Dataset Information

Effects of an e-learning programme on osteopaths' back pain attitudes: a mixed methods feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The biopsychosocial model is recommended in the management of non-specific low back pain but musculoskeletal practitioners can lack skills in assessing and managing patients using a biopsychosocial framework. Educational interventions have produced equivocal results. There is a need for an alternative educational tool to support practitioners' development in the application of biopsychosocial model to manage low back pain.

Methods

A mixed methods study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an e-learning programme on the biopsychosocial management of non-specific low back pain for osteopaths with more than 15 years' experience. A sequential explanatory design was conducted, with a feasibility randomised controlled trial and semi-structured interviews explored with thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 45 participants participated in the RCT of which 9 also participated in the interview study. The a-priori sample size was not met (45 instead of 50). The recruitment strategies, randomisation, retention, data collection and outcome measures worked well and were found to be feasible for a main trial. The retention, satisfaction and participants' views of the programme demonstrated a good acceptability of the programme. Data from the semi-structured interviews were organised in three themes, the first two were related to the feasibility and acceptability of the e-learning programme (practical experience of following the course and engagement with the content) and the third relates to the impact of the intervention (perception of the BPS model).

Conclusion

A main RCT is feasible and the intervention was received well by the participants. A main RCT is required to assess the effectiveness of the e-learning programme. This work also provided data on aspects so far unreported, including osteopaths' views on continuing professional development, on e-learning as a form of continuing professional development and osteopaths' perceptions and challenges concerning the implementation of the biopsychosocial model in practice.

SUBMITTER: Draper-Rodi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8436454 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: There is global recognition that low back pain (LBP) should be managed with a biopsychosocial approach. Previous implementation of this approach resulted in low uptake and highlighted the need for ongoing support. This study aims to explore the feasibility of (i) training and using a champion to support implementation, (ii) using a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), (iii) collecting patient reported outcome measures in a Canadian public healthcare setting and to identify contextual barriers to implementation.Methods: A pragmatic cluster RCT with embedded qualitative study with physiotherapists treating LBP in publicly funded physiotherapy departments in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Participants will complete a previously developed online training course to equip them to deliver a biopsychosocial intervention for LBP. Clusters randomised to the intervention arm will receive additional support from a champion. A minimum champion training package has been developed based on known barriers in the literature. This includes strategies to target barriers relating to group-based scheduling issues, lack of managerial support, perceived patient factors such as addressing patient expectations for other types of treatments or selecting which patients might be best suited for this intervention, and anxiety about delivering something new. This package will be further codeveloped with study champions based on identified implementation barriers using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Clusters will be monitored for 6 months to assess champion and physiotherapist recruitment and retention, acceptability and implementation of the champion training, and the viability of conducting a cluster RCT in this setting. A purposive sample of physiotherapists will be interviewed from both arms.Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Authority in December 2018. Results will be disseminated to academic audiences through conferences and peer reviewed publications; to all study participants, their clinical leads, and patients with LBP.