Search

Objectives: To explore the acceptability of an optimised physiotherapy (OPTimisE) intervention for people with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) and feasibility of comparing it to usual care in a randomised controlled trial., Design: Semistructured interviews, analysed using thematic analysis and mapped onto the COM-B model of behaviour change., Setting: Conducted as part of the OPTimisE Pilot & Feasibility randomised controlled trial within physiotherapy departments in the United Kingdom National Health Service., Participants: 17 patients with LET (purposively sampled to provide representativeness based on age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation index and treatment allocation) and all 8 physiotherapists involved as treating clinicians or site principal investigators., Results: Four themes were identified. First, participants reported the OPTimisE intervention as acceptable. Second, differences between the OPTimisE intervention and usual care were identified, including the use of an orthosis, holistic advice/education including modifiable risk factors, forearm stretches, general upper body strengthening and a more prescriptive exercise-dosing regimen. Third, participants provided feedback related to the trial resources, which were viewed positively, but identified language translation as a need. Fourth, feedback related to trial processes identified the need for changes to outcome collection and reduction of administrative burden. From the perspective of adopting the OPTimisE intervention, we found evidence that participants were able to change their behaviour. Considering the findings through the lens of the COM-B model, the intervention is likely to be deliverable in practice and the trial can be delivered at scale with some additional support for physiotherapists., Conclusions: Overall, the OPTimisE intervention was found to be different to usual care and acceptable to patients and physiotherapists. The study highlighted the need to refine trial processes and resources prior to a full-scale trial, to reduce administrative burden, increase support for physiotherapists, improve return rate of outcome questionnaires and provide language translation., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN database 19 July 2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN64444585., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To explore the lived experience of people with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) and its impact on everyday life., Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews, analysed using thematic analysis., Setting: Conducted as part of the mixed-methods OPTimisE pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial of outpatient physiotherapy patients in the UK., Participants: 17 participants with LET, purposively sampled from the trial to provide representativeness based on age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation index and treatment allocation., Results: Four themes were identified from the participants' responses: (1) cause of onset-typically symptoms were attributed to: sudden changes in activity, repetitive work or compensating for other musculoskeletal conditions; (2) impact on everyday life-which included substantial impacts on quality-of-life, particularly due to pain disturbing sleep and difficulties performing daily tasks (related to work and hobbies) due to pain, although most reported being able to persevere with work; (3) self-help and understanding of the condition-with uncertainty about the appropriateness and potential harm of online advice and confusion from the diagnostic term 'Tennis Elbow' that non-sporting individuals struggled to relate to; (4) healthcare experiences-the treatments received were highly variable and often perceived as ineffectual., Conclusions: For the first time, the lived experience of people from a range of backgrounds suffering from LET has been explored. Findings suggest that people frequently related the cause to a specific activity. They reported substantial impacts on daily tasks, sleep, work and hobbies. People also reported hesitancy to trust online information without formal healthcare advice, were confused by the common label of 'Tennis Elbow', and perceived the wide array of healthcare treatment options they had received to offer false hope and be largely ineffective. This study provides stimulus for clinicians to consider the advice and treatment provided, and whether the messages conveyed reflect the favourable natural history of the condition., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN64444585., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: There are a wide range of physiotherapy treatment options for people with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET); however, previous studies have reported inconsistent approaches to treatment and a lack of evidence demonstrating clinical effectiveness. This study aimed to combine the best available research evidence with stakeholder perspectives to develop key components of an optimised physiotherapist-led treatment protocol for testing in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Design: Online consensus groups using nominal group technique (NGT), a systematic approach to building consensus using structured multistage meetings., Setting: UK National Health Service (NHS)., Participants: 10 physiotherapists with special interest in LET, 2 physiotherapy service managers and 3 patients who had experienced LET., Interventions: Two consensus groups were conducted; the first meeting focused on agreeing the types of interventions to be included in the optimised treatment protocol; the second meeting focused on specific details of intervention delivery. Participants were sent an evidence summary of available treatments for LET prior to the first meeting. All treatment options were discussed before anonymous voting and ranking of priority. Consensus for inclusion of each treatment option was set at ≥70% based on OMERACT guidelines. Options with 30%-69% agreement were discussed again, and a second vote was held, allowing for a change of opinion., Results: The optimised physiotherapist-led treatment package included: advice and education, exercise therapy and orthotics. Specific components for each of these interventions were also agreed such as: condition-specific advice, health-promotion advice, exercise types, exercise into 'acceptable' levels of pain, exercise dosage and type of orthoses. Other treatment options including