Search

Background: Clinical management of musculoskeletal shoulder pain can be challenging due to diagnostic uncertainty, variable prognosis and limited evidence for long-term treatment benefits. The UK-based PANDA-S programme (Prognostic And Diagnostic Assessment of the Shoulder) is investigating short and long-term shoulder pain outcomes. This paper reports linked qualitative research exploring patients' and clinicians' views towards primary care consultations for shoulder pain. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 patients and 15 primary care clinicians. Twenty-two interviews (11 patients, 11 clinicians) were conducted as matched patient-clinician 'dyads'. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Clinicians reported attempts to involve patients in management decisions; however, there was variation in whether patients preferred treatment choice, or for decisions to be clinician-led. Some patients felt uncertain about the decisions made, due to a lack of discussion about available management options. Many General Practitioners expressed a lack of confidence in diagnosing the underlying cause of shoulder pain. Patients reported either not being given a diagnosis, or receiving different diagnoses from different professionals, resulting in confusion. Whilst clinicians reported routinely discussing prognosis of shoulder pain, patients reported that prognosis was not raised. Patients also expressed concern that their shoulder pain could be caused by serious pathology; however, clinicians felt that this was not a common concern for patients. Conclusions: Findings showed disparities between patients' and clinicians' views towards shoulder pain consultations, indicating a need for improved patient-clinician communication. Findings will inform the design of an intervention to support treatment and referral decisions for shoulder pain that will be tested in a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Supervised cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation may be safe and beneficial for people with pulmonary hypertension (PH) in groups 1 (pulmonary arterial hypertension) and 4 (chronic thromboembolic disease), particularly as a hospital in-patient. It has not been tested in the most common PH groups; 2 (left heart disease), 3 (lung disease), or 5 (other disorders). Further it has not been evaluated in the UK National Health Service (NHS) out-patient setting, or with long-term follow-up. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention with psychosocial support compared to best practice usual care for people with PH in the community/outpatient setting., Methods: This multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm RCT with embedded process evaluation aims to recruit 352 clinically stable adults with PH (groups 1-5) and WHO functional class II-IV. Participants will be randomised to either the Supervised Pulmonary Hypertension Exercise Rehabilitation (SPHERe) intervention or control. The SPHERe intervention consists of 1) individual assessment and familiarisation sessions; 2) 8-week, twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; 3) psychosocial/motivational support and education; 4) guided home exercise plan. The control intervention consists of best practice usual care with a single one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on physical activity. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4 months (post-intervention) and 12 months by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the incremental shuttle walk test at 4 months. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQoL), time to clinical worsening and health and social care use. A purposive sample of participants (n = 20 intervention and n = 20 control) and practitioners (n = 20) will be interviewed to explore experiences of the trial, outcomes and interventions., Discussion: The SPHERe study is the first multi-centre clinical RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention compared to usual care, delivered in the UK NHS, for people in all PH groups. Results will inform clinicians and commissioners as to whether or not supervised exercise rehabilitation is effective and should be routinely provided for people with PH., Trial Registration: ISRCTN no. 10608766, prospectively registered on 18th March 2019.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of an enhanced transtheoretical model of behaviour change in conjunction with physiotherapy compared with standard care (physiotherapy) in patients with chronic lower back pain (CLBP)., Design: Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses alongside a multicentre controlled trial from a healthcare perspective with a 1-year time horizon., Setting: The trial was conducted in eight centres within the Sharon district in Israel., Participants: 220 participants aged between 25 and 55 years who suffered from CLBP for a minimum of 3 months were recruited., Interventions: The intervention used a model of behaviour change that sought to increase the adherence and implementation of physical activity in conjunction with physiotherapy. The control arm received standard care in the form of physiotherapy., Primary and Secondary Measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the intervention arm compared with standard care. The secondary outcome was the incremental cost per Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire point., Results: The cost per QALY point estimate was 10 645 New Israeli shekels (NIS) (£1737.11). There was an 88% chance the intervention was cost-effective at NIS50 000 per QALY threshold. Excluding training costs, the intervention dominated the control arm, resulting in fewer physiotherapy and physician visits while improving outcomes., Conclusions: The enhanced transtheoretical model intervention appears to be a very cost-effective intervention leading to improved outcomes for low cost. Given limitations within this study, there is justification for examining the intervention within a larger, long-term randomised controlled trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT01631344; Pre-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.)

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial., Objective: To investigate the effect of a printed information package on the low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs and reported behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, and musculoskeletal physiotherapists) across the United Kingdom., Summary of Background Data: A substantial proportion of musculoskeletal practitioners in United Kingdom does not follow current LBP guideline recommendations., Methods: In total, 1758 practitioners were randomly allocated to either of the 2 study arms. One arm was posted a printed information package containing guideline recommendations for the management of LBP (n = 876) and the other received no intervention (n = 882). The primary outcome measure consisted of 3 "quality indicators" (activity, work, and bed-rest) relating to a vignette of a patient with LBP, in which responses were dichotomized into either "guideline-inconsistent" or "guideline-consistent." The secondary outcome was the practitioners' LBP-related beliefs, measured using the Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6 months., Results: Follow-up at 6 months was 89%. The changes in reported behavior on the quality indicators were as follows: activity, odds ratio (OR) 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.61) and number needed to be treated (NNT), 19 (15-28); work, OR 1.35 (1.07-1.70) and NNT 19 (14-29); and bed-rest, OR 1.31 (0.97-1.76) and NNT 47 (33-103). The composite NNT for a change from guideline-inconsistent to guideline-consistent behavior on at least 1 of the 3 quality indicators was 10 (9-14). LBP-related beliefs were significantly improved in those who were sent the information package (P = 0.002), but only to a small degree (mean difference, 0.884 scale points; 95% confidence interval, 0.319-1.448)., Conclusion: Printed educational material can shift LBP-related beliefs and reported behaviors of musculoskeletal practitioners, toward practice that is more in line with guideline recommendations.

Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists play key roles in the management of low back pain (LBP) patients in the UK. We investigated the attitudes of these three professional groups to back pain using a recently developed and validated questionnaire, the Attitudes to Back Pain Scale for musculoskeletal practitioners (ABS-mp). A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was sent to 300 of each professional group (n=900). Responses were analysed from 465 practitioners: 132 chiropractors (28%), 159 osteopaths (34%) and 174 physiotherapists (37%). Overall, all three groups endorse a psychosocial approach to treatment, and see re-activation as a primary goal. However, physiotherapists and osteopaths tend to endorse attitudes towards limiting the number of treatment sessions offered to LBP patients more than chiropractors, and chiropractors endorse a more biomedical approach than physiotherapists. When practice setting (NHS versus private practice) was considered (in physiotherapists alone), physiotherapists working for the NHS endorsed limiting the number of treatment sessions more than those working in the private sector and would also less frequently advise their patients to restrict activities and be vigilant. The results may help explain current clinical practice patterns observed in these groups and their uptake of clinical guideline recommendations.