The Influence of Traffic Lights Presentation of Dementia Risk Screening Information on Older Adults' Motivations for Risk Reduction in Primary Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed older adults' preferences for how to communicate dementia risk information to maximize motivation for behavior change. METHOD: Eighty-nine community-dwelling older adults (aged 61 to 92 years, M=72.93, SD=6.36, 76% women) received dementia risk factor information in 2 formats: "traffic lights" (green=risk absent, amber=risk emerging, and red=risk present) or red/risk-only. Participants reported motivation to change risk-related behaviors, motivation to maintain good health behaviors, liking of the formats, categorical preference for traffic lights versus risk-only formats, reasons for preferences (open-ended), total applicable risks, and Motivation to Change Lifestyle and Health Behaviour for Dementia Risk Reduction. RESULTS: Traffic lights presentation was more motivating ( Z =4.16, P <0.001), more liked ( Z =4.80, P <0.001), and preferred, N Traffic =71, N Red =14, χ 2 (1)=38.22, P <0.001, over risk-only. Self-efficacy and motivation to maintain good health behaviors were significant unique predictors of motivation to change risk-related behaviors following traffic lights presentation over age, sex, education, total applicable risks, perceived susceptibility, cues to action, and liking of the traffic lights presentation format. Themes indicated (1) traffic light presentation is informative and clear, and (2) green-light information increases self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Traffic light presentation increases patient motivation to reduce dementia risk. Green-light information increases self-efficacy. Maximizing motivation through information presentation can decrease dementia prevalence.

The experience of Australian aged care workers during a trial implementation of a palliative care outcomes programme.

End of life care is an essential part of the role of Australian aged care homes (ACHs). However, there is no national framework to support aged care staff in systematically identifying residents with palliative care needs or to routinely assess, respond to, and measure end of life needs. The Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) is a national outcomes and benchmarking programme which aims to systematically improve palliative care for people who are approaching the end of life, and for their families and carers. The PCOC Wicking Model for Residential Aged Care was developed and piloted in four Australian ACHs. This paper reports on the qualitative findings from semi-structured interviews and focus groups conducted with ACH staff (N = 37) to examine feasibility. Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes about the pilot: (i) processes to successfully prepare and support ACHs; (ii) appropriateness of PCOC tools for the ACH setting; and (iii) realised and potential benefits of the model for ACHs. The lessons presented valuable insights to refine the PCOC Wicking Model and enrich understanding of the potential challenges and solutions for implementing similar programs within ACHs in future. The results suggest that key to successfully preparing ACHs for implementation of the PCOC Wicking Model is an authentic and well-paced collaborative approach with ACHs to ensure the resources, structures and systems are in place and appropriate for the setting. The PCOC Wicking Model for Residential Aged Care is a promising prototype to support ACHs in improving palliative and end of life care outcomes for residents and their carers.

Development of an individualised primary care program for acute low back pain using a hybrid co-design framework.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of years lost to disability and the problem is worsening. This paper describes and demonstrates the scholarly development and contextual refinement of a primary care program for acute low back pain in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: Hybrid theoretical frameworks were applied, and co-design was used to contextualise the program to the local healthcare setting. RESULTS: The program was developed in four stages. In stage 1, the scientific evidence about management of acute low back pain in primary care was examined. In stage 2, stakeholders (patients and clinicians) were consulted in nationwide surveys. Data from stages 1 and 2 were used to design an initial version of the program, called My Back My Plan. Stage 3 involved the contextual refinement of the program to the local setting, MQ Health Primary Care. This was achieved by co-design with primary care clinicians and patients who had sought care for low back pain at MQ Health Primary Care clinics. In stage 4, a panel of Australian experts on clinical care for low back pain reviewed the contextualised version of My Back My Plan and final amendments were made. CONCLUSION: My Back My Plan has been developed using an innovative scholarly approach to intervention development.

My Back My Plan is a feasible and acceptable individualised program for acute low back pain in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the largest cause of years lived with a disability in Australia, and there is an urgent need for innovations to address global gaps between evidence and practice. METHODS: This study was a phase 1, single-group, pre-post pilot trial of My Back My Plan, a primary care program for acute low back pain. The trial was conducted at MQ Health Primary Care at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. The primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were recruited to the study, with 79% and 93% followed up at 1 and 3months respectively. Ten general practitioners and four physiotherapists at MQ Health Primary Care delivered the intervention. Although the rate of patient recruitment to the trial was low, other aspects of feasibility (such as intervention adherence and safety) were high. Participating clinicians reported that the program was useful for patients, and the majority stated that the program facilitated person-centred care. Patients rated My Back My Plan as highly acceptable, indicating that they had a better understanding of their low back pain, they were given personalised care and were more confident in self-managing their low back pain. At the 3month follow-up, 85% of participants stated they were very likely to recommend the program to others. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the co-designed, contextually refined MBMP program for MQ Health Primary Care is acceptable to people with acute onset low back pain and warrants further evaluation.