electrotherapy, acupuncture and manual therapy were excluded., Conclusion: An optimised physiotherapist-led treatment protocol for people with LET was successfully developed using an online NGT consensus approach. This intervention is now ready for testing in a future pilot/feasibility RCT to contribute much needed evidence about the treatment of LET., Trial Registration Number: This is the pre-cursor to the OPTimisE Pilot and Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial. Registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN64444585., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We have previously developed and validated the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) for use across musculoskeletal care pathways, showing encouraging psychometric test results. The objective of this study was to determine the responsiveness of MSK-HQ following MSK treatments and to determine the minimally important change (MIC)., Setting: We collected data in four cohorts from community physiotherapy and secondary-care orthopaedic hip, knee and shoulder clinics., Participants: 592 individuals were recruited; 210 patients treated with physiotherapy for a range of MSK conditions in primary care; 150 patients undergoing hip replacement, 150 patients undergoing knee replacement and 82 undergoing shoulder surgery in secondary care., Outcome Measures: Preoperative data were collected including the MSK-HQ, European Quality of Life-5D (EQ-5D) and the OHS, OKS or OSS in each joint-specific group. The same scores, together with anchor questions, were collected postintervention at 3 months for the physiotherapy group and 6 months for all others. Following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, responsiveness was assessed using correlation between scores and the MIC was calculated for the entire cohort using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis., Results: The MSK-HQ demonstrated strong correlation (R=0.73) with EQ-5D across the entire cohort and with each of the joint-specific Oxford scores (hip R=0.87, knee R=0.92 and shoulder R=0.77). Moderate correlation was seen between MSK-HQ and EQ-5D across each individual group (R value range 0.60-0.68), apart from the hip group where correlation was strong (R=0.77). The effect size with MSK-HQ was 0.93, in the entire cohort, double that measured with EQ-5D (0.43). In all subgroups, MSK-HQ measured a greater treatment effect compared with EQ-5D. The MIC is 5.5 (95% CI 2.7 to 8.3)., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the MSK-HQ questionnaire is responsive to change across a range of musculoskeletal conditions, supporting its use as a generic MSK measurement instrument., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The predictive ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) has not yet been examined among acute/subacute back and/or neck pain in a primary care setting in respect to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work ability outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SBT's predictive validity for HRQoL and work ability outcomes at long-term follow-up in a population with acute/subacute back and/or neck pain., Setting: Prospective data from 35 primary care centres in south Sweden during 2013., Participants: Patients (n=329) with acute/subacute back and/or neck pain, aged 18-67 years, not on sick leave or <60 days of sick leave completed the SBT when applying for physiotherapy treatment. Long-term follow-up measures (median 13 months, range 11-27 months) of HRQoL (EQ-5D) and work ability (Work Ability Score) was completed by 238 patients (72%)., Outcomes: The predictive ability of the SBT for HRQoL and work ability outcomes was examined using Kruskal-Wallis test, logistic regression and area under the curve (AUC)., Results: Based on SBT risk group stratification, 103 (43%), 107 (45%) and 28 (12%) patients were considered as low, medium and at high risk, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in HRQoL (p<0.001) and work ability (p<0.001) at follow-up between all three SBT risk groups. Patients in the high risk group had a significantly increased risk of having poor HRQoL (OR 6.16, 95% CI 1.50 to 25.26) and poor work ability (OR 5.08, 95% CI 1.75 to 14.71) vs the low risk group at follow-up. The AUC was 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.84) for HRQoL and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.76) for work ability., Conclusions: The SBT is an appropriate tool for identifying patients with a poor long-term HRQoL and/or work ability outcome in a population with acute/subacute back and/or neck pain, and maybe a useful adjunct to primary care physiotherapy assessment and practice., Trial Registration Number: NCT02609750; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of an internet intervention for low back pain (LBP) using three arms: (1) usual care, (2) usual care plus an internet intervention or (3) usual care plus an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support., Design and Setting: A three-armed randomised controlled feasibility trial conducted in 12 general practices in England., Participants: Primary care patients aged over 18 years, with current LBP, access to the internet and without indicators of serious spinal pathology or systemic illness., Interventions: The 'SupportBack' internet intervention delivers a 6-week, tailored programme, focused on graded goal setting, self-monitoring and provision of tailored feedback to encourage physical activity. Additional physiotherapist telephone support consisted of three brief telephone calls over a 4-week period, to address any concerns and provide reassurance., Outcomes: The primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design including recruitment, adherence and retention at follow-up. Secondary descriptive and exploratory analyses were conducted on clinical outcomes including LBP-related disability at 3 months follow-up., Results: Primary outcomes: 87 patients with LBP were recruited (target 60-90) over 6 months, and there were 3 withdrawals. Adherence to the intervention was higher in the physiotherapist-supported arm, compared with the stand-alone internet intervention. Trial physiotherapists adhered to the support protocol. Overall follow-up rate on key clinical outcomes at 3 months follow-up was 84%., Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the SupportBack intervention in primary care patients with LBP., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN31034004; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: The STarT Back Tool has good predictive performance for non-specific low back pain in primary care. We therefore aimed to investigate whether a modified STarT Back Tool predicted outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients, and assessed the consequences of using existing risk-group cut-points across different pain regions., Setting: Secondary analysis of prospective data from 2 cohorts: (1) outpatient musculoskeletal physiotherapy services (PhysioDirect trial n=1887) and (2) musculoskeletal primary-secondary care interface services (SAMBA study n=1082)., Participants: Patients with back, neck, upper limb, lower limb or multisite pain with a completed modified STarT Back Tool (baseline) and 6-month physical health outcome (Short Form 36 (SF-36))., Outcomes: Area under the receiving operator curve (AUCs) tested discriminative abilities of the tool's baseline score for identifying poor 6-month outcome (SF-36 lower tertile Physical Component Score). Risk-group cut-points were tested using sensitivity and specificity for identifying poor outcome using (1) Youden's J statistic and (2) a clinically determined rule that specificity should not fall below 0.7 (false-positive rate <30%)., Results: In PhysioDirect and SAMBA, poor 6-month physical health was 18.5% and 28.2%, respectively. Modified STarT Back Tool score AUCs for predicting outcome in back pain were 0.72 and 0.79, neck 0.82 and 0.88, upper limb 0.79 and 0.86, lower limb 0.77 and 0.83, and multisite pain 0.83 and 0.82 in PhysioDirect and SAMBA, respectively. Differences between pain region AUCs were non-significant. Optimal cut-points to discriminate low-risk and medium-risk/high-risk groups depended on pain region and clinical services., Conclusions: A modified STarT Back Tool similarly predicts 6-month physical health outcome across 5 musculoskeletal pain regions. However, the use of consistent risk-group cut-points was not possible and resulted in poor sensitivity (too many with long-term disability being missed) or specificity (too many with good outcome inaccurately classified as 'at risk') for some pain regions. The draft tool is now being refined and validated within a new programme of research for a broader musculoskeletal population., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN55666618; Post results., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: Current musculoskeletal outcome tools are fragmented across different healthcare settings and conditions. Our objectives were to develop and validate a single musculoskeletal outcome measure for use throughout the pathway and patients with different musculoskeletal conditions: the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ)., Setting: A consensus workshop with stakeholders from across the musculoskeletal community, workshops and individual interviews with a broad mix of musculoskeletal patients identified and prioritised outcomes for MSK-HQ inclusion. Initial psychometric validation was conducted in four cohorts from community physiotherapy, and secondary care orthopaedic hip, knee and shoulder clinics., Participants: Stakeholders (n=29) included primary care, physiotherapy, orthopaedic and rheumatology patients (n=8); general practitioners, physiotherapists, orthopaedists, rheumatologists and pain specialists (n=7), patient and professional national body representatives (n=10), and researchers (n=4). The four validation cohorts included 570 participants (n=210 physiotherapy, n=150 hip, n=150 knee, n=60 shoulder patients)., Outcome Measures: Outcomes included the MSK-HQ's acceptability, feasibility, comprehension, readability and responder burden. The validation cohort outcomes were the MSK-HQ's completion rate, test-retest reliability and convergent validity with reference standards (EQ-5D-5L, Oxford Hip, Knee, Shoulder Scores, and the Keele MSK-PROM)., Results: Musculoskeletal domains prioritised were pain severity, physical function, work interference, social interference, sleep, fatigue, emotional health, physical activity, independence, understanding, confidence to self-manage and overall impact. Patients reported MSK-HQ items to be 'highly relevant' and 'easy to understand'. Completion rates were high (94.2%), with scores normally distributed, and no floor/ceiling effects. Test-retest reliability was excellent, and convergent validity was strong (correlations 0.81-0.88)., Conclusions: A new musculoskeletal outcome measure has been developed through a coproduction process with patients to capture prioritised outcomes for use throughout the pathway and with different musculoskeletal conditions. Four validation cohorts found that the MSK-HQ had high completion rates, excellent test-retest reliability and strong convergent validity with reference standards. Further validation studies are ongoing, including a cohort with rheumatoid/inflammatory arthritis., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition. The majority of patients experiencing LBP are managed in primary care, where first-line care recommendations consist of advice to self-manage and remain active. Internet interventions present a potential means of providing patients with tailored self-management advice and evidence-based support for increasing physical activity., Methods/analysis: This protocol describes a single-blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial of an internet intervention developed to support the self-management of LBP in primary care. Patients are being randomised to 1 of 3 groups receiving either usual primary care, usual primary care with the addition of an internet intervention or an internet intervention with physiotherapist telephone support. Patients are followed up at 3 months. Primary outcomes are the feasibility of (1) the trial design/methods, (2) the delivery of the internet intervention and (3) the provision of telephone support by physiotherapists. Secondary outcomes will include exploratory analysis of estimates and variation in clinical outcomes of pain and disability, in order to inform a future main trial., Ethics/dissemination: This feasibility trial has undergone ethical scrutiny and been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee, REC Reference 13/SC/0202. The feasibility findings will be disseminated to the research community through presentations at conferences and publication in peer review journals. Broader dissemination will come following a definitive trial., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 31034004., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)