Dataset Information

Health effects of direct triaging to physiotherapists in primary care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Physiotherapists and general practitioners (GPs) both act as primary assessors for patients with musculoskeletal disorders in primary care. Previous studies have shown that initial triaging to physiotherapists at primary healthcare centres has advantages regarding efficiency in the work environment and utilization of healthcare. In this study, we aimed primarily to determine whether triaging to physiotherapists affects the progression of health aspects over time differently than traditional management with initial GP assessment. The secondary aim was to determine whether triaging to physiotherapists affects patients' attitudes of responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders. Methods:This was a pragmatic trial where both recruitment and treatment strategies were determined by clinical, not study-related parameters, and was initiated at three primary care centres in Sweden. Working-age patients of both sexes seeking primary care for musculoskeletal disorders and nurse assessed as suitable for triaging to physiotherapists were randomized to initial consultations with either physiotherapists or GPs. They received self-assessment questionnaires before the initial consultation and were followed up at 2, 12, 26 and 52 weeks with the same questionnaires. Outcome measures were current and mean (3 months) pain intensities, functional disability, risk for developing chronic musculoskeletal pain, health-related quality of life and attitudes of responsibility for musculoskeletal conditions. Trends over time were analysed with a regression model for repeated measurements. Results:The physiotherapist-triaged group showed significant improvement for health-related quality of life at 26 weeks and showed consistent but nonsignificant tendencies to greater reductions of current pain, mean pain in the latest 3 months, functional disability and risk for developing chronic pain compared with traditional management. The triage model did not consistently affect patients' attitudes of responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders. Conclusions:Triaging to physiotherapists for primary assessment in primary care leads to at least as positive health effects as primary assessment by GPs and can be recommended as an alternative management pathway for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. ClinicalTrialsgov identifier:NCT148611.

SUBMITTER: Bornhoft L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6378424 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health effects of direct triaging to physiotherapists in primary care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Bornhöft Lena L Larsson Maria Eh ME Nordeman Lena L Eggertsen Robert R Thorn Jörgen J

Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease 20190215

<h4>Background</h4>Physiotherapists and general practitioners (GPs) both act as primary assessors for patients with musculoskeletal disorders in primary care. Previous studies have shown that initial triaging to physiotherapists at primary healthcare centres has advantages regarding efficiency in the work environment and utilization of healthcare. In this study, we aimed primarily to determine whether triaging to physiotherapists affects the progression of health aspects over time differently th ...[more]

PMID: 30800175

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA model for triaging patients in primary care to provide immediate contact with the most appropriate profession to treat the condition in question has been developed and implemented in parts of Sweden. Direct triaging of patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) to physiotherapists at primary healthcare centres has been proposed as an alternative to initial assessment by general practitioners (GPs) and has been shown to have many positive effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective of this new care-pathway through primary care regarding triaging patients with MSD to initial assessment by physiotherapists compared to standard practice with initial GP assessment.MethodsNurse-assessed patients with MSD (N = 55) were randomised to initial assessment and treatment with either physiotherapists or GPs and were followed for 1 year regarding health-related quality of life, utilization of healthcare resources and absence from work for MSD. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on EQ5D measured at 5 time-points. Costs for healthcare resources and production loss were compiled. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERS) were calculated. Multiple imputation was used to compensate for missing values and bootstrapping to handle uncertainty. A cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were construed to describe the results.ResultsThe group who were allocated to initial assessment by physiotherapists had slightly larger gains in QALYs at lower total costs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 €, the likelihood that the intervention was cost-effective from a societal perspective including production loss due to MSD was 85% increasing to 93% at higher thresholds. When only healthcare costs were considered, triaging to physiotherapists was still less costly in relation to health improvements than standard praxis.ConclusionFrom the societal perspective, this small study indicated that triaging directly to physiotherapists in primary care has a high likelihood of being cost-effective. However, further larger randomised trials will be necessary to corroborate these findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02218749 . Registered August 18, 2014.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists are known to be prone to Work- related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMDs) but its prevalence among physiotherapists in Nigeria has not been reported. This study investigated the prevalence and work factors of WRMDs among physiotherapists in Nigeria. METHODS: A cross- sectional survey was administered to physiotherapists in different parts of Nigeria using a 2- part questionnaire with items adopted from questionnaires used for similar studies around the world. Two hundred and seventeen copies of the questionnaire were distributed for self administration but 126 physiotherapists returned completed surveys for a 58.1% response. The data were analyzed using SPPS version 10 at alpha level of 0.05. Descriptive statistics of frequency and percentages and inferential statistics of chi2 were used as appropriate for data analysis. RESULTS: Reported 12- month prevalence of WRMDs among Nigerian physiotherapists was 91.3%. Prevalence of WRMDs was significantly higher in female physiotherapists (p = 0.007) and those with lower body mass index (p = 0.045). The low back (69.8%) was the most commonly affected body part, followed by the neck (34.1%). Fifty percent of the physiotherapists first experienced their WRMDs within five years of graduation and the highest prevalence (61.7%) was found among physiotherapists younger than 30 years. Treating large number of patients in a day was cited by most (83.5%) of the respondents as the most important work factor for their WRMDs. The most commonly adopted coping strategy identified was for the therapists to modify their position and/or the patient's position (64.3%). Majority of the respondents (87.0%) did not leave the profession but 62.6% changed and/or modified their treatment because of their WRMDs. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of WRMDs among physiotherapists in Nigeria is higher than most values reported for their counterparts around the world. The coping strategies and work factors of WRMDs among Nigerian physiotherapists are mostly similar to those of their counterparts elsewhere.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders in community settings, and they are associated with significant psychological distress, functional and social impairment. While cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is the most consistently efficacious psychological treatment for anxiety disorders, barriers preclude widespread implementation of CBT in primary care. Transdiagnostic group CBT (tCBT) focuses on cognitive and behavioural processes and intervention strategies common to different anxiety disorders, and could be a promising alternative to conventional CBT. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of a transdiagnostic group CBT for anxiety disorders program as a complement to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in primary mental health care.Methods/designThe trial is a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a pre-treatment, post-treatment, and follow-up at 4, 8 and 12-months design. Treatment and control groups. a) tCBT (12 weekly 2-h group sessions following a manualized treatment protocol); b) TAU for anxiety disorders. Inclusion criteria comprise meeting DSM-5 criteria for primary Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Social Anxiety Disorder and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Patients are recruited in three regions in the province of Quebec, Canada. The primary outcome measures are the self-reported Beck Anxiety Inventory and the clinician-administered Anxiety and Related Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-5 (ADIS-5); secondary outcome measures include treatment responder status based on the ADIS-5, and self-reported instruments for specific anxiety and depression symptoms, quality of life, functioning, and service utilisation.Statistical analysisIntention-to-treat analysis. A mixed effects regression model will be used to account for between- and within-subject variations in the analysis of the longitudinal effects of the intervention.DiscussionThis rigorous evaluation of tCBT in the real world will provide invaluable information to decision makers, health care managers, clinicians and patients regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. Widespread implementation of tCBT protocols in primary care could lead to better effectiveness, efficiency, access and equity for the large number of patients suffering from anxiety disorders that are currently not obtaining evidence-based psychotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02811458 .

