What does high value care for musculoskeletal conditions mean and how do you apply it in practice? A consensus statement from a research network of physiotherapists in New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a physiotherapist-led consensus statement on the definition and provision of high-value care for people with musculoskeletal conditions. DESIGN: We performed a three-stage study using Research And Development/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method methodology. We reviewed evidence about current definitions through a rapid literature review and then performed a survey and interviews with network members to gather consensus. Consensus was finalised in a face-to-face meeting. SETTING: Australian primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Registered physiotherapists who are members of a practice-based research network (n=31). RESULTS: The rapid review revealed two definitions, four domains of high value care and seven themes of high-quality care. Online survey responses (n=26) and interviews (n=9) generated two additional high-quality care themes, a definition of low-value care, and 21 statements on the application of high value care. Consensus was reached for three working definitions (high value, high-quality and low value care), a final model of four high value care domains (high-quality care, patient values, cost-effectiveness, reducing waste), nine high-quality care themes and 15 statements on application. CONCLUSION: High value care for musculoskeletal conditions delivers most value for the patient, and the clinical benefits outweigh the costs to the individual or system providing the care. High-quality care is evidence based, effective and safe care that is patient-centred, consistent, accountable, timely, equitable and allows easy interaction with healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

Meaningful coproduction with clinicians: establishing a practice-based research network with physiotherapists in regional Australia.

BACKGROUND: The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction. METHODS: We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas. RESULTS: Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes.

Mixed messages: most spinal pain and osteoarthritis observational research is unclear or misaligned.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed authors' language and methods to determine alignment between reported aims, methods, intent, and interpretations in observational studies in spinal pain or osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched five databases for observational studies that included people with spinal pain or osteoarthritis published in the last 5 years. We randomized 100 eligible studies, and classified study intent (aims and methods) and interpretations as causal, non-causal, unclear, or misaligned. RESULTS: Overall, 38% of studies were aligned regarding their intent and interpretation (either causally (22%) or non-causally (16%)). 29% of studies' aims and 29% of study methods were unclear. Intent was misaligned in 16% of studies (where aim differed to method) and 23% of studies had misaligned interpretations (where there were multiple conflicting claims). The most common kind of aim was non-causal (38%), and the most common type of method (39%), intent (38%), and interpretations (35%) was causal. CONCLUSIONS: Misalignment and mixed messages are common in observational research of spinal pain and osteoarthritis. More than 6 in 10 observational studies may be uninterpretable, because study intent and interpretations do not align. While causal methods and intent are most common in observational research, authors commonly shroud causal intent in non-causal terminology.

Physiotherapists' opinions, barriers, and enablers to providing evidence-based care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists deliver evidence-based guideline recommended treatments only half of the time to patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Physiotherapists' behaviour in clinical practice are influenced by many cognitive, social, and environmental factors including time and financial pressures. Many initiatives aimed at improving physiotherapists' uptake of evidence-based care have failed to appreciate the context involved in clinical decisions and clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to describe: i) opinions toward evidence; ii) how evidence is accessed; iii) factors influencing evidence access; iv) factors influencing evidence application, for physiotherapists working in regional areas. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods study with online survey and focus groups. We included registered physiotherapists in the survey and physiotherapists practising in regional New South Wales in the focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data were used to inform all research objectives. We used eight domains of the Transtheoretical Domains Framework to design survey questions. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data in parallel, then integrated both sources through by developing a matrix while considering the Transtheoretical Domains Framework domains to generate themes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven physiotherapists participated in the study (survey only n = 41; focus group only n = 8; both survey and focus group n = 8). Participants reported that evidence was important, but they also considered patient expectations, colleagues' treatment choices, and business demands in clinical decision making. Physiotherapists reported they access evidence on average 30 minutes or less per week. Competing demands like business administration tasks are barriers to accessing evidence. Participants reported that patient expectations were a major barrier to applying evidence in practice. Environmental and systemic factors, like funding structures or incentives for evidence-based care, and social factors, like lacking or having a culture of accountability and mentorship, were reported as both barriers and enablers to evidence application. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides context to physiotherapists' opinion, access, and application of evidence in clinical practice. Physiotherapists' provision of evidence-based care may be improved by enhancing structural support from workplaces to access and apply evidence and exploring discrepancies between physiotherapists' perceptions of patient expectations and actual patient expectations.

