Dataset Information

Perspectives and experiences of people who were randomly assigned to wait-and-see approach in a gluteal tendinopathy trial: a qualitative follow-up study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore participants' perspectives on, and experiences of, being assigned to a wait-and-see arm of a gluteal tendinopathy trial.

Design

Descriptive qualitative.

Setting

General community in Brisbane and Melbourne, Australia.

Participants

Fifteen participants who had been randomly allocated to the wait-and-see group in a recent parallel group superiority clinical trial. That trial compared the wait-and-see approach to a physiotherapist-led education plus exercise approach, and an ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection. The wait-and-see approach involved one physiotherapy session in which participants received reassurance, general advice and encouragement to stay active for the management of gluteal tendinopathy.

Data collection and analysis

Semistructured interviews were conducted by four interviewers in person or over the internet, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and data analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

Results

Five themes were extracted from the interview transcripts: (1) Feeling disenfranchised by being assigned to a wait-and-see approach; (2) the importance of having a clinical and imaging diagnosis during screening for inclusion into the clinical trial; (3) feelings regarding the effectiveness of the approach; (4) the convenient and easy to follow nature of the wait-and-see approach and (5) the connotation of wait-and-see not always being perceived as an intervention.

Conclusions

Participants found the wait-and-see approach convenient and easy to follow, yet almost always felt disenfranchised that nothing was being done. Participants highlighted the importance of a definite clinical and imaging diagnosis.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12612001126808; Post-results.

SUBMITTER: Plinsinga ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8061810 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects of a programme of load management education plus exercise, corticosteroid injection use, and no treatment on pain and global improvement in individuals with gluteal tendinopathy. DESIGN:Prospective, three arm, single blinded, randomised clinical trial. SETTING:Brisbane and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Individuals aged 35-70 years, with lateral hip pain for more than three months, at least 4/10 on the pain numerical rating scale, and gluteal tendinopathy confirmed by clinical diagnosis and magnetic resonance imaging; and with no corticosteroid injection use in previous 12 months, current physiotherapy, total hip replacement, or neurological conditions. INTERVENTIONS:A physiotherapy led education and exercise programme of 14 sessions over eight weeks (EDX; n=69), one corticosteroid injection (CSI; n=66), and a wait and see approach (WS; n=69). MAIN OUTCOMES:Primary outcomes were patient reported global rating of change in hip condition (on an 11 point scale, dichotomised to success and non-success) and pain intensity in the past week (0=no pain, 10=worst pain) at eight weeks, with longer term follow-up at 52 weeks. RESULTS:Of 204 randomised participants (including 167 women; mean age 54.8 years (standard deviation 8.8)), 189 (92.6%) completed 52 week follow-up. Success on the global rating of change was reported at eight weeks by 51/66 EDX, 38/65 CSI, and 20/68 WS participants. EDX and CSI had better global improvement scores than WS (risk difference 49.1% (95% confidence interval 34.6% to 63.5%), number needed to treat 2.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.9); 29.2% (13.2% to 45.2%), 3.4 (2.2 to 7.6); respectively). EDX had better global improvement scores than CSI (19.9% (4.7% to 35.0%); 5.0 (2.9 to 21.1)). At eight weeks, reported pain on the numerical rating scale was mean score 1.5 (standard deviation 1.5) for EDX, 2.7 (2.4) for CSI, and 3.8 (2.0) for WS. EDX and CSI participants reported less pain than WS (mean difference -2.2 (95% confidence interval -2.89 to -1.54); -1.2 (-1.85 to -0.50); respectively), and EDX participants reported less pain than CSI (-1.04 (-1.72 to -0.37)). Success on the global rating of change was reported at 52 weeks by 51/65 EDX, 36/63 CSI, and 31/60 WS participants; EDX was better than CSI (20.4% (4.9% to 35.9%); 4.9 (2.8 to 20.6)) and WS (26.8% (11.3% to 42.3%); 3.7 (2.4 to 8.8)). Reported pain at 52 weeks was 2.1 (2.2) for EDX, 2.3 (1.9) for CSI, and 3.2 (2.6) for WS; EDX did not differ from CSI (-0.26 (-1.06 to 0.55)), but both treatments did better than WS (1.13 (-1.93 to -0.33); 0.87 (-1.68 to -0.07); respectively). CONCLUSIONS:For gluteal tendinopathy, education plus exercise and corticosteroid injection use resulted in higher rates of patient reported global improvement and lower pain intensity than no treatment at eight weeks. Education plus exercise performed better than corticosteroid injection use. At 52 week follow-up, education plus exercise led to better global improvement than corticosteroid injection use, but no difference in pain intensity. These results support EDX as an effective management approach for gluteal tendinopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Prospectively registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001126808).

