IMPLEMENTING BACK PAIN TREATMENT PATHWAYS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: QUALITATATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS

Background
Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed.

Aims
The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice.

Methods
A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results
Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions.

Conclusion
A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice.

Shame, Dissociation, and Complex PTSD Symptoms in Traumatized Psychiatric and Control Groups: Direct and Indirect Associations With Relationship Distress

Objectives: Elevated shame and dissociation are common in dissociative identity disorder (DID) and chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and are part of the constellation of symptoms defined as complex PTSD. Previous work examined the relationship between shame, dissociation, and complex PTSD and whether they are associated with intimate relationship anxiety, relationship depression, and fear of relationships. This study investigated these variables in traumatized clinical samples and a nonclinical community group.

Method: Participants were drawn from the DID (n = 20), conflict-related chronic PTSD (n = 65), and nonclinical (n = 125) populations and completed questionnaires assessing the variables of interest. A model examining the direct impact of shame and dissociation on relationship functioning, and their indirect effect via complex PTSD symptoms, was tested through path analysis.

Results: The DID sample reported significantly higher dissociation, shame, complex PTSD symptom severity, relationship anxiety, relationship depression, and fear of relationships than the other two samples. Support was found for the proposed model, with shame directly affecting relationship anxiety and fear of relationships, and pathological dissociation directly affecting relationship anxiety and relationship depression. The indirect effect of shame and dissociation via complex PTSD symptom severity was evident on all relationship variables.

Conclusion: Shame and pathological dissociation are important for not only the effect they have on the development of other complex PTSD symptoms, but also their direct and indirect effects on distress associated with relationships.