Involving practice nurse and other assistant clinical staff members in the management of low back pain: A qualitative interview study from Danish general practice.

OBJECTIVES: Involving practice nurse and other assistant clinical staff members in providing information and education to patients with low back pain at follow-up appointments may release more time and improve care in general practice. However, this requires a shift in the division of tasks, and general practitioners' barriers and facilitators for this are currently unknown. The objectives were to explore general practitioners' experiences and perceptions of including assistant clinical staff members in the management of low back pain. METHODS: This is a semi-structured interview study in Danish general practice. General practitioners with a variation in demographics and experience with task-delegation to clinical staff were recruited for in-depth interviews. We used a phenomenological approach to guide the data collection and the analysis in order to gain insight into the subjective experiences of the general practitioners and to understand the phenomenon of 'delegating tasks to practice staff' from the perspective of the general practitioners' lifeworld. Analysis was conducted using an inductive descriptive method. The sample size was guided by information power. RESULTS: We conducted five interviews with general practitioners. All general practitioners had experience with task delegation, but there was a variation in which tasks the general practitioners delegated and to which types of clinical staff members. The following themes were derived from the analysis: general practice organisation, delegating to clinical staff members, doctor-patient relationship, exercise instruction, clinical pathway for patients and external support. CONCLUSION: General practitioners consider patients with low back pain to be a heterogeneous group with a variety of treatment needs and a patient group without any predetermined content or frequency of consultations; this can be a barrier for delegating these patients to clinical staff members.

The Online Patient Satisfaction Index for Patients With Low Back Pain: Development, Reliability, and Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is highly prevalent, and most often, a specific causative factor cannot be identified. Therefore, for most patients, their low back pain is labeled as nonspecific. Patient education and information are recommended for all these patients. The internet is an accessible source of medical information on low back pain. Approximately 50% of patients with low back pain search the internet for health and medical advice. Patient satisfaction with education and information is important in relation to patients' levels of inclination to use web-based information and their trust in the information they find. Although patients who are satisfied with the information they retrieve use the internet as a supplementary source of information, dissatisfied patients tend to avoid using the internet. Consumers' loyalty to a product is often applied to evaluate their satisfaction. Consumers have been shown to be good ambassadors for a service when they are willing to recommend the service to a friend or colleague. When consumers are willing to recommend a service to a friend or colleague, they are also likely to be future users of the service. To the best of our knowledge, no multi-item instrument exists to specifically evaluate satisfaction with information delivered on the web for people with low back pain. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report on the development, reliability testing, and construct validity testing of the Online Patient Satisfaction Index to measure patients' satisfaction with web-based information for low back pain. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional validation study of the Online Patient Satisfaction Index. The index was developed with experts and assessed for face validity. It was subsequently administered to 150 adults with nonspecific low back pain. Of these, 46% (70/150) were randomly assigned to participate in a reliability test using an intraclass correlation coefficient of agreement. Construct validity was evaluated by hypothesis testing based on a web app (MyBack) and Wikipedia on low back pain. RESULTS: The index includes 8 items. The median score (range 0-24) based on the MyBack website was 20 (IQR 18-22), and the median score for Wikipedia was 12 (IQR 8-15). The entire score range was used. Overall, 53 participants completed a retest, of which 39 (74%) were stable in their satisfaction with the home page and were included in the analysis for reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient of agreement was estimated to be 0.82 (95% CI 0.68-0.90). Two hypothesized correlations for construct validity were confirmed through an analysis using complete data. CONCLUSIONS: The index had good face validity, excellent reliability, and good construct validity and can be used to measure satisfaction with the provision of web-based information regarding nonspecific low back pain among people willing to access the internet to obtain health information. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03449004; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03449004.

Feasibility study on recruitment in general practice for a low back pain online information study (part of the ADVIN Back Trial).

OBJECTIVE: In a future full-scale randomised controlled trial, we plan to compare satisfaction with a standard website versus satisfaction with a participatory driven web-application. The participatory driven web-application may facilitate the delivery of targeted evidence-based advice and information to patients with low back pain in general practice (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03088774). This feasibility study is intended to inform a future randomised controlled trial. The aim is to report on the lessons learned from recruitment to report on reasons for loss to follow-up. RESULTS: We recruited 12 women and 8 men from two general practices with each practice recruiting for 3 months. Full follow-up data was available in only three patients (15%). Based on the high loss to follow-up, we do not consider it feasible to conduct the full-scale confirmatory trial as planned. Modifying inclusion criteria to include only patients expressing an interest in using online health information or randomising patients directly at the general practice, supporting them in accessing the web-application, and letting patients respond with their immediate satisfaction may improve the speed of recruitment and follow-up rates. Furthermore, the participatory driven web-application can be included in a larger multi-faceted intervention, making the combined intervention seem more relevant to study participants.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for non-osteoarthritic knee pain conditions: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Knee pain is common in adolescents and adults and is associated with an increased risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this systematic review was to gather and appraise the cost-effectiveness of treatment approaches for non-osteoarthritic knee pain conditions. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050683). The literature search was done in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Study selection was carried out by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using a customized extraction form. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. The majority regarded the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, but we also identified studies evaluating other knee pain conditions such as meniscus injuries, cartilage defects, and patellofemoral pain syndrome. Study interventions were categorized as surgical or non-surgical interventions. The surgical interventions included ACL reconstruction, chondrocyte implantation, meniscus scaffold procedure, meniscal allograft transplantation, partial meniscectomy, microfracture, and different types of autografts and allografts. The non-surgical management consisted of physical therapy, rehabilitation, exercise, counselling, bracing, and advice. In general, for ACL injuries surgical management alone or in combination with rehabilitation appeared to be cost-effective. The quality of the economic evaluations was of moderate to high quality. CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence to give a firm overview of cost-effective interventions for non-osteoarthritic knee pain, but surgical treatment of acute ACL injury appeared cost-effective. There is very little data regarding the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for non-traumatic knee conditions.

Comparing satisfaction with a participatory driven web-application and a standard website for patients with low back pain: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (part of the ADVIN Back Trial).

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the most common musculoskeletal disorder and a leading cause of disability worldwide. It impacts daily life and work capacity and is the most common reason for consulting a general practitioner (GP). According to international guidelines, information, reassurance, and advice are key components in the management of people with LBP; however, the consultation time available in general practice for each patient is often limited. Therefore, new methods to support the delivery of information and advice are needed and online technologies provide new opportunities to extend the consultation beyond the GP's office. However, it is not known whether GPs and people consulting their GP because of LBP will accept online technologies as part of the consultation. By involving patients in the development of online information, we may produce more user-friendly content and design, and improve patient acceptance and usage, optimising satisfaction and clinical outcomes. The purpose is to study satisfaction in people consulting their GP with LBP depending on whether they are randomised to receive supporting information through a new participant-driven web application or a standard reference website containing guideline-based information on LBP. It is hypothesised that patients offered information in a new web application will be more satisfied with the online information after 12 weeks compared to patients allocated to a standard website. METHODS: Two hundred patients with LBP aged ≥ 18 years consulting Danish general practice will be randomly allocated 1:1 to either the new web application or standard online information in permuted blocks of two, four, and six. Patients with serious spinal diseases (cancer, fractures, spinal stenosis, spondyloarthritis), those without Danish reading skills or without online access, and pregnant women will not be included in the trial. Patient satisfaction measured by the Net Promotor Score after 12 weeks is the primary outcome. Patients will be aware of their allocation. GPs will be blinded unless informed by the patient. Assessors are blinded. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first trial evaluating whether involving LBP patients in the development of an online web application will result in higher patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03088774 . Registered on 23 March 2017. Last updated on 14 March 2018.

Effect of differentiating exercise guidance based on a patient's level of low back pain in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the health conditions that lead to the most disability worldwide. Guidelines aimed at management of LBP recommend non-invasive and non-pharmacological management, including patient education, advice to stay active and exercise therapy; however, the guidelines offer no recommendation as to the allowable level of pain during exercise or how specific levels of pain should be reflected in the stage and progression of exercises or activities. The purpose of this review is to study the effect of differentiation of exercise guidance based on the level of LBP in patients in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be performed on PubMed, EMBASE, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDRO), Cochrane and PROSPERO from their inception until September 2017. Published peer-reviewed human experimental and observational studies with quantitative or qualitative designs will be included. Two independent reviewers will identify papers by reviewing titles and abstracts. Papers passing the initial selection will be appraised by two reviewers, based on their full texts. Furthermore, the reference lists of included studies will be snowballed for identification of other relevant studies. Data will be extracted using a standard extraction sheet by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion and consensus with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation risk of bias tool, or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Results will be reported narratively. Search histories will be documented on EndNote X8 (Clarivate Analytics). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this review was not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed international journal and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017074880.