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04377529; Memorial University of Newfoundland Protocol Record 20190025; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of low back pain increases with age and has a profound impact on physical and psychosocial health. With increasing age comes increasing comorbidity, and this also has pronounced health consequences. Whilst exercise is beneficial for a range of health conditions, trials of exercise for low back pain management often exclude older adults. It is currently unknown whether an exercise program for older adults with low back pain, tailored for the presence of comorbidities, is acceptable for participants and primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). Therefore, this mixed-methods study will assess the feasibility of an 8-week comorbidity-adapted exercise program for older people with low back pain and comorbid conditions.MethodsThe 3-phased feasibility study will be performed in a primary healthcare setting. PHCPs will be trained to deliver a comorbidity-adapted exercise program for older people with low back pain and comorbidities. Healthcare-seeking adults > 65 will be screened for eligibility over telephone, with a recruitment target of 24 participants. Eligible participants will attend an initial appointment (diagnostic phase). During this initial appointment, a research assistant will collect patient demographics, self-reported outcome measurement data, and perform a physical and functional examination to determine contraindications and restrictions to an exercise program. During the development phase, PHCPs will adapt the exercise program to the individual and provide patient education. During the intervention phase, there will be two supervised exercise sessions per week, over 8 weeks (total of 16 exercise sessions). Each exercise session will be approximately 60 min in duration. A qualitative evaluation after the last exercise program session will explore the feasibility of the exercise program for participants and PHCPs. Progression criteria will determine the suitability for a fully powered randomised controlled trial.DiscussionThis mixed-methods feasibility study will assess an exercise program for older adults with low back pain and comorbidities. Once assessed for feasibility, the exercise program may be tested for effectiveness in a larger, fully powered randomised controlled trial. This information will add to the sparse evidence base on appropriate options for managing back pain in older adults.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number: ACTRN12621000379819p (06/04/2021; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621000379819p ).Trial sponsorMacquarie University, Department of Chiropractic, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with low back pain (LBP) in the community often do not receive evidence-based advice and management. Community pharmacists can play an important role in supporting people with LBP as pharmacists are easily accessible to provide first-line care. However, previous research suggests that pharmacists may not consistently deliver advice that is concordant with guideline recommendations and may demonstrate difficulty determining which patients require prompt medical review. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) may enhance first-line care of LBP, but none exists to support the community pharmacist-client consultation. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to develop a CDSS to guide first-line care of LBP in the community pharmacy setting and to evaluate the pharmacist-reported usability and acceptance of the prototype system. METHODS:A cross-platform Web app for the Apple iPad was developed in conjunction with academic and clinical experts using an iterative user-centered design process during interface design, clinical reasoning, program development, and evaluation. The CDSS was evaluated via one-to-one user-testing with 5 community pharmacists (5 case vignettes each). Data were collected via video recording, screen capture, survey instrument (system usability scale), and direct observation. RESULTS:Pharmacists' agreement with CDSS-generated self-care recommendations was 90% (18/20), with medicines recommendations was 100% (25/25), and with referral advice was 88% (22/25; total 70 recommendations). Pharmacists expressed uncertainty when screening for serious pathology in 40% (10/25) of cases. Pharmacists requested more direction from the CDSS in relation to automated prompts for user input and page navigation. Overall system usability was rated as excellent (mean score 92/100, SD 6.5; 90th percentile compared with similar systems), with acceptance rated as good to excellent. CONCLUSIONS:A novel CDSS (high-fidelity prototype) to enhance pharmacist care of LBP was developed, underpinned by clinical practice guidelines and informed by a multidisciplinary team of experts. User-testing revealed a high level of usability and acceptance of the prototype system, with suggestions to improve interface prompts and information delivery. The small study sample limits the generalizability of the findings but offers important insights to inform the next stage of system development.

Project description:BACKGROUND:At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings. METHODS:The project will comprise an inception cohort study and a concurrent qualitative study. For the cohort study, we will recruit 175 primary care clinicians (50 each from physiotherapy and chiropractic; 75 from family medicine), and 3750 patients with a new episode of LBP who present to these clinicians. Clinicians will collect data in the clinic, and each participant will be tracked for 12?months using Ontario health administrative and self-reported data to measure diagnostic imaging use and other health outcomes. We will assess characteristics of the clinicians, patients and encounters to identify variables associated with inappropriate imaging. In the qualitative study we will conduct in-depth interviews with primary care clinicians and patients. DISCUSSION:This will be the first Canadian study to accurately document the extent of the overuse of imaging for LBP, and the first worldwide to include data from the main healthcare professions offering primary care for people with LBP. This study will provide robust information about rates of inappropriate imaging for LBP, along with factors associated with, and an understanding of, potential reasons for inappropriate imaging.

Project description:BACKGROUND: There is considerable clinician and researcher interest in whether the outcomes for patients with low back pain, and the efficiency of the health systems that treat them, can be improved by 'subgrouping research'. Subgrouping research seeks to identify subgroups of people who have clinically important distinctions in their treatment needs or prognoses. Due to a proliferation of research methods and variability in how subgrouping results are interpreted, it is timely to open discussion regarding a conceptual framework for the research designs and statistical methods available for subgrouping studies (a method framework). The aims of this debate article are: (1) to present a method framework to inform the design and evaluation of subgrouping research in low back pain, (2) to describe method options when investigating prognostic effects or subgroup treatment effects, and (3) to discuss the strengths and limitations of research methods suitable for the hypothesis-setting phase of subgroup studies. DISCUSSION: The proposed method framework proposes six phases for studies of subgroups: studies of assessment methods, hypothesis-setting studies, hypothesis-testing studies, narrow validation studies, broad validation studies, and impact analysis studies. This framework extends and relabels a classification system previously proposed by McGinn et al (2000) as suitable for studies of clinical prediction rules. This extended classification, and its descriptive terms, explicitly anchor research findings to the type of evidence each provides. The inclusive nature of the framework invites appropriate consideration of the results of diverse research designs. Method pathways are described for studies designed to test and quantify prognostic effects or subgroup treatment effects, and examples are discussed. The proposed method framework is presented as a roadmap for conversation amongst researchers and clinicians who plan, stage and perform subgrouping research. SUMMARY: This article proposes a research method framework for studies of subgroups in low back pain. Research designs and statistical methods appropriate for sequential phases in this research are discussed, with an emphasis on those suitable for hypothesis-setting studies of subgroups of people seeking care.

Project description:BackgroundA functional interprofessional teamwork improves collaborative patient-centred care. Participation in interprofessional education promotes cooperation after graduation. Individuals tend to use different approaches to learning depending on their individual preferences. The purpose of this study was to explore nursing students' experiences of professional development with a focus on the relationship between attitudes to interprofessional learning and learning styles.MethodsA longitudinal parallel mixed-methods design. The study was carried out at a Swedish three-year nursing program from August 2015 to January 2020. On enrolment, thirty-four students self-assessed their attitudes to interprofessional learning according to the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale, and their learning style according to Kolbs' Learning Style Inventory. In the final semester the students participated in an interview focusing on their experiences and perceptions of teamwork and they self-assessed their attitudes to interprofessional learning again.ResultsOur findings indicated that 64.7% had a predominantly concrete learning style and 35.3% had a predominantly reflective learning style. No significant relationship with internal consistency reliability was identified among the participants between attitudes to interprofessional learning and learning styles. The content analysis resulted in four main categories: Amazing when it's functional; Deepened insight of care; Increased quality of care; Understanding own profession which were summarized in the theme: Well-functioning teams improve patients' outcome and working environment.ConclusionThe students' attitudes to interprofessional learning were positive and it was considered as an opportunity to participate in interprofessional cooperation during internship. Transformative learning is a useful strategy in fostering interprofessional relationships due to the interdependence of various professions in interprofessional teams. When students are guided to use reflection to develop new perspectives and meaning structures, they acquire emotional and rational skills beneficial for interprofessional cooperation.

Project description:To develop an instrument to assess attitudes and underlying beliefs about back pain, and subsequently investigate its internal consistency and underlying structures.The instrument was developed by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians and researchers based on analysis of qualitative interviews with people experiencing acute and chronic back pain. Exploratory analysis was conducted using data from a population-based cross-sectional survey.Qualitative interviews with community-based participants and subsequent postal survey.Instrument development informed by interviews with 12 participants with acute back pain and 11 participants with chronic back pain. Data for exploratory analysis collected from New Zealand residents and citizens aged 18?years and above. 1000 participants were randomly selected from the New Zealand Electoral Roll. 602 valid responses were received.The 34-item Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) was developed. Internal consistency was evaluated by the Cronbach ? coefficient. Exploratory analysis investigated the structure of the data using Principal Component Analysis.The 34-item long form of the scale had acceptable internal consistency (?=0.70; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.73). Exploratory analysis identified five two-item principal components which accounted for 74% of the variance in the reduced data set: 'vulnerability of the back'; 'relationship between back pain and injury'; 'activity participation while experiencing back pain'; 'prognosis of back pain' and 'psychological influences on recovery'. Internal consistency was acceptable for the reduced 10-item scale (?=0.61; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.66) and the identified components (? between 0.50 and 0.78).The 34-item long form of the scale may be appropriate for use in future cross-sectional studies. The 10-item short form may be appropriate for use as a screening tool, or an outcome assessment instrument. Further testing of the 10-item Back-PAQ's construct validity, reliability, responsiveness to change and predictive ability needs to be conducted.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal. DESIGN:A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT. SETTING:A rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. PARTICIPANTS:Forty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women). INTERVENTIONS:Eligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Pain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation. RESULTS:Forty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a full RCT of pain education for back pain in Nepal is feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03387228; Results.