Dataset Information

Effects of a physiotherapist-led approach based on a biopsychosocial model for spinal disorders: protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Low back pain and neck pain are among the most common musculoskeletal disorders, and their related medical costs are rising every year. Many interventions are based on the biopsychosocial (BPS) model since the cause of pain is more multifaceted. Physiotherapists have increased opportunities to perform multidisciplinary interventions alone in clinical practice due to a lack of understanding of the model and its cost. Therefore, physiotherapist-led interventions using the BPS model are important and require an updated report summarising their effectiveness. Thus, the purpose of this study will be to summarise and synthesise the effects of physiotherapist-led interventions using the BPS model for spinal disorders.

Methods and analysis

We will search the Web of Science, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PEDro electronic databases, using a date range from inception to September 2021. We will include only randomised controlled trials for patients diagnosed with spinal disorders who received physiotherapist-led interventions based on the BPS model. The search will be limited to English-language publications. Pain intensity and disability are the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes are any psychological factors. We will examine the short-term, medium-term and long-term effects, and a subgroup analysis will be conducted, if possible, to investigate the role of additional physiotherapist training.

Ethics and dissemination

This study is exempt from ethical approval because it involves publicly available documents. The findings will be submitted for publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021258071.

SUBMITTER: Miki T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physiotherapist-led (PT-led) orthopaedic triage is an evolving model of care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Objectives for this study were to establish the current evidence body on the impact of PT-led orthopaedic triage on health, quality, and service outcomes for patients referred for orthopaedic consultation, compared with standard (orthopaedic surgeon) care. METHODS:Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL were searched from inception until 7 May 2018; search updated 24 April 2020. Search terms (including derivatives) included physiotherapy, advanced/extended scope, musculoskeletal/orthopaedic, triage. The search was framed as Population = patients referred for orthopaedic consultation; Intervention =?PT-led orthopaedic triage; Comparison =?standard care; Outcomes =?health, quality and process outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Screening, study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by reviewer pairs. Quality was scored with the Downs and Black checklist. Certainty of evidence was determined using GRADE. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017070950. RESULTS:We included two RCTs and eleven cohort studies (n =?1357 participants) of variable methodological quality (range 14-23 of possible 28). Certainty of evidence was low to moderate. There was no difference between PT-led orthopaedic triage and standard care for patient-reported outcomes (two RCTs). Perceived quality of care with PT-led orthopaedic triage was higher (two RCTs, four cohort studies) or equal (one cohort study) compared with standard care. PT-led orthopaedic triage had higher surgery conversion rates (one RCT, three cohort studies) (55-91% vs 22-38%), lower (two RCTs) or equal rate (two cohort studies) of referral for investigations, shorter waiting times (one RCT, one cohort study), and lower costs (one RCT). Furthermore, there was high agreement between physiotherapists' and orthopaedic surgeons' treatment approach (eight cohort studies), referral for investigation (five cohort studies), and diagnosis (nine cohort studies). Study limitations were the low number of RCTs, and variable methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence of low to moderate certainty suggests that PT-led orthopaedic triage leads to similar diagnostic decisions as standard care, has a higher conversion-to-surgery rate, reduces waiting times, is cost effective and valued by patients, and that health outcomes are equivalent.

Project description:BackgroundBack pain is a leading contributor to disability, healthcare costs, and lost work. Family physicians are the most common first point of contact in the healthcare system for people with back pain, but physiotherapists (PTs) may be able to support the primary care team through evidence-based primary care. A cluster randomized trial is needed to determine the clinical, health system, and societal impact of a primary care model that integrates physiotherapists at the first visit for people with back pain. Prior to conducting a future fully powered cluster randomized trial, we need to demonstrate feasibility of the methods. Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study will be to: 1) Determine feasibility of patient recruitment, assessment procedures, and retention. 2) Determine the feasibility of training and implementation of a new PT-led primary care model for low back pain (LBP) 3) Explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) related to their experiences and attitudes towards the new service delivery model, barriers/facilitators to implementation, perceived satisfaction, perceived value, and impact on clinic processes and patient outcomes.MethodsThis pilot cluster randomized controlled trial will enroll four sites and randomize them to implement a new PT-led primary care model for back pain or a usual physician-led primary care model. All adults booking a primary care visit for back pain will be invited to participate. Feasibility outcomes will include: recruitment and retention rates, completeness of assessment data, PT training participation and confidence after training, and PT treatment fidelity. Secondary outcomes will include the clinical, health system, cost, and process outcomes planned for the future fully powered cluster trial. Results will be analyzed and reported descriptively and qualitatively. To explore perspectives of both HCPs and patients, we will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with HCPs from participants in the PT-led primary care sites.DiscussionIf this pilot demonstrates feasibility, a fully powered trial will provide evidence that has the potential to transform primary care for back pain. The full trial will inform future service design, whether these models should be more widely implemented, and training agendas.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03320148 . Submitted for registration on 17 September 2017.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders.MethodsA scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities.ResultsOf 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders.ConclusionMany associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.

Project description:IntroductionThis double-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to estimate the effect of a physiotherapist-led intervention with targeted strengthening compared with a physiotherapist-led intervention with standardised stretching, on hip-related quality of life (QOL) or perceived improvement at 6 months in people with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. We hypothesise that at 6 months, targeted strengthening physiotherapist-led treatment will be associated with greater improvements in hip-related QOL or greater patient-perceived global improvement when compared with standardised stretching physiotherapist-led treatment.Methods and analysisWe will recruit 164 participants with FAI syndrome who will be randomised into one of the two intervention groups, both receiving one-on-one treatment with the physiotherapist over 6 months. The targeted strengthening physiotherapist-led treatment group will receive a personalised exercise therapy and education programme. The standardised stretching physiotherapist-led treatment group will receive standardised stretching and personalised education programme. Primary outcomes are change in hip-related QOL using International Hip Outcome Tool-33 and patient-perceived global improvement. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, muscle strength, range of motion, functional task performance, biomechanics, hip cartilage structure and physical activity levels. Statistical analyses will make comparisons between both treatment groups by intention to treat, with all randomised participants included in analyses, regardless of protocol adherence. Linear mixed models (with baseline value as a covariate and treatment condition as a fixed factor) will be used to evaluate the treatment effect and 95% CI at primary end-point (6 months).Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved (La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (HEC17-080)) and prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. The findings of this RCT will be disseminated through peer reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Patients were involved in study development and will receive a short summary following the completion of the RCT.Trial registration numberACTRN12617001350314.