Dataset Information

Patients' views on responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders--a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Musculoskeletal disorders are very common and almost inevitable in an individual's lifetime. Enabling self-management and allowing the individual to take responsibility for care is stated as desired in the management of these disorders, but this may be asking more than people can generally manage. A willingness among people to take responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders and not place responsibility out of their hands or on employers but to be shared with medical professionals has been shown. The aim of the present study was to describe how people with musculoskeletal disorders think and reason regarding responsibility for prevention, treatment and management of the disorder.

Methods

Individual interviews with a strategic sample of 20 individuals with musculoskeletal disorders were performed. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to qualitative content analysis.

Results

From the interviews an overarching theme was identified: own responsibility needs to be met. The analysis revealed six interrelated categories: Taking on responsibility, Ambiguity about responsibility, Collaborating responsibility, Complying with recommendations, Disclaiming responsibility, and Responsibility irrelevant. These categories described different thoughts and reasoning regarding the responsibility for managing musculoskeletal disorders. Generally the responsibility for prevention of musculoskeletal disorders was described to lie primarily on society/authorities as they have knowledge of what to prevent and how to prevent it. When musculoskeletal disorders have occurred, health care should provide fast accessibility, diagnosis, prognosis and support for recovery. For long-term management, the individuals themselves are responsible for making the most out of life despite disorders.

Conclusion

No matter what the expressions of responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders are, own responsibility needs to be met by society, health care, employers and family in an appropriate way, with as much or as little of the "right type" of support needed, based on the individual's expectations.

SUBMITTER: Larsson ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2753559 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' views on responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders--a qualitative study.

Larsson Maria E H ME Nordholm Lena A LA Ohrn Ingbritt I

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20090817

<h4>Background</h4>Musculoskeletal disorders are very common and almost inevitable in an individual's lifetime. Enabling self-management and allowing the individual to take responsibility for care is stated as desired in the management of these disorders, but this may be asking more than people can generally manage. A willingness among people to take responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders and not place responsibility out of their hands or on employers but to be shared with medical professi ...[more]

PMID: 19686602

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal disorders are a major burden on individuals, health systems and social care systems and rehabilitation efforts in these disorders are considerable. Self-care is often considered a cost effective treatment alternative owing to limited health care resources. But what are the expectations and attitudes in this question in the general population? The purpose of this study was to describe general attitudes to responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders and to explore associations between attitudes and background variables.MethodsA cross-sectional, postal questionnaire survey was carried out with a random sample of a general adult Swedish population of 1770 persons. Sixty-one percent (n = 1082) responded to the questionnaire and was included for the description of general attitudes towards responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders. For the further analyses of associations to background variables 683-693 individuals could be included. Attitudes were measured by the "Attitudes regarding Responsibility for Musculoskeletal disorders" (ARM) instrument, where responsibility is attributed on four dimensions; to myself, as being out of my hands, to employers or to (medical) professionals. Multiple logistic regression was used to explore associations between attitudes to musculoskeletal disorders and the background variables age, sex, education, physical activity, presence of musculoskeletal disorders, sick leave and whether the person had visited a care provider.ResultsA majority of participants had internal views, i.e. showed an attitude of taking personal responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders, and did not place responsibility for the management out of their own hands or to employers. However, attributing shared responsibility between self and medical professionals was also found. The main associations found between attitude towards responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders and investigated background variables were that physical inactivity (OR 2.92-9.20), musculoskeletal disorder related sick leave (OR 2.31-3.07) and no education beyond the compulsory level (OR 3.12-4.76) increased the odds of attributing responsibility externally, i.e placing responsibility on someone or something else.ConclusionRespondents in this study mainly saw themselves as responsible for managing musculoskeletal disorders. The associated background variables refined this finding and one conclusion is that, to optimise outcome when planning the prevention, treatment and management of these disorders, people's attitudes should be taken into account.