Project description:BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients' scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions' cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ? 20) this change was -1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.).

Project description:BackgroundMost people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.MethodsPROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be?>?170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.DiscussionThe PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic disease prevention and management programs are usually single-disease oriented. Our objective was to evaluate an intervention that targeted multiple chronic conditions and risk factors. METHODS:We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving patients aged 18-75 years with at least 1 of the targeted chronic conditions or risk factors from 8 primary care practices in the Saguenay region of Quebec, Canada, to evaluate an intervention that included self-management support and patient-centred motivational approaches. Self-management (primary outcome) was evaluated using the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ). Secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, health-related quality of life, psychological distress and health behaviours. RESULTS:Three hundred thirty-two patients were recruited and randomly assigned (n = 166 for both intervention and control groups) and evaluated after 3 months. The intervention group showed improvement in 6 of the 8 heiQ domains: health-directed behaviour (relative risk [RR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13 to 2.59), emotional well-being (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.79), self-monitoring and insight (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.86), constructive attitudes and approaches (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.21), skill and technique acquisition (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.53), and health service navigation (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.47). Improvement was also observed in the Physical Component Summary (p = 0.017) and the Single Index (p = 0.041) of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (version 2). The intervention group improved in fruit and vegetable consumption (odds ratio [OR] 2.36, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.95) and physical activity (OR 3.81, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.76). One-year improvement was maintained in the intervention group for several outcomes. INTERPRETATION:It is possible to implement an intervention integrating chronic disease prevention and management services into primary care settings. We obtained positive and promising results using this intervention. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no.: NCT01319656.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95% CI: $16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner.

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with obesity who are not ready for or experience barriers to weight loss, clinical practice guidelines recommend provider counseling on preventing further weight gain as a first-line treatment approach. Unfortunately, evidence-based weight gain prevention interventions are not routinely available within primary care. To address this gap, we will implement a pragmatic 12-month randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention delivered to patients receiving primary care within a network of Federally Qualified Community Health Centers in central North Carolina.MethodsBalance (Equilibrio in Spanish) is a pragmatic effectiveness trial that will randomize adult patients who have overweight or obesity (BMI of 25-40 kg/m2) to either: 1) a weight gain prevention intervention with tailored behavior change goals and tracking, daily weighing on a network-connected electronic scale, and responsive weight and goal coaching delivered remotely by health center registered dietitians; or 2) a usual care program with automated healthy living text messages and print materials and routine primary care. The primary outcome will be weight gain prevention at 24-months, defined as ≤3% change in baseline weight. To align with its pragmatic design, trial outcome data will be pulled from the electronic health record of the community health center network.DiscussionFor underserved, often rurally-located patients with obesity, digital approaches to promote a healthy lifestyle can curb further weight gain. Yet enrolling medically vulnerable patients into a weight gain prevention trial, many of whom are from racial/ethnic minorities, can be difficult. Despite these potential challenges, we plan to recruit a large, diverse sample from rural areas, and will implement a remotely-delivered weight gain prevention intervention to medically vulnerable patients. Upcoming trial results will demonstrate the effectiveness of this pragmatic approach to implement and evaluate a digital weight gain prevention intervention within primary care.Trials registrationNCT03003403 . Registered December 28, 2016.

Dataset Information

Health effects of direct triaging to physiotherapists in primary care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Health effects of direct triaging to physiotherapists in primary care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets