Challenging a host-pathogen paradigm: Susceptibility to chytridiomycosis is decoupled from genetic erosion.

The putatively positive association between host genetic diversity and the ability to defend against pathogens has long attracted the attention of evolutionary biologists. Chytridiomycosis, a disease caused by the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), has emerged in recent decades as a cause of dramatic declines and extinctions across the amphibian clade. Bd susceptibility can vary widely across populations of the same species, but the relationship between standing genetic diversity and susceptibility has remained notably underexplored so far. Here, we focus on a putatively Bd-naive system of two mainland and two island populations of the common toad (Bufo bufo) at the edge of the species' range and use controlled infection experiments and dd-RAD sequencing of >10 000 SNPs across 95 individuals to characterize the role of host population identity, genetic variation and individual body mass in mediating host response to the pathogen. We found strong genetic differentiation between populations and marked variation in their susceptibility to Bd. This variation was not, however, governed by isolation-mediated genetic erosion, and individual heterozygosity was even found to be negatively correlated with survival. Individual survival during infection experiments was strongly positively related to body mass, which itself was unrelated to population of origin or heterozygosity. Our findings underscore the general importance of context-dependency when assessing the role of host genetic variation for the ability of defence against pathogens.

Effectiveness of PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems.

STUDY QUESTION: Are PhysioDirect services, based on initial telephone assessment and advice from a physiotherapist, as effective as usual care involving patients waiting for a face-to-face appointment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients allocated to PhysioDirect received treatment more quickly than those allocated to usual care, and had equivalent clinical outcomes.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of PhysioDirect with usual physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal problems. DESIGN: (1) Cost-consequences comparing cost to the National Health Service (NHS), to patients, and the value of lost productivity with a range of outcomes. (2) Cost-utility analysis comparing cost to the NHS with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). SETTING: Four physiotherapy services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18+) referred by their general practitioner or self-referred for physiotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: PhysioDirect involved telephone assessment and advice followed by face-to-face care if needed. Usual care patients were placed on a waiting list for face-to-face care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary clinical outcome: physical component summary from the SF-36v2 at 6 months. Also included in the cost-consequences: Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile; a Global Improvement Score; response to treatment; patient satisfaction; waiting time. Outcome for the cost-utility analysis: QALYs. RESULTS: 2249 patients took part (1506 PhysioDirect; 743 usual care). (1) Cost-consequences: there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in the cost of physiotherapy, other NHS services, personal costs or value of time off work. Outcomes were also similar. (2) Cost-utility analysis based on complete cases (n=1272). Total NHS costs, including the cost of physiotherapy were higher in the PhysioDirect group by £19.30 (95% CI -£37.60 to £76.19) and there was a QALY gain of 0.007 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.016). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2889 and the net monetary benefit at λ=£20 000 was £117 (95% CI -£86 to £310). CONCLUSIONS: PhysioDirect may be a cost-effective alternative to usual physiotherapy care, though only with careful management of staff time. Physiotherapists providing the service must be more fully occupied than was possible under trial conditions: consideration should be given to the scale of operation, opening times of the service and flexibility in the methods used to contact patients.

