Search

ObjectivesTo investigate the usefulness of using automated appointment check-in screens to collect brief research data from patients, prior to their general practice consultation.DesignA descriptive, cross-sectional study.SettingNine general practices in the West Midlands, UK. Recruitment commenced in Autumn 2018 and was concluded by 31 March 2019.ParticipantsAll patients aged 18 years and above, self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to their general practice consultation, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe response rate to the use of the automated check-in screen as a research data collection tool was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included responses to the two research questions and an assessment of impact of check-in completion on general practice operationalisationResultsOver 85% (n=9274) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in the Automated Check-in Data Collection Study (61.0% (n=5653) women, mean age 55.1 years (range 18–98 years, SD=18.5)). 96.2% (n=8922) of participants answered a ‘clinical’ research question, reporting the degree of bodily pain experienced during the past 4 weeks: 32.9% (n=2937) experienced no pain, 28.1% (n=2507) very mild or mild pain and 39.0% (n=3478) moderate, severe or very severe pain. 89.3% (n=8285) of participants answered a ‘non-clinical’ research question on contact regarding future research studies: 46.9% (n=3889) of participants responded ‘Yes, I’d be happy for you to contact me about research of relevance to me’.ConclusionsUsing automated check-in facilities to integrate research into routine general practice is a potentially useful way to collect brief research data from patients. With the COVID-19 pandemic initiating an extensive digital transformation in society, now is an ideal time to build on these opportunities and investigate alternative, innovative ways to collect research data.Trial registration numberISRCTN82531292.

Risk-based stratified care shows clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness versus usual primary care for non-specific low back pain but is untested for other common musculoskeletal disorders. We aimed to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care risk stratification (using Keele's STarT MSK Tool and risk-matched treatments) versus usual care for the five most common musculoskeletal presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multi-site pain).In this cluster-randomised, controlled trial in UK primary care with embedded qualitative and health economic studies we recruited patients from 24 general practices in the West Midlands region of England. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older whose general practitioner (GP) confirmed a consultation for a musculoskeletal presentation. General practices that consented to participate via a representative of the cluster were randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention or usual care, using stratified block randomisation. Researchers involved in data collection, outcome data entry, and statistical analysis were masked at both the cluster and individual participant level. Participating patients were told the study was examining GP treatment of common aches and pains and were not aware they were in a randomised trial. GPs in practices allocated to the intervention group were supported to deliver risk-based stratified care using a bespoke computer-based template, including the risk-stratification tool, and risk-matched treatment options for patients at low, medium, or high risk of poor disability or pain outcomes. There were 15 risk-matched treatment options. In the usual care group, patients with musculoskeletal pain consulting their GP received treatment as usual, typically including advice and education, medication, referral for investigations or tests, or referral to other services. The primary outcome was time-averaged pain intensity over 6 months. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15366334.Between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 104 GPs from 24 practices (12 per study group) identified 2494 patients with musculoskeletal pain. 1211 (49%) participants consented to questionnaires (534 in the intervention group and 677 in the usual care group), with 1070 (88%) completing the follow-up questionnaire at 6 months. We found no significant difference in time-averaged pain intensity (mean(SD) mean 4·4 [SD 2·3] in the intervention groupRisk stratification for patients in primary care with common musculoskeletal presentations did not lead to significant improvements in pain or function, although some aspects of GP decision making were affected, and GP and patients had positive experiences. The costs of risk-based stratified care were similar to usual care, and such a strategy only offers marginal changes in cost-effectiveness outcomes. The clinical implications from this trial are largely inconclusive.National Institute for Health Research.

IntroductionChronic breathlessness is a common and debilitating symptom, associated with high healthcare use and reduced quality of life. Challenges and delays in diagnosis for people with chronic breathlessness frequently occur, leading to delayed access to therapies. The overarching hypothesis is a symptom-based approach to diagnosis in primary care would lead to earlier diagnosis, and therefore earlier treatment and improved longer-term outcomes including health-related quality of life. This study aims to establish the feasibility of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a structured diagnostic pathway for breathlessness in primary care.Methods and analysisTen general practitioner (GP) practices across Leicester and Leicestershire will be cluster randomised to either a structured diagnostic pathway (intervention) or usual care. The structured diagnostic pathway includes a panel of investigations within 1 month. Usual care will proceed with patient care as per normal practice. Eligibility criteria include patients presenting with chronic breathlessness for the first time, who are over 40 years old and without a pre-existing diagnosis for their symptoms. An electronic template triggered at the point of consultation with the GP will aid opportunistic recruitment in primary care. The primary outcome for this feasibility study is recruitment rate. Secondary outcome measures, including time to diagnosis, will be collected to help inform outcomes for the future trial and to assess the impact of an earlier diagnosis. These will include symptoms, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, measures of frailty, physical activity and healthcare utilisation. The study will include nested qualitative interviews with patients and healthcare staff to understand the feasibility outcomes, explore what is ‘usual care’ and the study experience.Ethics and disseminationThe Research Ethics Committee Nottingham 1 has provided ethical approval for this research study (REC Reference: 19/EM/0201). Results from the study will be disseminated by presentations at relevant meetings and conferences including British Thoracic Society and Primary Care Respiratory Society, as well as by peer-reviewed publications and through patient presentations and newsletters to patients, where available.Trial registration numberISRCTN14483247.

Background Multimorbidity is increasingly the norm; however, primary care remains focused on single diseases. Osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression are frequently comorbid with other long-term conditions (LTCs), but rarely prioritized by clinicians. Objectives To test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention integrating case-finding and management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression within LTC reviews. Methods A pilot stepped-wedge RCT across 4 general practices recruited patients aged ≥45 years attending routine LTC reviews. General practice nurses provided usual LTC reviews (control period), then, following training, delivered the ENHANCE LTC review (intervention period). Questionnaires, an ENHANCE EMIS-embedded template and consultation audio-recordings, were used in the evaluation. Results General practice recruitment and training attendance reached prespecified success criteria. Three hundred and eighteen of 466 (68%) of patients invited responded; however, more patients were recruited during the control period (206 control, 112 intervention). Eighty-two percent and 78% returned their 6-week and 6-month questionnaires, respectively. Integration of the ENHANCE LTC review into routine LTC reviews varied. Case-finding questions were generally used as intended for joint pain, but to a lesser extent for anxiety and depression. Initial management through referrals and signposting were lacking, and advice was more frequently provided for joint pain. The stepped-wedge design meant timing of the training was challenging and yielded differential recruitment. Conclusion This pilot trial suggests that it is feasible to deliver a fully powered trial in primary care. Areas to optimize include improving the training and reconsidering the stepped-wedge design and the approach to recruitment by targeting those with greatest need. Trial registration ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN: 12154418). Date registered: 6 August 15. Date first participant was enrolled: 13 July 2015. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12154418?q=depression%20schizophrenia&filters=conditionCategory:Not%20Applicable&sort=&offset=5&totalResults=9&page=1&pageSize=20&searchType=basic-search.

IntroductionPeople presenting with shoulder pain considered to be of musculoskeletal origin is common in primary care but diagnosing the cause of the pain is contentious, leading to uncertainty in management. To inform optimal primary care for patients with shoulder pain, the study aims to (1) to investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes (overall prognosis) of shoulder pain, (2) estimate costs of care, (3) develop a prognostic model for predicting individuals’ level and risk of pain and disability at 6 months and (4) investigate experiences and opinions of patients and healthcare professionals regarding diagnosis, prognosis and management of shoulder pain.Methods and analysisThe Prognostic And Diagnostic Assessment of the Shoulder (PANDA-S) study is a longitudinal clinical cohort with linked qualitative study. At least 400 people presenting to general practice and physiotherapy services in the UK will be recruited. Participants will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Short-term data will be collected weekly between baseline and 12 weeks via Short Message Serevice (SMS) text or software application. Participants will be offered clinical (physiotherapist) and ultrasound (sonographer) assessments at baseline. Qualitative interviews with ≈15 dyads of patients and their healthcare professional (general practitioner or physiotherapist).Short-term and long-term trajectories of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (using SPADI) will be described, using latent class growth analysis. Health economic analysis will estimate direct costs of care and indirect costs related to work absence and productivity losses. Multivariable regression analysis will be used to develop a prognostic model predicting future levels of pain and disability at 6 months using penalisation methods to adjust for overfitting. The added predictive value of prespecified physical examination tests and ultrasound findings will be examined. For the qualitative interviews an inductive, exploratory framework will be adopted using thematic analysis to investigate decision making, perspectives of patients and clinicians on the importance of diagnostic and prognostic information when negotiating treatment and referral options.Ethics and disseminationThe PANDA-S study has ethical approval from Yorkshire and The Humber-Sheffield Research Ethics Committee, UK (18/YH/0346, IRAS Number: 242750). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, social and mainstream media, professional conferences, and the patient and public involvement and engagement group supporting this study, and through newsletters, leaflets and posters in participating sites.Trial registration numberISRCTN46948079.

IntroductionShoulder pain is common in primary care but achieving definitive diagnosis is contentious leading to uncertainty in management. To inform optimal primary care for patients with shoulder pain, the study aims to (i) to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes (overall prognosis) of shoulder pain, (ii) estimate costs of care, (iii) develop a prognostic model for predicting individuals’ level and risk of pain and disability at 6 months, (iv) investigate experiences and opinions of patients and healthcare professionals regarding diagnosis, prognosis, and management of shoulder pain.Methods and analysisPANDA-S is a longitudinal clinical cohort with linked qualitative study. At least 400 people presenting to general practice and physiotherapy services in the UK will be recruited. Participants will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Short-term data will be collected weekly between baseline and 12 weeks via SMS text or software application (App). Participants will be offered clinical (physiotherapist) and ultrasound (sonographer) assessments at baseline. Qualitative interviews with ≈15 dyads of patients and their healthcare professional (GP or physiotherapist).Short and long-term trajectories of shoulder pain and disability (using SPADI) will be described, using latent class growth analysis. Health economic analysis will estimate direct costs of care and indirect costs related to work absence and productivity losses. Multivariable regression analysis will be used to develop a prognostic model predicting future levels of pain and disability at 6-months using penalisation methods to adjust for overfitting. The added predictive value of pre-specified physical examination tests and ultrasound findings will be examined. For the qualitative interviews an inductive, exploratory framework will be adopted using thematic analysis to investigate decision making and perspectives of patients and clinicians on the importance of diagnostic and prognostic information when negotiating treatment and referral options.Ethics and disseminationThe PANDA-S study has ethical approval from Yorkshire and The Humber – Sheffield Research Ethics Committee, UK (18/YH/0346, IRAS Number: 242750). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, social and mainstream media, professional conferences, and the patient and public involvement and engagement group supporting this study, and through newsletters, leaflets and posters in participating sites.Registration detailsThe PANDA-S Study is registered at ISRCTN Number: 46948079Article summaryStrengths and limitations of this study▪ This cohort study will offer a detailed characterisation of patients presenting with a new episode of shoulder pain in primary care, including short and long-term outcomes.▪ Detailed, weekly data collection will offer unique insights into the impact of shoulder pain on everyday activity, mood, and work during the first 3 months after presentation.▪ Clinical assessment will investigate the added predictive value of physical examination tests and ultrasound scan findings, over and beyond self-reported prognostic information.▪ The use of ‘dyad’ interviews allows for a rich understanding of the views and experiences of clinicians and patients towards shoulder pain management.▪ The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on recruitment and data collection, but the study allows an investigation of the pandemic and related (lockdown) measures restrictions on the experience and management of shoulder pain.

Background Patients with musculoskeletal pain in different body sites share common prognostic factors. Using prognosis to stratify and treatment match can be clinically and cost-effective. We aimed to refine and validate the Keele STarT MSK Tool for prognostic stratification of musculoskeletal pain patients. Methods Tool refinement and validity was tested in a prospective cohort study, and external validity examined in a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Study population comprised 2,414 adults visiting U.K. primary care with back, neck, knee, shoulder or multisite pain returning postal questionnaires (cohort: 1,890 [40% response]; trial: 524). Cohort baseline questionnaires included a draft tool plus refinement items. Trial baseline questionnaires included the Keele STarT MSK Tool. Physical health (SF-36 Physical Component Score [PCS]) and pain intensity were assessed at 2- and 6-month cohort follow-up; pain intensity was measured at 6-month trial follow-up. Results The tool was refined by replacing (3), adding (3) and removing (2) items, resulting in a 10-item tool. Model fit (R2 ) was 0.422 and 0.430 and discrimination (c statistic) 0.839 and 0.822 for predicting 6-month cohort PCS and pain (respectively). The tool classified 24.9% of cohort participants at low, 41.7% medium and 33.4% high risk, clearly discriminating between subgroups. The tool demonstrated model fit of 0.224 and discrimination 0.73 in trial participants. Multiple imputation confirmed robustness of findings. Conclusions The Keele STarT MSK Tool demonstrates good validity and acceptable predictive performance and clearly identifies groups of musculoskeletal pain patients with different characteristics and prognosis. Using prognostic information for stratification and treatment matching may be clinically/cost-effective. Significance The paper presents the first musculoskeletal pain prognostic stratification tool specifically for use among all primary care patients with the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder or multisite pain). The Keele STarT MSK Tool identifies groups of musculoskeletal pain patients with clearly different characteristics and prognosis. Using this tool for stratification and treatment matching may be clinically and cost-effective.

Background Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to early treatment options. The STarT-MSK programme developed and tested a new stratified primary care intervention for patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in general practice. Stratified care involves changing General Practitioners’ (GPs) behaviour, away from the current ‘stepped’ care approach to identifying early treatment options matched to patients’ risk of persistent pain. Changing healthcare practice is challenging, and to aid the successful delivery of stratified care, education and support for GPs was required from the initial stages of the programme. This paper details the steps in integrating the development of a clinician support package throughout the 6-year programme, to support GP engagement in delivering the STarT MSK intervention. Practical recommendations are made for future general practice interventions. Methods Clinician support was developed through an iterative, mixed methods approach. Qualitative research with patients and GPs identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of stratified care, which were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy. Identified domains/BCTs were ‘translated’ into an educational paradigm, and an initial version of the support package developed. This was further refined following a feasibility and pilot RCT, and a finalised support package was developed for the main RCT. Results The clinician support package comprised face-to-face sessions combining adult-learning principles with behaviour change theory in a multimethod approach, which included group discussion, simulated consultations, patient vignettes and model consultation videos. Structured support for GPs was crucial in enabling fidelity and, ultimately, a successful trial. Results highlighted that clinician support is a two-way process– the study team can learn from and adapt to specific local factors and issues not previously identified. The support from senior clinicians was also required to ensure ‘buy in’, and results indicated the importance of monitoring GP performance and providing regular feedback. Conclusion Designing effective clinician support from the onset of trial intervention design, in an evidence-based, theory-informed manner, is crucial to encourage active engagement and intervention fidelity within the trial, enabling the delivery of a robust and reliable proof of principle trial.

Background People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis are at an increased risk of common comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and mood problems, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Identifying and treating these problems could lead to improved patient quality of life and outcomes. Despite these risks being well-established, patients currently are not systematically targeted for management interventions for these morbidities. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a nurse-led integrated care review in primary care to identify and manage these morbidities. Methods A pilot cluster RCT was delivered across four UK general practices. Patients with a diagnostic Read code for one of the inflammatory rheumatological conditions of interest were recruited by post. In intervention practices (n = 2), eligible patients were invited to attend the INCLUDE review. Outcome measures included health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), patient activation, self-efficacy and treatment burden. A sample (n = 24) of INCLUDE review consultations were audio-recorded and assessed against a fidelity checklist. Results 453/789 (57%) patients responded to the invitation, although 114/453 (25%) were excluded as they either did not fulfil eligibility criteria or failed to provide full written consent. In the intervention practices, uptake of the INCLUDE review was high at 72%. Retention at 3 and 6 months both reached pre-specified success criteria. Participants in intervention practices had more primary care contacts than controls (mean 29 vs 22) over the 12 months, with higher prescribing of all relevant medication classes in participants in intervention practices, particularly so for osteoporosis medication (baseline 29% vs 12 month 46%). The intervention was delivered with fidelity, although potential areas for improvement were identified. Conclusions The findings of this pilot study suggest it is feasible to deliver an RCT of the nurse-led integrated care (INCLUDE) review in primary care. A significant morbidity burden was identified. Early results suggest the INCLUDE review was associated with changes in practice. Lessons have been learnt around Read codes for patient identification and refining the nurse training. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN12765345

Background Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a major cause of pain and disability. We previously developed a prognostic tool (Start Back Tool) with demonstrated effectiveness in guiding primary care low back pain management by supporting decision making using matched treatments. A logical next step is to determine whether prognostic stratified care has benefits for a broader range of common MSK pain presentations. Objective This study seeks to determine, in patients with 1 of the 5 most common MSK presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multisite pain), whether stratified care involving the use of the Keele Start MSK Tool to allocate individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, and matching these subgroups to recommended matched clinical management options, is clinical and cost-effective compared with usual nonstratified primary care. Methods This is a pragmatic, two-arm parallel (stratified vs nonstratified care), cluster randomized controlled trial, with a health economic analysis and mixed methods process evaluation. The setting is UK primary care, involving 24 average-sized general practices randomized (stratified by practice size) in a 1:1 ratio (12 per arm) with blinding of trial statistician and outcome data collectors. Randomization units are general practices, and units of observation are adult MSK consulters without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records are tagged and individuals invited using a general practitioner (GP) point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention is supported by an EMR template (computer-based) housing the Keele Start MSK Tool (to stratify into prognostic subgroups) and the recommended matched treatment options. The primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis is pain intensity, measured monthly over 6 months. Secondary outcomes include physical function and quality of life, and an anonymized EMR audit to capture clinician decision making. The economic evaluation is focused on the estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life years and MSK pain–related health care costs. The process evaluation is exploring a range of potential factors influencing the intervention and understanding how it is perceived by patients and clinicians, with quantitative analyses focusing on a priori hypothesized intervention targets and qualitative approaches using focus groups and interviews. The target sample size is 1200 patients from 24 general practices, with >5000 MSK consultations available for anonymized medical record data comparisons. Results Trial recruitment commenced on May 18, 2018, and ended on July 15, 2019, after a 14-month recruitment period in 24 GP practices. Follow-up and interview data collection was completed in February 2020. Conclusions This trial is the first attempt, as far as we know, at testing a prognostic stratified care approach for primary care patients with MSK pain. The results of this trial should be available by the summer of 2020. Trial Registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15366334; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15366334. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/17939

Background Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations. Methods The design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making. Results GPs screened 3063 patients (intervention = 1591, control = 1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (intervention = 513, control = 724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (intervention = 231, control = 293). Recruitment took 28 weeks (target 12 weeks) with > 90% follow-up retention (target > 75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved “complete success”. Conclusions A future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments. Trial registration Name of the registry: ISRCTN. Trial registration number: 15366334. Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

BACKGROUND Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a major cause of pain and disability. We previously developed a prognostic tool (Start Back Tool) with demonstrated effectiveness in guiding primary care low back pain management by supporting decision making using matched treatments. A logical next step is to determine whether prognostic stratified care has benefits for a broader range of common MSK pain presentations. OBJECTIVE This study seeks to determine, in patients with 1 of the 5 most common MSK presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multisite pain), whether stratified care involving the use of the Keele Start MSK Tool to allocate individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, and matching these subgroups to recommended matched clinical management options, is clinical and cost-effective compared with usual nonstratified primary care. METHODS This is a pragmatic, two-arm parallel (stratified vs nonstratified care), cluster randomized controlled trial, with a health economic analysis and mixed methods process evaluation. The setting is UK primary care, involving 24 average-sized general practices randomized (stratified by practice size) in a 1:1 ratio (12 per arm) with blinding of trial statistician and outcome data collectors. Randomization units are general practices, and units of observation are adult MSK consulters without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records are tagged and individuals invited using a general practitioner (GP) point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention is supported by an EMR template (computer-based) housing the Keele Start MSK Tool (to stratify into prognostic subgroups) and the recommended matched treatment options. The primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis is pain intensity, measured monthly over 6 months. Secondary outcomes include physical function and quality of life, and an anonymized EMR audit to capture clinician decision making. The economic evaluation is focused on the estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life years and MSK pain–related health care costs. The process evaluation is exploring a range of potential factors influencing the intervention and understanding how it is perceived by patients and clinicians, with quantitative analyses focusing on a priori hypothesized intervention targets and qualitative approaches using focus groups and interviews. The target sample size is 1200 patients from 24 general practices, with >5000 MSK consultations available for anonymized medical record data comparisons. RESULTS Trial recruitment commenced on May 18, 2018, and ended on July 15, 2019, after a 14-month recruitment period in 24 GP practices. Follow-up and interview data collection was completed in February 2020. CONCLUSIONS This trial is the first attempt, as far as we know, at testing a prognostic stratified care approach for primary care patients with MSK pain. The results of this trial should be available by the summer of 2020. CLINICALTRIAL ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15366334; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15366334. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/17939

Background Assessing daily change in pain and related symptoms help in diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring response to treatment. However, such changes are infrequently assessed, and usually reviewed weeks or months after the start of treatment. We therefore developed a smartphone application (Keele Pain Recorder) to record information on the severity and impact of pain on daily life. Specifically, the study goal was to assess face, content and construct validity of data collection using the Pain Recorder in primary care patients receiving new analgesic prescriptions for musculoskeletal pain, as well as to assess its acceptability and clinical utility. Methods The app was developed with Keele’s Research User Group (RUG), a clinical advisory group (CAG) and software developer for use on Android devices. The app recorded pain levels, interference, sleep disturbance, analgesic use, mood and side effects. In a feasibility study, patients aged > 18 attending their general practitioner (GP) with a painful musculoskeletal condition were recruited to use the app twice per day for 28 days. Face and construct validity were assessed through baseline and post-study questionnaires (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient). Usability and acceptability were determined through post-study questionnaires, and patient, GP, RUG and CAG interviews. Results An app was developed which was liked by both patients and GPs. It was felt that it offered the opportunity for GPs to discuss pain control with their patients in a new way. All participants found the app easy to use (it did not interfere with their activities) and results easy to interpret. Strong associations existed between the first 3 days (Spearman r = 0.79) and last 3 days (r = 0.60) of pain levels and intensity scores on the app with the validated questionnaires. Conclusions Collaborating with patient representatives and clinical stakeholders, we developed an app which can be used to help clinicians and patients monitor painful musculoskeletal conditions in response to analgesic prescribing. Recordings were accurate and valid, especially, for pain intensity ratings, and it was easy to use. Future work needs to examine how pain trajectories can help manage changes in a patient’s condition, ultimately assisting in self-management. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-019-0741-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionSelf-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients.Methods and analysisA three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12 months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy.Trial registration numberISRCTN14736486.

INTRODUCTION: This pilot trial will inform the design and methods of a future full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) and examine the feasibility, acceptability and fidelity of the Increasing Physical activity in Older People with chronic Pain (iPOPP) intervention, a healthcare assistant (HCA)-supported intervention to promote walking in older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain in a primary care setting.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The iPOPP study is an individually randomized, multicentre, three-parallel-arm pilot RCT. A total of 150 participants aged ≥65 years with chronic pain in one or more index sites will be recruited and randomized using random permuted blocks, stratified by general practice, to: (i) usual care plus written information; (ii) pedometer plus usual care and written information; or (iii) the iPOPP intervention. A theoretically informed mixed-methods approach will be employed using semi-structured interviews, audio recordings of the HCA consultations, self-reported questionnaires, case report forms and objective physical activity data collection (accelerometry). Follow-up will be conducted 12 weeks post-randomization. Collection of the quantitative data and statistical analysis will be performed blinded to treatment allocation, and analysis will be exploratory to inform the design and methods of a future RCT. Analysis of the HCA consultation recordings will focus on the use of a checklist to determine the fidelity of the iPOPP intervention delivery, and the interview data will be analysed using a constant comparison approach in order to generate conceptual themes focused around the acceptability and feasibility of the trial, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers and facilitators to behaviour change. A triangulation protocol will be used to integrate quantitative and qualitative data and findings.

Conference abstract.

Background Long-term conditions (LTCs) are important determinants of quality of life and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Whilst multimorbidity is increasingly the norm in primary care, clinical guidelines and the delivery of care remain focused on single diseases, resulting in poorer clinical outcomes. Osteoarthritis, and anxiety and/or depression frequently co-occur with other LTCs, yet are seldom prioritized by the patient or clinician, resulting in higher levels of disability, poorer prognosis, and increased healthcare costs. Objective To examine the feasibility and acceptability of an integrated approach to LTC management, tackling the under-diagnosis and under-management of osteoarthritis-related pain and anxiety and/or depression in older adults with other LTCs in primary care. Design The ENHANCE study is a pilot stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to test the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led ENAHNCE LTC review consultation for identifying, assessing, and managing joint pain, and anxiety and/or depression in patients attending LTC reviews. Specific objectives (process evaluation and research outcomes) will be achieved through a theoretically informed mixed-methods approach using participant self-reported questionnaires, a medical record review, an ENHANCE EMIS template, qualitative interviews, and audio recordings of the ENHANCE LTC review. Discussion Success of the pilot trial will be measured against the level of the primary care team engagement, assessment of training delivery, and degree of patient recruitment and retention. Patient satisfaction and treatment fidelity will also be explored. ISRCTN registry number: 12154418.

Musculoskeletal pain is a common cause of work absence and early intervention is advocated to prevent the adverse health and economic consequences of longer-term absence. This cluster randomised controlled trial investigated the effect of introducing a vocational advice service, into primary care to provide occupational support. Six general practices were randomised, patients were eligible if they were consulting their general practitioner (GP) with musculoskeletal pain, were employed and struggling at work or absent from work

Background: Patients with inflammatory rheumatic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica and ankylosing spondylitis are at increased risk of common comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and anxiety and depression which lead to increased morbidity and mortality. These associated morbidities are often un-recognized and under-treated. While patients with other long-term conditions such as diabetes are invited for routine reviews in primary care, which may include identification and management of co-morbidities, at present this does not occur for patients with inflammatory conditions, and thus, opportunities to diagnose and optimally manage these comorbidities are missed. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led integrated care review (the INtegrating and improving Care for patients with infLammatory rheUmatological DisordErs in the community (INCLUDE) review) for people with inflammatory rheumatological conditions in primary care. Design: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial will be undertaken to test the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led integrated primary care review for identification, assessment and initial management of common comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and anxiety and depression. A process evaluation will be undertaken using a mixed methods approach including participant self-reported questionnaires, a medical record review, an INCLUDE EMIS template, intervention fidelity checking using audio-recordings of the INCLUDE review consultation and qualitative interviews with patient participants, study nurses and study general practitioners (GPs) Discussion: Success of the pilot study will be measured against the engagement, recruitment and study retention rates of both general practices and participants. Acceptability of the INCLUDE review to patients and practitioners and treatment fidelity will be explored using a parallel process evaluation. Trial Registration: ISRCTN12765345.

Background\ud Recruiting patients to research and collecting study data in a primary care setting, combined with maximising retention rates from a primary care population can be challenging and requires recruitment and retention methods which are innovative, efficient and transferrable.\ud \ud Objective\ud To apply low resource intensive and rapidly implemented recruitment and retention innovations for use in primary care settings that ensure patient recruitment and follow-up targets are achieved.\ud \ud Methods\ud A range of innovative recruitment and retention strategies are utilised by Keele CTU including; electronic aide-memoires linked to Read codes; physical aide-memoire prompts in consulting rooms; automated referral methods; postcard, repeat, email, SMS and minimum data collection reminder mailings; death and departure auditing.\ud \ud Results\ud Methods used; sustain routine care whilst simultaneously screening for research data and participants; provide flexible instruments compatible with all general practice infrastructures; increase clinical precision in identifying suitable participants; automates recording of study data collection; ensures minimal impact on consultation time; contribute towards the delivery of excellent retention rates.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Recruitment aide-memoires, automated innovations and retention strategies can all be embedded easily into a primary care setting. These tools, without over burdening the busy primary care practitioner, result in simple and effective methods of prompting patient recruitment and retention. Excellent recruitment and retention rates are possible, despite encountering differences in primary care infrastructure. Such methods should be utilised more widely to facilitate primary care research, if this is where many conditions are diagnosed and managed.

PURPOSE We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician’s clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. METHODS The IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS The 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1–1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8–3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed. CONCLUSIONS Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended.

Background Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) is the commonest inflammatory condition seen in older patients in primary care. To date, however, research has been focused on secondary care cohorts rather than primary care where many patients are exclusively managed. This two year prospective inception cohort study of PMR patients will enable us to understand the full spectrum of this condition. Methods Patients diagnosed with PMR in primary care will be identified via Read codes and mailed a series of postal questionnaires over a two-year period to assess their levels of pain, stiffness and functioning, as well as medication usage and other health-related and socio-demographic characteristics. In addition, participants will be asked for permission to link their survey data to their general practice electronic medical record and to national mortality and cancer registers. Discussion This will be the first large-scale, prospective, observational cohort of PMR patients in primary care. The combination of survey data with medical records and national registers will allow for a full investigation of the natural history and prognosis of this condition in the primary care setting, in which the majority of patients are treated, but where little research on the treatment and outcome of consultation has been undertaken. This will provide information that may lead to improved primary care management of PMR.

Background Gout is the commonest inflammatory arthritis affecting around 1.4% of adults in Europe. It is predominantly managed in primary care and classically affects the joints of the foot, particularly the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Gout related factors (including disease characteristics and treatment) as well as comorbid chronic disease are associated with poor Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) yet to date there is limited evidence concerning gout in a community setting. Existing epidemiological studies are limited by their cross-sectional design, selection of secondary care patients with atypical disease and the use of generic tools to measure HRQOL. This 3 year primary care-based prospective observational cohort study will describe the spectrum of HRQOL in community dwelling patients with gout, associated factors, predictors of poor outcome, and prevalence and incidence of foot problems in gout patients. Methods Adults aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with gout or prescribed colchicine or allopurinol in the preceding 2 years will be identified through Read codes and mailed a series of self-completion postal questionnaires over a 3-year period. Consenting participants will have their general practice medical records reviewed. Discussion This is the first prospective cohort study of HRQOL in patients with gout in primary care in the UK. The combination of survey data and medical record review will allow an in-depth understanding of factors that are associated with and lead to poor HRQOL and foot problems in gout. Identification of these factors will improve the management of this prevalent, yet under-treated, condition in primary care.

Background Musculoskeletal conditions represent a common reason for consulting general practice yet with the exception of low back pain, relatively little is known about the prognosis of these disorders. Recent evidence suggests that common 'generic' factors may be of value when assessing prognosis, irrespective of the location of the pain. This study will test a generic assessment tool used as part of the general practice consultation to determine prognosis of musculoskeletal complaints. Methods/Design Older adults (aged 50 years and over) presenting to six general practices with musculoskeletal complaints will be assessed as part of the routine consultation using a generic assessment of prognosis. Participants will receive a self-completion questionnaire at baseline, three, six and 12 months post consultation to gather further data on pain, disability and psychological status. The primary outcome measure is participant's global rating of change. Discussion Prognosis is considered to be a fundamental component of scientific medicine yet prognostic research in primary care settings is currently neglected and prognostic enquiry is disappearing from general medical textbooks. This study aims to address this issue by examining the use of generic prognostic factors in a general practice setting.