What are patients' perspectives on the value of physical therapy? A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess and identify patients' perceptions about the overall value of physical therapy services for musculoskeletal conditions and how these values were associated with their outcomes. METHODS: The association between the perceived value of physical therapy (as a score) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and physical function at 6-weeks was assessed in a prospective cohort. Generalised linear models were used to identify relationships between the value of physical therapy score and PROMIS outcomes. Kendall's tau was used to identify correlations between responses and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 133 participants met the final inclusion criteria. The majority of participants were female (63.9%) with a mean age of 55.53 (SD 15.36) years. A majority of participants (63.9%) reported a previous positive personal experience with physical therapy. There was no significant relationship between perceived value of physical therapy and pain interference (ß -0.32, p = 0.07, 95% CI-0.67, 0.03) or physical function (ß 0.19, p = 0.29, 95% CI-0.16, 0.54). Stronger beliefs in agreement with the value of non-invasive treatment were significant, but weakly correlated with lower pain interference (r = -0.18, p = 0.048) and higher physical function scores (r = 0.22, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Participants had an overall positive perception of the value of physical therapy prior to initiating physical therapy, but this perception was not associated with 6-week pain and function outcomes. A better understanding of the driving factors encouraging patients to seek physical therapy services is needed to provide value-based care.

Preoperative conservative treatment is insufficiently described in clinical trials of lumbar fusion: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To identify how pre-surgical conservative care is characterized and reported in randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion, including duration and type of treatment. METHODS: The study design is a scoping review. Data sources include PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials published in English between January 1, 2005, and February 15, 2022, assessing lumbar fusion as the intervention were included in this review. RESULTS: Of 166 studies, 62.0% reported a failure in conservative care prior to lumbar fusion, but only 15.1% detailed the type of specific conservative care received. None of the trials provided sufficient details to understand the nature of the pre-surgical conservative treatment, such as frequency, recency/timing, or dosage of conservative interventions. CONCLUSION: Although roughly two-thirds of trials reported that patients failed conservative care prior to receiving a lumbar fusion, few studies named the conservative intervention provided and no studies provided any details regarding dosing or recency of care. This lack of information creates ambiguity in the surgical decision-making process, setting the assumption that all patients received adequate conservative care prior to surgery. Details about pre-surgical conservative care should be disclosed to allow for appropriate clinical application, decision-making, and interpretation of treatment effects.