Project description:BackgroundThe TITRATE trial seeks to test whether intensive management is valuable in achieving disease remission in moderately active rheumatoid arthritis. Intensive management is a complex intervention consisting of: 1) 12 x monthly appointments, 2) tailored 'treatment support' based on motivational interviewing techniques, 3) optimised medication (including the opportunity for biologics), 4) provision of a Patient Handbook, and 5) shared treatment planning. This study aims to understand: a) patients' and practitioners' views on the feasibility and acceptability of intensive management, and b) patients' and practitioners' experience of receiving/providing intensive management.MethodsA qualitative study, nested within a randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients (n = 15) in the intensive management arm of the trial and rheumatology practitioners (n = 16) providing the intensive management intervention, from 18/42 clinics across England. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis and iterative categorization.ResultsMonthly appointments were largely acceptable to both groups who cited several treatment benefits (e.g. regular review of medication, practitioners built close relationships with patients). Practitioners were 'fairly confident' using the motivational interviewing techniques. Learning to pace was the most commonly reported self-management technique that patients and healthcare professionals worked on together, followed by gaining control over pain and fatigue. Practitioners liked having the option to offer biologics to patients with moderate RA. Most patients found the optimised medication (following monthly joint assessment) helpful and side-effects experienced were resolved. Variation existed in the extent to which patients engaged with the Patient Handbook and shared treatment planning, with those who did engage doing so in the early stages.ConclusionsFeedback from patient participants about the intensive management intervention was positive. They found increased medication helpful. Continuity of care with the same healthcare professional at regular intensive management sessions, and the treatment support provided, were highly rated. Feedback from practitioners indicated that intensive management training is feasible. Evidence from the interviews showed that some practitioners applied motivational interviewing techniques during standard care appointments and they would like the opportunity to address lifestyle issues with patients.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite traditional views of eating disorders as a female illness, there is a growing body of evidence that the incidence rate of eating disorders in men is rising. Research suggests that these men may experience unique symptoms and difficulties, however, it is unclear how these unique needs may impact treatment. The aim of this study was to explore clinicians' views on whether men have gender-specific treatment needs, and how far these needs require treatment adaptations.DesignQualitative interview study using framework analysis to explore the experiences of clinicians working with men with eating disorders.SettingOutpatient National Health Service eating disorder service in London.ParticipantsTen clinicians from a variety of clinical backgrounds participated in the study.ResultsThe following three themes emerged: male-specific issues identified by clinicians, treatment approaches used for this population and the importance of creating a male-friendly environment. Male-specific issues identified by participants included an increased focus on muscularity and difficulty expressing or discussing emotion. Clinicians also suggested that men may be more likely to adopt a performance-based approach to. This was linked by clinicians to the impact of cultural perceptions of masculinity on their patients. Clinicians in this study felt that these individual needs could be met by adapting existing approaches within a supportive, male-friendly environment. However, there was not consensus over specific adaptations, including identifying risk, the need for male-only groups, or whether male patients needed access to male clinicians.ConclusionsAlthough men do present with specific treatment needs, these can typically be met within the framework of typical treatment approaches by experienced clinicians in an environment sensitive to the presence of men in an otherwise female-dominated space. However, there are a lack of explicit guidelines for this process, and areas such as male-only treatment spaces require further research.

Project description:BackgroundThe workplace has been identified as a priority setting for health promotion. There are potential advantages of systematically integrating Occupational Health Management (OHM) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, OHM and CSR are usually overseen by different management branches with different sets of values, and there is a lack of empirical research regarding interfaces between OHM and CSR. Germany offers a particularly useful setting due to legislation requiring health to be promoted in the workplace. This study aims to examine key stakeholders' views and experiences regarding interfaces between OHM and CSR in German companies.MethodsIndividual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of 77 German stakeholders from three different groups: experts in occupational health and corporate social responsibility from various companies (n = 35), business partners (n = 19), and various non-business partners (n = 23). Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsParticipants identified several areas in which OHM and CSR are already interacting at strategic, structural and cultural levels, but also highlighted several barriers that undermine a more meaningful interaction. Participants reported difficulties in articulating the underlying ethical values relevant to both OHM and CSR at the strategic level. Several structural barriers were also highlighted, including a lack of resources (both financial and knowledge), and OHM and CSR departments not being fully developed or undertaken at entirely different operational levels. Finally, the missing practical implementation of corporate philosophy was identified as a critical cultural barrier to interfaces between OHM and CSR, with existing guidelines and companies' philosophies that already connect OHM and CSR not being embraced by employees and managers.ConclusionsThere is already significant overlap in the focus of OHM and CSR, at the structural, strategic and cultural levels in many German companies. The potential is there, both in theory and practice, for the systematic combination of OHM and CSR. The insights from this study will be useful to ensure that closer integration between both management branches is set up in a socially sustainable and ethical manner.

Project description:BackgroundLesotho experienced high rates of maternal (566/100,000 live births) and under-five mortality (72.9/1000 live births). A 2013 national assessment found centralized healthcare management in Ministry of Health led to fragmented, ineffective district health team management. Launched in 2014 through collaboration between the Ministry of Health and Partners In Health, Lesotho's Primary Health Care Reform (LPHCR) aimed to improve service quality and quantity by decentralizing healthcare management to the district level. We conducted a qualitative study to explore health workers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of LPHCR in enhancing the primary health care system.MethodsWe conducted 21 semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with healthcare workers and Ministry of Health officials purposively sampled from various levels of Lesotho's health system, including the central Ministry of Health, district health management teams, health centers, and community health worker programs in four pilot districts of the LPHCR initiative. The World Health Organization's health systems building blocks framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interviews assessed health care workers' perspectives on the impact of the LPHCR initiative on the six-health system building blocks: service delivery, health information systems, access to essential medicines, health workforce, financing, and leadership/governance. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis.ResultsParticipants described benefits of decentralization, including improved efficiency in service delivery, enhanced accountability and responsiveness, increased community participation, improved data availability, and better resource allocation. Participants highlighted how the reform resulted in more efficient procurement and distribution processes and increased recognition and status in part due to the empowerment of district health management teams. However, participants also identified limited decentralization of financial decision-making and encountered barriers to successful implementation, such as staff shortages, inadequate management of the village health worker program, and a lack of clear communication regarding autonomy in utilizing and mobilizing donor funds.ConclusionOur study findings indicate that the implementation of decentralized primary health care management in Lesotho was associated a positive impact on health system building blocks related to primary health care. However, it is crucial to address the implementation challenges identified by healthcare workers to optimize the benefits of decentralized healthcare management.

Dataset Information

Patients' views on responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders--a qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patients' views on responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders--a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets