FB Informatik + Therapiewissenschaft
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (Fachzeitschriften) (11) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (11)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (11)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (11)
Schlagworte
- Rückenschmerz (7)
- Physikalische Therapie (6)
- low back pain (4)
- stratified care (4)
- Kreuzschmerz (2)
- Nigeria (2)
- Therapie (2)
- back pain (2)
- health services research (2)
- psychometrics (2)
Institut
- FB Informatik + Therapiewissenschaft (11) (entfernen)
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.
Reliability of a clinical sensory test battery in patients with spine-related leg and arm pain
(2024)
Background: The current standard to evaluate the presence of somatosensory dysfunctions is quantitative sensory testing, but its clinical utility remains limited. Low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory testing (CST) batteries have thus been developed. Recent studies show moderate to substantial reliability in populations with neuropathic pain. This study evaluates the inter- and intra-tester reliability of people with spine-related leg and arm pain, representing mixed pain mechanisms.
Methods: Fifty-three patients with spine-related leg (n = 41) and arm pain (n = 12) attended three CST sessions. The CST battery consisted of eleven tests, determining loss and gain of sensory nerve function. CST was performed by the same investigator twice and by an additional investigator to determine inter- and intra-tester reliability. Fleiss' (inter-tester) and Cohen's (intra-tester) kappa were calculated for dichotomized and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for continuous outcomes.
Results: Fleiss' kappa varied among modalities from fair to substantial (κ = 0.23–0.66). Cold, warm, and vibration detection thresholds and cold and pressure pain thresholds reached kappa >0.4 (moderate to substantial reliability). Cohen's kappa ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = 0.45–0.66). The reliability of the windup ratio was poor (ICC <0.18).
Conclusion: CST modalities with moderate to substantial inter-tester reliability could be of benefit as a screening tool. The moderate to substantial intra-tester reliability for all sensory modalities (except windup ratio) supports their potential use in clinical practice and research to monitor somatosensory changes over time in patients with spine-related limb pain of mixed pain mechanisms.
Significance: We already know that most modalities of clinical sensory test (CST) batteries achieve moderate to substantial inter- and intra-tester reliability in populations with neuropathic pain.
This study evaluates the reliability of a CST battery in populations with mixed pain mechanisms. We found inter-tester reliability varied from poor to substantial for sensory modalities, questioning the value of some CST modalities. The CST battery showed moderate to substantial intra-tester reliability, suggesting its usefulness to monitor sensory changes over time in this cohort.
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: 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.
Background: To facilitate access to evidence-based care for back pain, a German private medical insurance offered a health program proactively to their members. Feasibility and long-term efficacy of this approach were evaluated.
Methods: Using Zelen’s design, adult members of the health insurance with chronic back pain according to billing data were randomized to the intervention (IG) or the control group (CG). Participants allocated to the IG were invited to participate in the comprehensive health program comprising medical exercise therapy and life style coaching, and those allocated to the CG to a longitudinal back pain survey. Primary outcomes were back pain severity (Korff’s Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire) as well as health-related quality of life (SF-12) assessed by identical online questionnaires at baseline and 2-year follow-up in both study arms. In addition to analyses of covariance, a subgroup analysis explored the heterogeneity of treatment effects among different risks of back pain chronification (STarT Back Tool).
Results: Out of 3462 persons selected, randomized and thereafter contacted, 552 agreed to participate. At the 24-month follow-up, data on 189 of 258 (73.3%) of the IG were available, in the CG on 255 of 294 (86.7%). Significant, small beneficial effects were seen in primary outcomes: Compared to the CG, the IG reported less disability (1.6 vs 2.0; p = 0.025; d = 0.24) and scored better at the SF-12 physical health scale (43.3 vs 41.0; p < 0.007; d = 0.26). No effect was seen in back pain intensity and in the SF-12 mental health scale. Persons with medium or high risk of back pain chronification at baseline responded better to the health program in all primary outcomes than the subgroup with low risk at baseline.
Conclusions: After 2 years, the proactive health program resulted in small positive long-term improvements. Using risk screening prior to inclusion in the health program might increase the percentage of participants deriving benefits from it.
Background: The Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) has been developed to measure musculoskeletal health status across musculoskeletal conditions and settings. However, the MSK-HQ needs to be further evaluated across settings and different languages.
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of the MSK-HQ across Danish (DK) and English (UK) cohorts of patients from primary care physiotherapy services with musculoskeletal pain.
Methods: MSK-HQ was translated into Danish according to international guidelines. Measurement invariance was assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) were evaluated and compared between DK (n = 153) and UK (n = 166) cohorts.
Results: The Danish version demonstrated acceptable face and construct validity. Out of the 14 MSK-HQ items, three items showed DIF for language (pain/stiffness at night, understanding condition and confidence in managing symptoms) and three items showed DIF for pain location (walking, washing/dressing and physical activity levels). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for test-retest were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) for DK cohort and 0.77 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.90) for the UK cohort. The systematic measurement error was 1.6 and 3.9 points for the DK and UK cohorts respectively, with random measurement error being 8.6 and 9.9 points. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the change scores against patients’ own judgment at 12 weeks exceeded 0.70 in both cohorts. Absolute and relative MCIC estimates were 8–10 points and 26% for the DK cohort and 6–8 points and 29% for the UK cohort.
Conclusions: The measurement properties of MSK-HQ were acceptable across countries, but seem more suited for group than individual level evaluation. Researchers and clinicians should be aware that some discrepancy exits and should take the observed measurement error into account when evaluating change in scores over time.
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.
Stratified care for low back pain (LBP) has been shown to be clinically- and cost-effective in the UK, but its transferability to the German healthcare system is unknown. This study explores LBP patients’ perspectives regarding future implementation of stratified care, through in-depth interviews (n = 12). The STarT-Back-Tool was completed by participants prior to interviews. Interview data were analysed using Grounded Theory. The overarching theme identified from the data was ‘treatment-success’, with subthemes of ‘assessment and treatment planning’, ‘acceptance of the questionnaire’ and ‘contextual factors’. Patients identified the underlying cause of pain as being of great importance (whereas STarT-Back allocates treatment based on prognosis). The integration of the STarT-Back-Tool in consultations was considered helpful as long as it does not disrupt the therapeutic relationship, and was acceptable if tool results are handled confidentially. Results indicate that for patients to find STarT-Back acceptable, the shift from a focus on identifying a cause of pain and subsequent diagnosis, to prediction-orientated treatment planning, must be made clear. Patient ‘buy in’ is important for successful uptake of clinical interventions, and findings can help to inform future strategies for implementing STarT-Back in the Germany, as well as having potential implications for transferability to other similar healthcare systems.
Background: Stratified care is an up-to-date treatment approach suggested for patients with back pain in several guidelines. A comprehensively studied stratification instrument is the STarT Back Tool (SBT). It was developed to stratify patients with back pain into three subgroups, according to their risk of persistent disabling symptoms. The primary aim was to analyse the disability differences in patients with back pain 12 months after inclusion according to the subgroups determined at baseline using the German version of the SBT (STarT-G). Moreover, the potential to improve prognosis for disability by adding further predictor variables, an analysis for differences in pain intensity according to the STarT-Classification, and discriminative ability were investigated.
Methods: Data from the control group of a randomized controlled trial were analysed. Trial participants were members of a private medical insurance with a minimum age of 18 and indicated as having persistent back pain. Measurements were made for the risk of back pain chronification using the STarT-G, disability (as primary outcome) and back pain intensity with the Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), health-related quality of life with the SF-12, psychological distress with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) and physical activity. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple linear regression, and area under the curve (AUC) analysis were conducted.
Results: The mean age of the 294 participants was 53.5 (SD 8.7) years, and 38% were female. The ANOVA for disability and pain showed significant differences (p < 0.01) among the risk groups at 12 months. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed significant differences among all three risk groups for every comparison for both outcomes. AUC for STarT-G’s ability to discriminate reference standard ‘cases’ for chronic pain status at 12 months was 0.79. A prognostic model including the STarT-Classification, the variables global health, and disability at baseline explained 45% of the variance in disability at 12 months.
Conclusions: Disability differences in patients with back pain after a period of 12 months are in accordance with the subgroups determined using the STarT-G at baseline. Results should be confirmed in a study developed with the primary aim to investigate those differences.
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.