychler, Gr\u00e9gory; Cant, Joachim Van<\/p>
Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>Physiotherapy, <\/span>pp. 101846, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 00319406<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{braem_clarifying_2025,\r\ntitle = {Clarifying the concept of advanced practice in physiotherapy for global model development},\r\nauthor = {Lalit E. Braem and Fanny Lacour and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Etienne Panchout and Gr\u00e9gory Reychler and Joachim Van Cant},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846},\r\nissn = {00319406},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-09},\r\njournal = {Physiotherapy},\r\npages = {101846},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S0031940625003840<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.physio.2025.101846<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>
Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155251340671, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{severijns_response_2025,\r\ntitle = {Response to \u201ccomments on the article \u201cphysiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with Low back pain: A systematic review \u201dby severijns et al. 2024\u201d},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155251340671},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-05-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-05-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155251340671},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155251340671<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Vanderstraeten, R; Fourr\u00e9, A; Demoulin, C; Westerweel, A; Meuleman, E M; Anthierens, S; Michielsen, J; Darlow, B; Roussel, N; Hutting, N<\/p>
Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>Disability and Rehabilitation, <\/span>2025<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{vanderstraeten_dutch_nodate,\r\ntitle = {Dutch translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ)},\r\nauthor = {R Vanderstraeten and A Fourr\u00e9 and C Demoulin and A Westerweel and E M Meuleman and S Anthierens and J Michielsen and B Darlow and N Roussel and N Hutting},\r\ndoi = {https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-04-11},\r\nurldate = {2025-04-11},\r\njournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\r\nabstract = {Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) to Dutch for the Belgian and Dutch populations, and to investigate its measurement properties in the general population and physiotherapists. \r\nMethods: The adaptation followed established guidelines. Content validity, internal consistency, test\u2013retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC), construct validity, and structural validity were assessed in physiotherapists and the general population. The modified Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) investigated the Back-PAQ\u2019s convergent validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis evaluated structural validity. Discriminant validity was assessed between physiotherapists and the general population. \r\nResults: Two hundred and sixty participants (mean age: 29 \u00b1 13.3) completed the initial survey and 147 completed the test\u2013retest survey. All Back-PAQ versions (34-item, 20-item, and 10-item) demonstrated good internal consistency, good to excellent test\u2013retest reliability. Moderate correlations with the mFABQ (p < 0.001) and adequate discriminant validity between physiotherapists and the general population supported robust construct validity. The Back-PAQ 10 exhibited a good model fit and enables meaningful sub-score comparisons. \r\nConclusions: This collaboration produced a validated Dutch Back-PAQ suitable for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium. All versions demonstrated robust measurement properties, supporting their use in clinical and research settings assessing unhelpful beliefs in back pain management.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09638288.2025.2487562<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Michielsen, Jef; Ris, Laurence; Darlow, Ben; Vanderstraeten, Rob; Bastiaens, Hilde; Demoulin, Christophe; Roussel, Nathalie<\/p>
Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201314, <\/span>2025<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{fourre_comparing_2025,\r\ntitle = {Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial},\r\nauthor = {Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Jef Michielsen and Laurence Ris and Ben Darlow and Rob Vanderstraeten and Hilde Bastiaens and Christophe Demoulin and Nathalie Roussel},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2025},\r\ndate = {2025-03-01},\r\nurldate = {2025-10-23},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201314},\r\nabstract = {Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. \r\nMethods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1\/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers\u2019 Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher\u2019s t-tests. Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; \u03b72p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; \u03b72p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. \r\nConclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient\u2019s reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psychosocial factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1080\/10669817.2025.2476670<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2024<\/h3> Severijns, Pieter; Goossens, Nina; Dankaerts, Wim; Pitance, Laurent; Roussel, Nathalie; Denis, Corentin; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine; Verschueren, Pieter; Timmermans, Annick; Janssens, Lotte<\/p>Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>Clinical Rehabilitation, <\/span>pp. 02692155241282987, <\/span>2024<\/span>, ISSN: 0269-2155, 1477-0873<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{severijns_physiotherapy-led_2024,\r\ntitle = {Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review},\r\nauthor = {Pieter Severijns and Nina Goossens and Wim Dankaerts and Laurent Pitance and Nathalie Roussel and Corentin Denis and Antoine Fourr\u00e9 and Pieter Verschueren and Annick Timmermans and Lotte Janssens},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\ndoi = {10.1177\/02692155241282987},\r\nissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\r\nyear = {2024},\r\ndate = {2024-09-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-10-01},\r\njournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\r\npages = {02692155241282987},\r\nabstract = {Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched. Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain \ufb01rst consulting a physiotherapist and those \ufb01rst consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. \r\nResults: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician\u2019s visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions. \r\nConclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/i>doi:10.1177\/02692155241282987<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>2023<\/h3> Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Hage, Renaud; Roussel, Nathalie; Dierick, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric; Natividade, Jo\u00ebl Da; Jones, Mark; Fourr\u00e9, Antoine<\/p>
Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms<\/a> Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
In: <\/span>Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, <\/span>pp. 1\u201312, <\/span>2023<\/span>, ISSN: 1066-9817, 2042-6186<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | \u00c9tiquettes: <\/span><\/p>@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
@article{hage_rethinking_2023,\r\ntitle = {Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms},\r\nauthor = {Renaud Hage and Nathalie Roussel and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Dierick and Jo\u00ebl Da Natividade and Mark Jones and Antoine Fourr\u00e9},\r\nurl = {https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\ndoi = {10.1080\/10669817.2023.2292909},\r\nissn = {1066-9817, 2042-6186},\r\nyear = {2023},\r\ndate = {2023-12-01},\r\nurldate = {2024-01-04},\r\njournal = {Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy},\r\npages = {1\u201312},\r\nabstract = {Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibit\u00ad ing this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including \u2018cervicobrachialgia', \u2018cervicobrachial neuralgia', \u2018cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and \u2018cervi\u00ad cal radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuro\u00ad pathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>