ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate if a group-based Shoulder-Café intervention could reduce shoulder complaints more effectively than an individual-based control intervention in employees with shoulder complaints and high occupational shoulder exposures. METHODS: A cluster-randomised controlled study of 109 participants from 60 companies in Central Denmark Region. Companies were randomised and allocated to either Shoulder-Café or control intervention. Participants in both interventions received a pamphlet on home-based shoulder exercises and a pamphlet with general information on reducing occupational shoulder exposures. They also had their occupational shoulder exposures assessed. Shoulder-Café participants additionally received three café-meetings with casual discussion, clinical shoulder evaluation, education about shoulder anatomy and occupational shoulder exposures, supervised exercises, workplace-oriented counselling, and an optional workplace visit. The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the OSS at 12 months, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire - Physical Activity at 6 and 12 months, and Patients' Global Impression of Change at 6 months. The study also included seven supplementary outcome measures. RESULTS: Both groups improved from baseline to 6 months with respect to the primary outcome (P < 0.01). No group differences were found for the primary outcome (mean difference (MD) [95% confidence interval]: 0.3 [- 1.6; 2.2]) or secondary outcomes. The supplementary outcomes "felt informed about handling shoulder complaints" and "felt informed about reducing occupational exposures" at 6 months, and "Patients' Global Impression of Change" and "overall satisfaction" at 12 months favoured the Shoulder-Café intervention. CONCLUSION: The Shoulder-Café intervention did not reduce shoulder complaints more effectively than the control intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 19 May 2017 (ID: NCT03159910).
Subject(s)
Exercise Therapy , Shoulder , Humans , Shoulder Pain/prevention & control , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , WorkplaceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with musculoskeletal diseases can potentially be assessed by an extended scope physiotherapist (ESP) instead of by an orthopaedic surgeon (OS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the diagnostic musculoskeletal assessment performed by ESP compared to OS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and reference lists of included studies and previous reviews were searched in November 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they evaluated adults with a musculoskeletal disease referred to an outpatient orthopaedic clinic where a diagnostic assessment had been conducted by an ESP. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using a customised data extraction sheet. Two reviewers using checklists evaluated methodological independently. RESULTS: We included one randomised controlled trial and 31 observational studies. Diagnostic agreement between ESPs and OSs was 65 to 100% across studies. Health care cost savings for diagnostic assessments performed by ESPs were 27 to 49% compared to OSs. Overall, 77 to 100% of the patients were satisfied with the ESP assessment. Results were comparable on diagnostic agreement, cost and satisfaction in studies with high, moderate and low risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: Risk of bias in the included studies. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION OF KEY FINDINGS: Diagnostic assessments performed by ESP may be as beneficial as or even better than assessment performed by OSs in terms diagnostic agreement, costs and satisfaction. However, the methodological quality was generally too low to determine the clear effectiveness of ESP assessment, and more high quality studies are needed. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42014014229.