"Myths and Facts" Education Is Comparable to "Facts Only" for Recall of Back Pain Information but May Improve Fear-Avoidance Beliefs: An Embedded Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of patient education with "myths and facts" versus "facts only" on recall of back pain information and fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomized Study Within A Trial. METHODS: One hundred fifty-two participants with chronic LBP were included. Participants allocated to the "facts only" group received an information sheet with 6 LBP facts, whereas those allocated to the "myths and facts" group received the same information sheet, with each myth refuted by its respective fact. The primary outcome was a correct recall of back pain facts, and the secondary outcome was the physical activity component of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-PA), 2 weeks after the provision of the information sheet. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with a correct recall between the "myths and facts" and "facts only" groups (odds ratio = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48, 1.99) and no significant difference in FABQ-PA mean scores between groups (-1.58; 95% CI: -3.77, 0.61). Sensitivity analyses adjusted for prognostic factors showed no difference in information recall but a larger difference in FABQ-PA scores (-2.3; 95% CI: -4.56, -0.04). CONCLUSION: We found no overall difference in the recall of back pain information for patients provided with "myths and facts" compared with that for patients provided with "facts only" and a slight reduction in fear-avoidance beliefs for physical activity using "myths and facts" compared with that using "facts only," but the meaningfulness of this result is uncertain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(9):586-594. Epub: 9 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10989.

Effectiveness of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain: statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain targeting multiple health risks and behaviours, weight, physical activity, diet and smoking, to improve disability. We describe the methods for the main analyses and economic analysis of the trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: The trial is a two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of the HeLP intervention to usual care on low back pain disability at 26 weeks. A total of 346 adults with low back pain were recruited from the Newcastle and Hunter region between September 2017 and November 2019 and randomised to either HeLP or usual care. HeLP is a 6-month intervention with participant outcomes measured at weeks 6, 12, 26 and 52 post randomisation. This statistical analysis plan describes data integrity, handling and preparation of data for analyses and methods for analyses. The primary endpoint for the trial is disability at 26 weeks using the 24-item self-report Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle using linear mixed regression models. DISCUSSION: The statistical analysis plan for this trial was produced to reduce outcome reporting bias arising from knowledge of the study findings. Any deviations will be described and justified in the final report. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001288314 . Registered on 6 September 2017.

Exercise interventions for low back pain are poorly reported: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of exercise interventions from clinical trials of low back pain (LBP). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of exercise interventions for patients with LBP. Five online databases and Clinical Trial Registries were searched (October 2018). We included RCTs that reported interventions for LBP, containing at least 50% exercise. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) reporting checklists were then used to assess quality of reporting. RESULTS: 582 trials were eligible for inclusion. Due to the large number of eligible studies, 100 studies were randomly selected for data extraction and coding with the TIDieR and CERT checklists. The random sample was representative of the 582 eligible trials. The overall completeness of reporting (median (IQR)) of TIDieR items was 59.2% (45.5%-72.7%) and CERT was 33.3% (22.2%-52.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found poor overall reporting with both checklists, which has not improved over time or since the introduction of the checklists. More dedicated work is required to address poor reporting of exercise interventions in clinical trials.

Exploring Integrated Care for Musculoskeletal and Chronic Health Conditions.

SYNOPSIS: Integrated care is a continuum of services delivered by a system organized around the health needs of people rather than diseases. People with chronic musculoskeletal pain often live with coexisting chronic health conditions. Current care for musculoskeletal pain remains narrowly focused on individual painful conditions, despite the complex health needs of patients. We explore the challenges of delivering integrated care to people with musculoskeletal pain and coexisting chronic health conditions. We discuss these challenges in relation to 3 areas: (1) the relationships between musculoskeletal conditions and other chronic health conditions, (2) the factors that impact the clinician's capacity to provide integrated care for musculoskeletal conditions, and (3) system-level constraints that impact both the clinician's delivery of care and the patient's health care experience. We suggest ways by which clinicians and researchers may move toward better integrated care for musculoskeletal pain and coexisting chronic health conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(6):264-268. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10428.

Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is one of the most common and burdensome chronic conditions worldwide. Lifestyle factors, such as excess weight, physical inactivity, poor diet and smoking, are linked to low back pain chronicity and disability. There are few high-quality randomised controlled trials that investigate the effects of targeting lifestyle risk factors in people with chronic low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain targeting weight, physical activity, diet and smoking to reduce disability in patients with chronic low back pain compared with usual care. This is a randomised controlled trial, with participants stratified by body mass index, allocated 1:1 to the HeLP intervention or usual physiotherapy care. HeLP involves three main components: (1) clinical consultations with a physiotherapist and dietitian; (2) educational resources; and (3) telephone-based health coaching support for lifestyle risk factors. The primary outcome is disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, weight, quality of life and smoking status. Data will be collected at baseline, and at weeks 6, 12, 26 and 52. Patients with chronic low back pain who have at least one health risk factor (are overweight or obese, are smokers and have inadequate physical activity or fruit and vegetable consumption) will be recruited from primary or secondary care, or the community. Primary outcome data will be analysed by intention to treat using linear mixed-effects regression models. We will conduct three supplementary analyses: causal mediation analysis, complier average causal effects analysis and economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (Approval No 17/02/15/4.05), and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No H-2017-0222). Outcomes of this trial and supplementary analyses will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001288314.