Search

BackgroundIn recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. ObjectiveThis systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. MethodsPubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct. ResultsOverall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (–) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: “digital health characteristics” (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [–], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), “outer setting” (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [–], and external financial incentives [–]), “inner setting” (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and –], information incongruence (–), and support from colleagues [+]), “characteristics of the healthcare professionals” (ie, health care professionals’ acceptance [+ and –] and job satisfaction [+ and –]), and the “implementation process” (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [–]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers. ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context.

BackgroundNonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide, and its socioeconomic burden is substantial. Self-management support is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP and may support cost-effective management. However, providing adequate individually tailored self-management support is difficult. The integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care) seems promising to optimize tailored treatment and enhance patients’ self-management and, consequently, may reduce LBP-related costs. ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. MethodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care physiotherapy. Patients with nonspecific LBP were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) (n=104) or face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104). The content of both interventions was based on the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary clinical outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a). For the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning were the primary outcomes. Secondary clinical outcomes included fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. Costs were measured from societal and health care perspectives using self-report questionnaires. Effectiveness was estimated using linear mixed models. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences for the economic evaluation. ResultsNeither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial differences were found between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy regarding physical functioning (mean difference [MD] −1.1, 95% CI −3.9 to 1.7) and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI −0.020 to 0.072) over 12 months. Regarding the secondary outcomes, fear avoidance beliefs showed a statistically significant improvement in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy (MD −4.3, 95% CI −7.3 to −1.3). Societal and health care costs were higher for stratified blended physiotherapy than for face-to-face physiotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (societal: €972 [US $1027], 95% CI −€1090 to €3264 [US –$1151 to $3448]; health care: €73 [US $77], 95% CI −€59 to €225 [US –$62 to $238]). Among the disaggregated cost categories, only unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher for stratified blended physiotherapy. From both perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability (ie, 0.23-0.81) of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. ConclusionsThe stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective for improving physical functioning nor more cost-effective from societal or health care perspectives compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP. Trial RegistrationISRCTN 94074203; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN94074203 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z

BackgroundPatient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. MethodsThe study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. ResultsBoth the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. ConclusionsThe stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy. Trial RegistrationISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z