Dataset Information

Validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy.

Methods

Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0-12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months.

Results

In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10-4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11-12.98) for the high-risk group.

Conclusion

The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (≥50) is recommended.

SUBMITTER: van den Broek AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7971537 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe STarT MSK cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of risk-based stratified primary care versus usual care for patients with back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain. Trial quantitative results showed risk-based stratified care was not superior to usual care for patients' clinical outcomes, but the intervention led to some changes in GP clinical decision-making. This paper reports a linked qualitative study exploring how risk-based stratified care was perceived and used in the trial, from the perspectives of clinicians and patients.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 patients, and focus groups and interviews with 20 clinicians (GPs and physiotherapists) in the intervention arm of the trial. Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and the COM-B model.Main findingsRisk-based stratified care (subgrouping and matching treatments) was found to have 'coherence' (i.e. made sense) to several clinicians and patients, in that it was well-integrated in practice, and supported clinical decision-making. However, for some GPs stratified care was less 'meaningful', as the risk-stratification tool did not fit with usual ways of consulting and added to already time-pressured consultations. GPs reported giving more patients written information/advice due to easier access to electronic information leaflets through the trial template and were motivated to refer patients to physiotherapy as they believed the trial resulted in faster physiotherapy access (although this was not the case). Patients and clinicians reported that risk-based stratified care influenced conversations in the consultation, prompting greater attention to psychosocial factors, and facilitating negotiation of treatment options. Physiotherapists saw benefits in receiving information about patients' risk subgroup on referral forms.ConclusionThese findings provide context for interpreting some of the trial outcomes, particularly in relation to changes in clinical decision-making when risk-based stratified care was used. Findings also indicate potential reasons for lack of GP engagement with risk-based stratified care. Positive outcomes were identified that were not captured in the quantitative data, specifically that risk-based stratified care positively influenced some GP-patient conversations and facilitated negotiation of treatment options.Trial registrationISRCTN15366334 (26/04/2016).

Project description:BackgroundThe STarT-MSK-Tool is an adaptation of the well established STarT-Back-Tool, used to risk-stratify patients with a wider range of musculoskeletal presentations.ObjectiveTo formally translate and cross-culturally adapt the Keele STarT-MSK risk stratification tool into German (STarT-MSKG) and to establish its reliability and validity.MethodsA formal, multi-step, forward and backward translation approach was used. To assess validity patients aged ≥18 years, with acute, subacute or chronic musculoskeletal presentations in the lumbar spine, hip, knee, shoulder, or neck were included. The prospective cohort was used with initial data collected electronically at the point-of-consultation. Retest and 6-month follow-up questionnaires were sent by email. Test-retest reliability, construct validity, discriminative ability, predictive ability and floor or ceiling effects were analysed using intraclass correlation coefficient, and comparisons with a reference standard (Orebro-Musculoskeletal-Pain-Questionnaire: OMPQ) using correlations, ROC-curves and regression models.ResultsThe participants' (n = 287) mean age was 47 (SD = 15.8) years, 51% were female, with 48.8% at low, 43.6% at medium, and 7.7% at high risk. With ICC = 0.75 (95% CI 0.69; 0.81) test-retest-reliability was good. Construct validity was good with correlations for the STarT-MSKG-Tool against the OMPQ-Tool of rs = 0.74 (95% CI 0.68, 0.79). The ability of the tool [comparison OMPQ] to predict 6-month pain and disability was acceptable with AUC = 0.77 (95% CI 0.71, 0.83) [OMPQ = 0.74] and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69, 0.82) [OMPQ = 0.72] respectively. However, the explained variance (linear/logistic regression) for predicting 6-month pain (21% [OMPQ = 17%]/logistic = 29%) and disability (linear = 20%:[OMPQ = 19%]/logistic = 26%), whilst being comparable to the existing OMPQ reference standard, fell short of the a priori target of ≥30%.ConclusionsThe German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool is a valid instrument for use across multiple musculoskeletal conditions and is availabe for use in clinical practice. Comparison with the OMPQ suggests it is a good alternative.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations. METHODS:The design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making. RESULTS:GPs screened 3063 patients (intervention?=?1591, control?=?1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (intervention?=?513, control?=?724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (intervention?=?231, control?=?293). Recruitment took 28?weeks (target 12?weeks) with >?90% follow-up retention (target >?75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved "complete success". CONCLUSIONS:A future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Name of the registry: ISRCTN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:15366334. Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the predictive validity of the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) tool for classifying people with back pain into categories of low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling back pain in U.S. primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of data from participants receiving usual care in a randomized clinical trial.SettingPrimary care clinics.ParticipantsAdults (N = 1109) ≥18 years of age with back pain. Those with specific causes of back pain (pregnancy, disc herniation, vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis) and work-related injuries were not included.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresThe original 9-item version of the STarT Back tool, administered at baseline, stratified patients by their risk (low, medium, high) of persistent disabling back pain (STarT Back risk group). Persistent disabling back pain was defined as Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of ≥7 at 6-month follow-up.ResultsThe STarT Back risk group was a significant predictor of persistent disabling back pain (P<.0001) at 6-month follow-up. The proportion of individuals with persistent disabling back pain at follow-up was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25) in the low-risk group, 62% (95% CI 57-67) in the medium-risk group, and 80% (95% CI 75-85) in the high-risk group. The relative risk of persistent disabling back pain was 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.5) in the medium-risk group compared to the low-risk group, and 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) in the high-risk group.ConclusionsThe STarT Back risk groups successfully separated people with back pain into distinct categories of risk for persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up in U.S. primary care. These results were very similar to those in the original STarT Back validation study. This validation study is a necessary first step toward identifying whether the entire STarT Back approach, including matched/targeted treatment, can be effectively used for primary care in the United States.