Patients' perceptions with musculoskeletal disorders regarding their experience with healthcare providers and health services: an overview of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: This overview of reviews aimed to identify (1) aspects of the patient experience when seeking care for musculoskeletal disorders from healthcare providers and the healthcare system, and (2) which mechanisms are used to measure aspects of the patient experience. DATA SOURCES: Four databases were searched from inception to December 20th, 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic or scoping reviews examining patient experience in seeking care for musculoskeletal from healthcare providers and the healthcare system were included. Independent authors screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews. Patient experience concepts were compiled into five themes from a perspective of a) relational and b) functional aspects. A list of mechanisms used to capture the patient experience was also collected. RESULTS: Thirty reviews were included (18 systematic and 12 scoping reviews). Relational aspects were reported in 29 reviews and functional aspects in 25 reviews. For relational aspects, the most prevalent themes were "information needs" (education and explanation on diseases, symptoms, and self-management strategies) and "understanding patient expectations" (respect and empathy). For functional aspects, the most prevalent themes were patient's "physical and environmental needs," (cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of clinics), and "trusted expertise," (healthcare providers' competence and clinical skills to provide holistic care). Interviews were the most frequent mechanism identified to collect patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring patient experience provides direct insights about the patient's perspectives and may help to promote better patient-centered health services and increase the quality of care. Areas of improvement identified were interpersonal skills of healthcare providers and logistics of health delivery, which may lead to a more desirable patient-perceived experience and thus better overall healthcare outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019136500).

Management of acute low back pain: the practices and perspectives of primary care clinicians in Australia.

Low back pain (LBP) is the highest cause of years lived with a disability in Australia and the most frequent musculoskeletal condition for which patients seek primary care. The aims of this study were to: (1) evaluate the current practices and perspectives of Australian GPs and physiotherapists managing acute back pain; and (2) explore alignment of care with clinical guidelines. This was a prospective cross-sectional Internet survey conducted from March 2018 to May 2018 of experienced Australian GPs and physiotherapists. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse all quantitative outcomes. Two hundred primary care practitioners (72% physiotherapists and 28% GPs) from all States and Territories of Australia completed the survey. Most primary care practitioners were familiar with clinical guidelines for acute back pain management and reported delivery of many of the core components of guideline-based care, including education, advice about favourable prognosis, encouraging activity and self-management and discouraging prolonged bed rest. Deviations from guideline-based care were common, including provision of analgesic medication, passive therapies and using radiological imaging. Australian primary care clinicians in this sample were aware of back pain guidelines and typically implement care that is consistent with guideline-based recommendations. Divergences from these guidelines may indicate that primary care practitioners are delivering evidence-based and person-centred care that integrates clinicians' judgement with patients' preferences and guideline-based evidence.

The experiences and needs of people seeking primary care for low-back pain in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: There is a knowledge gap about the current experiences and needs of people with low back pain (LBP) seeking primary care in Australia. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to understand the experiences and needs of Australians who have received treatment for LBP in primary care. METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional internet survey conducted between July 2017 and September 2017. Participants were adults who had experienced an episode of LBP in the past year, had sought primary care in Australia, and were proficient in English. Outcomes were patient-reported experiences about primary care treatment, including reasons for seeking care, health care practitioners consulted, components of care received, and patients' evaluations of the importance and helpfulness of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 426 Australians completed the survey. The response rate of survey completion was 50%. Participants reported seeking primary care for LBP not only for pain relief, but for difficulties with activities and participation with usual social roles as well as quality of life and mood. Participants consulted multiple health care practitioners and used numerous treatment modalities. Only half reported they received education and a very low proportion were aware of receiving guideline-based advice. The level of satisfaction with care was below moderate for 42% of respondents. Participants reported that they want LBP care to be more person-centred and better tailored to their needs; they also reported wanting more education, particularly about prevention of future episodes and self-management. CONCLUSIONS: The needs of people currently seeking primary care for LBP in Australia do not seem to be adequately met. Improving patients' experiences and outcomes may require better integration of health care across providers and delivery of more person-centred care.

The effectiveness of physical therapies for patients with base of thumb osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis (known as base of thumb OA) is a common condition causing pain and disability worldwide. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal and unimodal physical therapies for base of thumb osteoarthritis (OA) compared with usual care, placebo or sham interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to May 2017. Randomized controlled trials involving adults comparing physical therapy treatment for base of thumb OA with an inactive control (placebo or sham treatment) and reported pain, strength or functional outcomes were included. Meta-analyses were performed where possible. Methodological risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Five papers with low risk of bias were included. Meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), were calculated for between-group differences in point estimates at 4 weeks post-intervention. Multimodal and unimodal physical therapies resulted in clinically worthwhile improvements in pain intensity (MD 2.9 [95% CI 2.8 to 3.0]; MD 3.1 [95% CI 2.5 to 3.8] on a 0-10 scale, respectively). Hand function improved following unimodal treatments (MD 6.8 points [95% CI 1.7 to 11.9)] on a 0-100 scale) and after a multimodal treatment (MD 20.5 (95%CI -0.7 to 41.7). CONCLUSIONS: High quality evidence shows unimodal and multimodal physical therapy treatments can result in clinically worthwhile improvements in pain and function for patients with base of thumb OA.