Project description:BackgroundGluteal tendinopathy is the most common lower limb tendinopathy. It presents with varying severity but may cause debilitating lateral hip pain.PurposeTo review the therapeutic options for different stages of gluteal tendinopathy, to highlight gaps within the existing evidence, and to provide guidelines for a stage-adjusted therapy for gluteal tendinopathy.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsWe screened Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, PubMed Central, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, UpToDate, and Google Scholar databases and databases for grey literature. Patient selection, diagnostic criteria, type and effect of a therapeutic intervention, details regarding aftercare, outcome assessments, complications of the treatment, follow-up, and conclusion of the authors were recorded. An assessment of study methodological quality (type of study, level of evidence) was also performed. Statistical analysis was descriptive. Data from multiple studies were combined if they were obtained from a single patient population. Weighted mean and range calculations were performed.ResultsA total of 27 studies (6 randomized controlled trials) with 1103 patients (1106 hips) were included. The mean age was 53.7 years (range, 17-88 years), and the mean body mass index was 28.3. The ratio of female to male patients was 7:1. Radiological confirmation of the diagnosis was most commonly obtained using magnetic resonance imaging. Reported treatment methods were physical therapy/exercise; injections (corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, autologous tenocytes) with or without needle tenotomy/tendon fenestration; shockwave therapy; therapeutic ultrasound; and surgical procedures such as bursectomy, iliotibial band release, and endoscopic or open tendon repair (with or without tendon augmentation).ConclusionThere was good evidence for using platelet-rich plasma in grades 1 and 2 tendinopathy. Shockwave therapy, exercise, and corticosteroids showed good outcomes, but the effect of corticosteroids was short term. Bursectomy with or without iliotibial band release was a valuable treatment option in grades 1 and 2 tendinopathy. Insufficient evidence was available to provide guidelines for the treatment of partial-thickness tears. There was low-level evidence to support surgical repair for grades 3 (partial-thickness tears) and 4 (full-thickness tears) tendinopathy. Fatty degeneration, atrophy, and retraction can impair surgical repair, while their effect on patient outcomes remains controversial.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is prevalent amongst athletic and non-athletic populations with pain, stiffness and impaired function typically reported. While different management options exist, loading protocols remain the best available intervention and have been shown to be effective in the management of AT. Trials investigating loading in AT have used a variety of different protocols, and recent narrative reviews suggest that no protocol is superior to another when comparing outcomes in pain and function. However, there has been no systematic review or meta-analysis completed to determine this. Furthermore, the narrative review did not consider wait-and-see or sham interventions, thus a systematic review and met-analysis which includes wait-and-see or sham interventions is warranted. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analyses will be conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PUBMED, CINAHL (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) will be searched for articles published from inception to 31 December 2017. Our search focuses on studies examining the improvement of pain and function when completing a loading program for mid-portion AT. Only randomised/ quasi-randomised trials will be included while case reports and case series will be excluded. The primary outcome assessing pain and function will be the Victorian Institute Sports Assessment - Achilles (VISA-A). Two reviewers will screen articles, extract data and assess the risk of bias independently with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements between the two reviewers. A meta-analysis will then be performed on the data (if appropriate) to determine if the traditional heavy load calf training protocol described by Alfredson is superior to wait-and-see, sham intervention, traditional physiotherapy, and other forms of exercise rehabilitation. DISCUSSION:This systematic review and meta-analysis will allow us to investigate if there are difference in pain and function when comparing wait-and-see, sham interventions, traditional physiotherapy and different exercise interventions to the traditional heavy eccentric calf training protocol for mid-portion Achilles tendon pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084493 .

Project description:IntroductionPeople living with frailty risk adverse outcomes following even minor illnesses. Admission to hospital or the intensive care unit is associated with potentially burdensome interventions and poor outcomes. Decision-making during an emergency is fraught with complexity and potential for conflict between patients, carers and clinicians. Advance care planning is a process of shared decision-making which aims to ensure patients are treated in line with their wishes. However, planning for future care is challenging and those living with frailty are rarely given the opportunity to discuss their preferences. The aim of the ProsPECT (Prospective Planning for Escalation of Care and Treatment) study was to explore perspectives on planning for treatment escalation in the context of frailty. We spoke to people living with frailty, their carers and clinicians across primary and secondary care.MethodsIn-depth online or telephone interviews and online focus groups. The topic guide explored frailty, acute decision-making and planning for the future. Data were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. Preliminary findings were presented to a sample of study participants for feedback in two online workshops.ResultsWe spoke to 44 participants (9 patients, 11 carers and 24 clinicians). Four main themes were identified: frailty is absent from treatment escalation discussions, planning for an uncertain future, escalation in an acute crisis is 'the path of least resistance', and approaches to facilitating treatment escalation planning in frailty.ConclusionBarriers to treatment escalation planning include a lack of shared understanding of frailty and uncertainty about the future. Emergency decision-making is focussed on survival or risk aversion and patient preferences are rarely considered. To improve planning discussions, we recommend frailty training for non-specialist clinicians, multi-disciplinary support, collaborative working between patients, carers and clinicians as well as broader public engagement.