Project description:BackgroundThe early identification of individuals at high risk for adverse outcomes by a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in resource-limited primary care settings enables tailored treatments, however, the evidence concerning its benefits are still controversial. The main objective of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the "Multidimensional Assessment of Older People in Primary Care (AMPI-AB)", a CGA for primary care in resource-limited settings.MethodsLongitudinal study, with median follow-up time of 16 months. Older adults from a public primary care unit in São Paulo, Brazil, were consecutively admitted. Reliability was tested in a sample from a public geriatric outpatient clinic. Participants were classified by the AMPI-AB score as requiring a low, intermediate or high complexity of care. The Physical Frailty Phenotype was used to explore the AMPI-AB's concurrent validity. Predictive validity was assessed with mortality, worsening of the functional status, hospitalizations, emergency room (ER) visits and falls. The area under the ROC curve and logistic regression were calculated for binary outcomes, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used for survival analysis.ResultsOlder adults (n = 317) with a median age of 80 (74-86) years, 67% female, were consecutively admitted. At the follow-up, 7.1% of participants had died, and increased dependency on basic and instrumental activities of daily living was detected in 8.9 and 41.1% of the participants, respectively. The AMPI-AB score was accurate in detecting frailty (area under the ROC curve = 0.851), predicted mortality (HR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.13-1.39) and increased dependency on basic (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.10-1.46) and instrumental (OR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.12-1.34) activities of daily living, hospitalizations (OR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.04-1.26), ER visits (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 1.10-1.31) and falls (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 1.01-1.20), all models adjusted for sex and years of schooling. Reliability was tested in a sample of 52 older adults with a median age of 72 (85-64) years, 63.5% female. The AMPI-AB also had good interrater (ICC = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.78-0.92), test-retest (ICC = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.76-0.93) and proxy reliability (ICC = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.67-0.93). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.69, and the mean AMPI-AB administration time was 05:44 ± 02:42 min.ConclusionThe AMPI-AB is a valid and reliable tool for managing older adults in resource-limited primary care settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence and cost of musculoskeletal diseases increased dramatically over the past few decades. Therefore, several institutions have begun to re-evaluate the quality of their musculoskeletal educational paths. However, current standardized questionnaires inadequately assess musculoskeletal knowledge, and other musculoskeletal-specific exams have limitations in implementation. The musculoskeletal 30-question multiple choice questionnaire (MSK-30) was proposed as a new tool for assessing basic musculoskeletal knowledge.AimTo analyse basic musculoskeletal knowledge in a sample of Italian physiotherapists by administering the MSK-30 questionnaire.MethodsAfter a transcultural adaptation process, the MSK-30 was developed and administered to Italian physiotherapists to assess their musculoskeletal knowledge. Participants were invited to participate in the survey via the SurveyMonkey link. Mann-Whitney test and the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction were used to observe the differences between groups in the MSK-30 scores.ResultsFour hundred-fourteen (n=414) physiotherapists participated in the survey. The median MSK-30 value was higher in physiotherapists who attended the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists postgraduate certification than in those who attended unstructured postgraduate training in musculoskeletal condition or in those who had not completed any postgraduate training in this field (p<0.001).ConclusionsThis work demonstrates significant differences in the management of musculoskeletal disorders between those with specific postgraduate university education and those without. The findings can contribute to the advancement of the physiotherapy profession in Italy. Authors recommend further research with more robust methodologies to deeper understand this topic. Musculoskeletal conditions will continue to represent a significant portion of primary care visits, and future generations of physiotherapists must be prepared to address this challenge.

Project description:People suffering from musculoskeletal shoulder pain are frequently referred to physiotherapy. Physiotherapy generally involves a multimodal approach to management that may include; exercise, manual therapy and techniques to reduce pain. At present it is not possible to predict which patients will respond positively to physiotherapy treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify which prognostic factors are associated with the outcome of physiotherapy in the management of musculoskeletal shoulder pain.A comprehensive search was undertaken of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED (from inception to January 2013). Prospective studies of participants with shoulder pain receiving physiotherapy which investigated the association between baseline prognostic factors and change in pain and function over time were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study quality were undertaken by two independent assessors. Quality criteria were selected from previously published guidelines to form a checklist of 24 items. The study protocol was prospectively registered onto the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.A total of 5023 titles were retrieved and screened for eligibility, 154 articles were assessed as full text and 16 met the inclusion criteria: 11 cohort studies, 3 randomised controlled trials and 2 controlled trials. Results were presented for the 9 studies meeting 13 or more of the 24 quality criteria. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity resulted in qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis. Three studies demonstrated that high functional disability at baseline was associated with poor functional outcome (p ? 0.05). Four studies demonstrated a significant association (p ? 0.05) between longer duration of shoulder pain and poorer outcome. Three studies, demonstrated a significant association (p ? 0.05) between increasing age and poorer function; three studies demonstrated no association (p > 0.05).Associations between prognostic factors and outcome were often inconsistent between studies. This may be due to clinical heterogeneity or type II errors. Only two baseline prognostic factors demonstrated a consistent association with outcome in two or more studies; duration of shoulder pain and baseline function. Prior to developing a predictive model for the outcome of physiotherapy treatment for shoulder pain, a large adequately powered prospective cohort study is required in which a broad range of prognostic factors are incorporated.