Physiotherapists' attitudes and beliefs in the management of low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) poses a significant global health burden where a biopsychosocial model of care has been recommended. Physiotherapists (PTs) play a crucial role in LBP management; however, their attitudes and beliefs towards LBP were not reviewed in detail. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarise the attitudes and beliefs of PTs towards LBP and the factors influencing them. METHODS: The review protocol and methods adhere to the PRISMA-P and Meta Analyses and Systematic Reviews for Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro and Ovid databases will be conducted to search for cross-sectional studies evaluating PTs' attitudes and beliefs towards LBP. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles, conduct data extraction and assess methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies. Data synthesis will involve a narrative synthesis of study characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and methodological quality. If feasible, a meta-analysis will be performed to quantify the pooled effects. CONCLUSION: Despite the emphasis on biopsychosocial approaches for managing LBP, the adoption of such approaches in physiotherapy practice is still suboptimal, with attitudes and beliefs of PTs being considered an important factor influencing treatment practices. Our review will summarise the literature on attitudes and beliefs of PTs towards LBP. Such knowledge would inform the need for development of additional interventions addressing the attitudes and beliefs that would eventually enhance the update of the biopsychosocial model of care in physiotherapy management of LBP.

Factors Associated With Primary Care Physician Decision-making When Making Medication Recommendations vs Surgical Referrals.

Importance: Although objective data are used routinely in prescription drug recommendations, it is unclear how referring physicians apply evidence when making surgeon or hospital recommendations for surgery. Objective: To compare the factors associated with the hospital or surgeon referral decision-making process with that used for prescription medication recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study comprised interviews conducted between April 26 and May 18, 2021, of a purposive sample of 21 primary care physicians from a large primary care network in the Northeast US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the factors considered when making prescription medication recommendations vs referral recommendations to specific surgeons or hospitals for surgery. Results: All 21 participant primary care physicians (14 women [66.7%]) reported use of evidence-based decision support tools and patient attributes for prescription medication recommendations. In contrast, for surgeon and hospital referral recommendations, primary care physicians relied on professional experience and training, personal beliefs about surgical quality, and perceived convenience. Primary care physicians cited perceived limitations of existing data on surgical quality as a barrier to the use of such data in the process of making surgical referrals. Conclusions and Relevance: As opposed to the widespread use of objective decision support tools for guidance on medication recommendations, primary care physicians relied on subjective factors when making referrals to specific surgeons and hospitals. The findings of this study highlight the potential to improve surgical outcomes by introducing accessible, reliable data as an imperative step in the surgical referral process.

Clinical Practice Guidelines on Pediatric Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Quality Appraisal of International Guidelines.

Purpose: While regurgitation is a common and often benign phenomenon in infants and younger children, it can also be a presenting symptom of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). If untreated, GERD can lead to dangerous or lifelong complications. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published to inform clinical diagnosis and management of pediatric GERD, but to date there has been no comprehensive review of guideline quality or methodological rigor. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed, and a total of eight CPGs pertaining to pediatric GERD were identified. These CPGs were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Results: Three CPGs were found to be "high" quality, with 5 of 6 domains scoring >60%, one "average" quality, with 4 of 6 domains meeting that threshold, and the remaining four "low" quality. Conclusion: Areas of strength among the CPGs included "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity and Presentation," as they tended to be well-written and easily understood. Areas in need of improvement were "Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development," and "Applicability," suggesting these CPGs may not be appropriate for all patients or providers. This analysis found that while strong CPGs pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric GERD exist, many published guidelines lack methodological rigor and broad applicability.

Reporting of Discrimination by Health Care Consumers Through Online Consumer Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about how discrimination in health care relates to inequities in hospital-based care because of limitations in the ability to measure discrimination. Consumer reviews offer a novel source of data to capture experiences of discrimination in health care settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine how health care consumers perceive and report discrimination through public consumer reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study assessed Yelp online reviews from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, of 100 randomly selected acute care hospitals in the US. Word filtering was used to identify reviews potentially related to discrimination by using keywords abstracted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale, a commonly used questionnaire to measure discrimination. A codebook was developed through a modified grounded theory and qualitative content analysis approach to categorize recurrent themes of discrimination, which was then applied to the hospital reviews. EXPOSURES: Reported experiences of discrimination within a health care setting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Perceptions of how discrimination in health care is experienced and reported by consumers. RESULTS: A total of 10 535 reviews were collected. Reviews were filtered by words commonly associated with discriminatory experiences, which identified 2986 reviews potentially related to discrimination. Using the codebook, the team manually identified 182 reviews that described at least 1 instance of discrimination. Acts of discrimination were categorized by actors of discrimination (individual vs institution), setting (clinical vs nonclinical), and directionality (whether consumers expressed discriminatory beliefs toward health care staff). A total of 53 reviews (29.1%) were coded as examples of institutional racism; 89 reviews (48.9%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in clinical spaces as consumers were waiting for or actively receiving care; 25 reviews (13.7%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in nonclinical spaces, such as lobbies; and 66 reviews (36.3%) documented discrimination by the consumer directed at the health care workforce. Acts of discrimination are described through 6 recurrent themes, including acts of commission, omission, unprofessionalism, disrespect, stereotyping, and dehumanizing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative study, consumer reviews were found to highlight recurrent patterns of discrimination within health care settings. Applying quality improvement tools, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, to this source of data and this study's findings may help inform assessments and initiatives directed at reducing discrimination within the health care setting.