Effectiveness of PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness, effect on waiting times, and patient acceptability of PhysioDirect services in patients with musculoskeletal problems, compared with usual care. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence in clinical effectiveness. Patients were individually randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care. SETTING: Four physiotherapy services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) referred by general practitioners or self referred for musculoskeletal physiotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: PhysioDirect services invited patients to telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice, followed by face-to-face physiotherapy if necessary. Usual care involved patients joining a waiting list for face-to-face treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of appointments, waiting time for treatment, and non-attendance rates. Primary outcome was physical health (SF-36v2 physical component score) at six months. Secondary outcomes included four other measures of health outcome, mental component score and scales from the SF-36v2, time lost from work, and patient satisfaction and preference. Participants were not blind to allocation, but outcome data were collected blind to allocation. RESULTS: Of 1506 patients allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care, 85% provided primary outcome data at six months (1283 and 629 patients, respectively). PhysioDirect patients had fewer face-to-face appointments than usual care patients (mean 1.91 v 3.11; incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.65)), a shorter waiting time (median 7 days v 34 days; arm time ratio 0.32 (0.29 to 0.35)), and lower rates of non-attendance (incidence rate ratio 0.55 (0.41 to 0.73)). After six months' follow-up, the SF-36v2 physical component score was equivalent between groups (adjusted difference in means -0.01 (-0.80 to 0.79)). Health outcome measures suggested a trend towards slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at six week follow-up and no difference at six months. There was no difference in time lost from work. PhysioDirect patients were no more satisfied with access to physiotherapy than usual care patients, but had slightly lower satisfaction overall at six months (difference in satisfaction -3.8% (-7.3% to -0.3%); P=0.031). PhysioDirect patients were more likely than usual care patients to prefer PhysioDirect in future. No adverse events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: PhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual care, provides faster access to physiotherapy, and seems to be safe. However, it could be associated with slightly lower patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618.

PhysioDirect: supporting physiotherapists to deliver telephone assessment and advice services within the context of a randomised trial.

Physiotherapy-led telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems have been developed in many services in the UK, but high quality trial data on clinical and cost effectiveness has been lacking. In order to address this 'The PhysioDirect trial' (ISRCTN55666618), was a pragmatic randomised trial of a PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice service. This paper describes the PhysioDirect system used in the trial and how physiotherapists were trained and supported to use the system and deliver the PhysioDirect service. The PhysioDirect system used in the trial was developed in Huntingdon and now serves a population of 350,000 people. When initiating or providing physiotherapy-led telephone assessment and advice services training and support for physiotherapists delivering care in this way is essential. An enhanced skill set is required for telephone assessment and advice particularly in listening and communication skills. In addition to an initial training programme, even experienced physiotherapists benefit from a period of skill consolidation to become proficient and confident in assessing patients and delivering care using the telephone. A computer-based system assists the delivery of a physiotherapy-led musculoskeletal assessment and advice service. Clinical Trials Registration Number (ISRCTN55666618).

'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for physiotherapy: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Providing timely access to physiotherapy has long been a problem for the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. In an attempt to improve access some physiotherapy services have introduced a new treatment pathway known as PhysioDirect. Physiotherapists offer initial assessment and advice by telephone, supported by computerised algorithms, and patients are sent written self-management and exercise advice by post. They are invited for face-to-face treatment only when necessary. Although several such services have been developed, there is no robust evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness, nor the acceptability of PhysioDirect. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol describes a multi-centre pragmatic individually randomised trial, with nested qualitative research. The aim is to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of PhysioDirect compared with usual models of physiotherapy based on patients going onto a waiting list and receiving face-to-face care. PhysioDirect services will be established in four areas in England. Adult patients in these areas with musculoskeletal problems who refer themselves or are referred by a primary care practitioner for physiotherapy will be invited to participate in the trial. About 1875 consenting patients will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care. Data about outcome measures will be collected at baseline and 6 weeks and 6 months after randomisation. The primary outcome is clinical improvement at 6 months; secondary outcomes include cost, waiting times, time lost from work and usual activities, patient satisfaction and preference. The impact of PhysioDirect on patients in different age-groups and with different conditions will also be examined.Incremental cost-effectiveness will be assessed in terms of quality adjusted life years in relation to cost.Qualitative methods will be used to explore factors associated with the success or failure of the service, the acceptability of PhysioDirect to patients and staff, and ways in which the service could be improved. DISCUSSION: It is still relatively unusual to evaluate new forms of service delivery using randomised controlled trials. By combining rigorous trial methods with economic analysis of cost-effectiveness and qualitative research this study will provide robust evidence to inform decisions about the widespread introduction of PhysioDirect services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618.