Abstract:Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies? Methods: We used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes. Results: Eighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups. Conclusion: Directives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

"All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it

What guides back pain care? A content analysis of low back pain directives in the Australian context

Understanding cultural influences on back pain and back pain research

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a narrative review of psychological and social issues in back pain in low- and middle-income communities

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Low Back Pain

Barriers and facilitators to reducing low-value care for the management of low back pain in Iran: a qualitative multi-professional study

'Look up from the waiting list and see the bigger picture': A qualitative analysis of clinical specialist physiotherapist perspectives on low back pain care in Ireland

A critical review of the biopsychosocial model of low back pain care: time for a new approach?

Needs assessment for health service design for people with back pain in a hospital setting: A qualitative study

Effects of workplace, family and cultural influences on low back pain: What opportunities exist to address social factors in general consultations?

Drivers of international variation in prevalence of disabling low back pain: Findings from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability study

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people’s lives

Perceptions and experiences of paramedics managing people with non-traumatic low back pain: a qualitative study of Australian paramedics

Managing Low Back Pain in Rural Uganda: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Perspectives and Practices of Frontline Health Workers regarding LBP Management in Primary Care.

Sociodemographic determinants of health inequities in low back pain: a narrative review

EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE PROPORTION OF LOW-COST CARE FOR LOW-BACK PAIN MANAGEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS

Best practice care for acute low back pain: A new clinical standard to assist general practitioners

Patients’ perceived needs for medical services for non-specific low back pain: A systematic scoping review

Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally

Low Back Pain Beliefs Are Associated to Age, Location of Work, Education and Pain-Related Disability in Chinese Healthcare Professionals Working in China: A Cross Sectional Survey

People With Acute Low Back Pain Have Concerns That May Not Be Addressed by Guideline-Recommended Advice: A Mixed-Methods Study