FB Informatik + Therapiewissenschaft
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (6)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (6)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (6)
Schlagworte
- Physikalische Therapie (6) (entfernen)
Institut
Background: The STarT-Back-Approach (STarT: Subgroups for Targeted Treatment) was developed in the UK and has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness. Based on the results of a brief questionnaire, patients with low back pain are stratified into three treatment groups. Since the organisation of physiotherapy differs between Germany and the UK, the aim of this study is to explore German physiotherapists’ views and perceptions about implementing the STarT-Back-Approach.
Methods: Three two-hour think-tank workshops with physiotherapists were conducted. Focus groups, using a semi-structured interview guideline, followed a presentation of the STarT-Back-Approach, with discussions audio recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed using content analysis.
Results: Nineteen physiotherapists participated (15 female, mean age 41.2 (SD 8.6) years). Three main themes emerged, each with multiple subthemes: 1) the intervention (15 subthemes), 2) the healthcare context (26 subthemes) and 3) individual characteristics (8 subthemes). Therapists’ perceptions of the extent to which the STarT-Back intervention would require changes to their normal clinical practice varied considerably. They felt that within their current healthcare context, there were significant financial disincentives that would discourage German physiotherapists from providing the STarT-Back treatment pathways, such as the early discharge of low-risk patients with supported self-management materials. They also discussed the need for appropriate standardised graduate and post-graduate skills training for German physiotherapists to treat high-risk patients with a combined physical and psychological approach (e.g., communication skills).
Conclusions: Whilst many German physiotherapists are positive about the STarT-Back-Approach, there are a number of substantial barriers to implementing the matched treatment pathways in Germany. These include financial disincentives within the healthcare system to early discharge of low-risk patients. Therapists also highlighted the need for solutions in respect of scalable physiotherapy training to gain skills in combined physical and psychological approaches.
Background: The STarT-MSK-Tool is an adaptation of the well established STarT-Back-Tool, used to risk-stratify patients with a wider range of musculoskeletal presentations.
Objective: To formally translate and cross-culturally adapt the Keele STarT-MSK risk stratification tool into German (STarT-MSKG) and to establish its reliability and validity.
Methods: A formal, multi-step, forward and backward translation approach was used. To assess validity patients aged ≥18 years, with acute, subacute or chronic musculoskeletal presentations in the lumbar spine, hip, knee, shoulder, or neck were included. The prospective cohort was used with initial data collected electronically at the point-of-consultation. Retest and 6-month follow-up questionnaires were sent by email. Test-retest reliability, construct validity, discriminative ability, predictive ability and floor or ceiling effects were analysed using intraclass correlation coefficient, and comparisons with a reference standard (Orebro-Musculoskeletal-Pain-Questionnaire: OMPQ) using correlations, ROC-curves and regression models.
Results: The participants’ (n = 287) mean age was 47 (SD = 15.8) years, 51% were female, with 48.8% at low, 43.6% at medium, and 7.7% at high risk. With ICC = 0.75 (95% CI 0.69; 0.81) test-retest-reliability was good. Construct validity was good with correlations for the STarT-MSKG-Tool against the OMPQ-Tool of rs = 0.74 (95% CI 0.68, 0.79). The ability of the tool [comparison OMPQ] to predict 6-month pain and disability was acceptable with AUC = 0.77 (95% CI 0.71, 0.83) [OMPQ = 0.74] and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69, 0.82) [OMPQ = 0.72] respectively. However, the explained variance (linear/logistic regression) for predicting 6-month pain (21% [OMPQ = 17%]/logistic = 29%) and disability (linear = 20%:[OMPQ = 19%]/logistic = 26%), whilst being comparable to the existing OMPQ reference standard, fell short of the a priori target of ≥30%.
Conclusions: The German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool is a valid instrument for use across multiple musculoskeletal conditions and is availabe for use in clinical practice. Comparison with the OMPQ suggests it is a good alternative.
Background: Stratified care has the potential to be efficient in addressing the physical and psychosocial components of low back pain (LBP) and optimise treatment outcomes essential in low-income countries. This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of physiotherapists and patients in Nigeria towards stratified care for the treatment of LBP, exploring barriers and enablers to implementation.
Methods: A qualitative design with semistructured individual telephone interviews for physiotherapists and patients with LBP comprising research evidence and information on stratified care was adopted. Preceding the interviews, patients completed the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment tool. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed following grounded theory methodology.
Results: Twelve physiotherapists and 13 patients with LBP participated in the study (11 female, mean age 42.8 (SD 11.47) years). Seven key categories emerged: recognising the need for change, acceptance of innovation, resistance to change, adapting practice, patient’s learning journey, trusting the therapist and needing conviction. Physiotherapists perceived stratified care to be a familiar approach based on their background training. The prevalent treatment tradition and the patient expectations were seen as major barriers to implementation of stratified care by the physiotherapists. Patients see themselves as more informed than therapists realise, yet they need conviction through communication and education to cooperate with their therapist using this approach. Viable facilitators were also identified as patients’ trust in the physiotherapist and adaptations in terms of training and modification of the approach to enhance its use.
Conclusion: Key barriers identified are the patients’ treatment expectations and physiotherapists’ adherence to the tradition of practice. Physiotherapists might facilitate implementation of the stratified care by communication, hierarchical implementation and utilisation of patients’ trust. Possibilities to develop a consensus on key strategies to overcome barriers and on utilisation of facilitators should be tested in future research.
Background: Stratified care approach involving use of the STarT-Back tool to optimise care for patients with low back pain is gaining widespread attention in western countries. However, adoption and implementation of this approach in low-and-middle-income countries will be restricted by context-specific factors that need to be addressed. This study aimed to develop with physiotherapists, tailored intervention strategies for the implementation of stratified care for patients with low back pain.
Methods: A two-round web-based Delphi survey was conducted among purposively sampled physiotherapists with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, with post-graduation certification or specialists. Thirty statements on barriers and enablers for implementation were extracted from the qualitative phase. Statements were rated by a Delphi panel with additional open-ended feedback. After each Delphi round, participants received feedback which informed their subsequent responses. Additional qualitative feedback were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The criteria for consensus and stability were pre-determined using percentage agreement (≥ 75%), median value (≥ 4), Inter-quartile range (≤ 1), and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test respectively.
Results: Participants in the first round were 139 and 125 of them completed the study, yielding a response rate of 90%. Participants were aged 35.2 (SD6.6) years, and 55 (39.6%) were female. Consensus was achieved in 25/30 statements. Wilcoxon’s test showed stability in responses after the 5 statements failed to reach consensus: ‘translate the STarT-Back Tool to pidgin language’ 71% (p = 0.76), ‘begin implementation with government hospitals’ 63% (p = 0.11), ‘share knowledge with traditional bone setters’ 35% (p = 0.67), ‘get second opinion on clinician’s advice’ 63% (p = 0.24) and ‘carry out online consultations’ 65% (p = 0.41). Four statements strengthened by additional qualitative data achieved the highest consensus: ‘patient education’ (96%), ‘quality improvement appraisals’ (96%), ‘undergraduate training on psychosocial care’ (96%) and ‘patient-clinician communication’ (95%).
Conclusion: There was concordance of opinion that patients should be educated to correct misplaced expectations and proper time for communication is vital to implementation. This communication should be learned at undergraduate level, and for already qualified clinicians, quality improvement appraisals are key to sustained and effective care. These recommendations provide a framework for future research on monitored implementation of stratified care in middle-income countries.
Evaluation of a blended learning approach on stratified care for physiotherapy bachelor students
(2023)
Background: Stratified models of care are valuable for addressing psychosocial factors which influence the outcome of patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Introducing such models in undergraduate training has the potential to propagate this knowledge with evidence and foster its implementation. The objective of this paper is to explore the perception and changes in the fear-avoidance beliefs of physiotherapy students participating in a developed blended learning course on stratified care.
Methodology: A mixed-methods with a convenient sample of two consecutive cohorts were given a blended learning course on stratified care for patients with low back pain. The blended learning course comprised scientific rudiments and application of stratified care in clinical practice conceptualised using the KERN’ 6-step approach. The exam scores, perceptions, performance on self-reflection-tests and pre- and post-scores on The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Physiotherapists’ (TSK-PT) were obtained. After gaining clinical experience, participants were invited to discuss their clinical experiences and perceptions in workshops. The quantitative data was analysed explorative-descriptively. The qualitative data was analysed following an inductive coding system with constant comparisons.
Results: Ninety-one participants consented to the evaluation (mean age = 22.9 ± 1.6 years), 66% were female. Exam scores correlated with time spent in training (r = 0.30) and scores on self-reflection-tests 1 and 2 (r = 0.40 and r = 0.41). Participants in both cohorts described the learning resources as promoting their interest in the subject (72% and 94%), up-to-date (91% and 93%) and helpful (91% and 97%). The fear-avoidance scores for participants decreased from 53.5 (± 9.96) to 40.1 (± 12.4) with a large effect size (d = 1.18). The regression model [F (2, 49) = 1151.2, p < 0.001] suggests that pre-TSK-PT and the interest of participants in the training predicted post-TSK-PT. The workshop participants (n = 62) all worked in clinical practice. Emerging from the analysis were 4 categories (evolving to maturity in practice, perceiving determinants of stratified care, strategising for implementation and adopting an outlook for future practice).
Conclusion: The quality of engagement in learning, training strategy and interest in the subject contributes immensely to learning outcomes. This blended learning course was successful in reducing kinesiophobia and influencing the participants’ attitude towards care with the potential of being translated into long-term practice.
Background: Physiotherapy education and practice have country-specific peculiarities which may limit globalization in health care. This study aimed to characterize physiotherapy practice and treatment preferences, educational qualifications, and research in Nigeria, with a view of providing vital information for transnational integration and collaboration.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 104 Nigerian physiotherapists was conducted. The Physical Therapy Practice Questionnaire and a self-developed proforma were used as survey tools.
Results: The mean age of respondents was 33.5 ± 9.4 years. About two-fifth of all respondents (39.4%) had an MSc and mostly practice as clinicians (51.0%) in teaching hospitals (34.6%). The respondents were mostly involved in general practice (50.0%), with a caseload of 1–10 patients per day (67.3%). Soft tissue mobilization (83%), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (76%), breathing exercises (77%), and transcutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation (83%) were commonly used. Respondents were familiar databases and evidence-based resources (81.2%) and mostly utilize PubMed (73.3%). Regular case conferences with professional colleagues (47.6%) and treatment planning of between 11 and 30 min (40.6%) were common. Educators spend 1–3 h planning educational work (91.8%). Clinical decision-making is mostly based on professional experience, while journals are the primary resource for educational information.
Conclusion: Physiotherapy practice in Nigeria is degree based and requires registration board’s licensure. Practitioners deal with a high caseload and utilize a wide range of techniques and modalities and have tendencies to utilize personal experience and research in making clinical decisions. The parity in education and practice with advanced climes inadvertently gives physiotherapy practice in Nigeria a global purview.