Prognostic factors of pain, disability, and poor outcomes in persons with neck pain - an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors pertaining to neck pain from systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: A search on PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL was performed on June 27, 2024. Additional grey literature searches were performed. REVIEW METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review and included systematic reviews reporting the prognostic factors associated with non-specific or trauma-related neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. Prognostic factors were sorted according to the outcome predicted, the direction of the predicted outcome (worse, better, inconsistent), and the grade of evidence (Oxford Center of Evidence). The predicted outcomes were regrouped into five categories: pain, disability, work-related outcomes, quality of life, and poor outcomes (as "recovery"). Risk of bias analysis was performed with the ROBIS tool. RESULTS: We retrieved 884 citations from three databases, read 39 full texts, and included 16 studies that met all selection criteria. From these studies, we extracted 44 prognostic factors restricted to non-specific neck pain, 47 for trauma-related neck pain, and one for cervical radiculopathy. We observed that among the prognostic factors, most were associated with characteristics of the condition, cognitive-emotional factors, or socio-environmental and lifestyle factors. CONCLUSION: This study identified over 40 prognostic factors associated mainly with non-specific neck pain or trauma-related neck pain. We found that a majority were associated with worse outcomes and pertained to domains mainly involving cognitive-emotional factors, socio-environmental and lifestyle factors, and the characteristics of the condition to predict outcomes and potentially guide clinicians to tailor their interventions for people living with neck pain.

Trajectories of health-related quality of life and their predictors in adult COVID-19 survivors: A longitudinal analysis of the Biobanque Québécoise de la COVID-19 (BQC-19).

PURPOSE: A significant number of people will experience prolonged symptoms after COVID-19 infection that will greatly impact functional capacity and quality of life. The aim of this study was to identify trajectories of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and their predictors among adults diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of an ongoing prospective cohort study (BQC-19) including adults (≥18y) recruited from April 2020 to March 2022. Our primary outcome is HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L scale. Sociodemographic, acute disease severity, vaccination status, fatigue, and functional status at onset of the disease were considered as potential predictors. The latent class mixed model was used to identify the trajectories over an 18-month period in the cohort as a whole, as well as in the inpatient and outpatient subgroups. Multivariable and univariable regressions models were undertaken to detect predictors of decline. RESULTS: 2163 participants were included. Thirteen percent of the outpatient subgroup (2 classes) and 28% in the inpatient subgroup (3 classes) experienced a more significant decline in HRQOL over time than the rest of the participants. Among all patients, age, sex, disease severity and fatigue, measured on the first assessment visit or on the first day after hospital admission (multivariable models), were identified as the most important predictors of HRQOL decline. Each unit increase in the SARC-F and CFS scores increase the likelihood of belonging to the declining trajectory (univariable models). CONCLUSION: Although to different degrees, similar factors explain the decline in HRQOL over time among the overall population, people who have been hospitalized or not. Clinical functional capacity scales could help to determine the risk of HRQOL decline.

"I wanted to know what was hurting so much": a qualitative study exploring patients' expectations and experiences with primary care management.

BACKGROUND: The management of shoulder pain is challenging for primary care clinicians considering that 40% of affected individuals remain symptomatic one year after initial consultation. Developing tailored knowledge mobilization interventions founded on evidence-based recommendations while also considering patients' expectations could improve primary care for shoulder pain. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore patients' expectations and experiences of their primary care consultation for shoulder pain. METHODS: In this qualitative study, participants with shoulder pain and having consulted a primary care clinician in the past year were interviewed. All the semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim, and inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify themes related to the participants' expectations and experiences of primary care consultations for shoulder pain. RESULTS: Thirteen participants with shoulder pain were interviewed (8 women, 5 men; mean age 50 ± 12 years). Eleven of them initially consulted a family physician or an emergency physician, and two participants initially consulted a physiotherapist. Four overarching themes related to patients' expectations and experiences were identified from our thematic analysis: 1) I can't sleep because of my shoulder; 2) I need to know what is happening with my shoulder; 3) But… we need to really see what is going on to help me!; and 4) Please take some time with me so I can understand what to do!. Several participants waited until they experienced a high level of shoulder pain before making an appointment since they were not confident about what their family physician could do to manage their condition. Although some participants felt that their physician took the time to listen to their concerns, many were dissatisfied with the limited assessment and education provided by the clinician. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing evidence-based recommendations while considering patients' expectations is important as it may improve patients' satisfaction with healthcare. Several participants reported that their expectations were not met, especially when it came to the explanations provided. One unexpected finding that emerged from this study was the waiting period between the onset of shoulder pain and when patients decided to consult their primary care clinician.

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition.

Objective: To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies; (ii) care models and pathways; and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions; (ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation; (iii) referral principles; (iv) service delivery settings; and (v) health-care professionals. Findings: We screened 13 753 titles and abstracts, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion: Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model; leveraging country health systems' strengths and learning from other conditions; financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes; and guidance to increase patient safety.

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada. METHODS: We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level. RESULTS: We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%-56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%-66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%-30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%-85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%-35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%-71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%-97.3%, n = 9). INTERPRETATION: We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 2: A strategic plan to activate dissemination.

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide among all musculoskeletal disorders despite an intense focus in research efforts. Researchers and decision makers have produced multiple clinical practice guidelines for the rehabilitation of LBP, which contain specific recommendations for clinicians. Adherence to these recommendations may have several benefits, such as improving the quality of care for patients living with LBP, by ensuring that the best evidence-based care is being delivered. However, clinicians' adherence to recommendations from these guidelines is low and numerous implementation barriers and challenges, such as complexity of information and sheer volume of guidelines have been documented. In a previous paper, we performed a systematic review of the literature to identify high-quality clinical practice guidelines on the management of LBP, and developed a concise yet comprehensive infographic that summarizes the recommendations from these guidelines. Considering the wealth of scientific evidence, passive dissemination alone of this research knowledge is likely to have limitations to help clinicians implement these recommendations into routine practice. Thus, an active and engaging dissemination strategy, aimed at improving the implementation and integration of specific recommendations into practice is warranted. In this paper, we argue that a conceptual framework, such as the theoretical domains framework, could facilitate the implementation of these recommendations into clinical practice. Specifically, we present a systematic approach that could serve to guide the development of a theory-informed knowledge translation intervention as a means to overcome implementation challenges in rehabilitation of LBP.

Higher psychological distress in patients seeking care for a knee disorder is associated with diagnostic discordance between health care providers: a secondary analysis of a diagnostic concordance study.

BACKGROUND: Knee disorders are highly prevalent and may be a disabling condition. An accurate diagnosis is necessary to guide toward a rapid and efficient management of knee disorders. However, the ability to make a valid diagnosis is often complex for clinicians and evidence is mainly focused on clinician cognitive biases or errors produced during clinical reasoning. The aim of this secondary exploratory analysis is to identify patient-specific characteristics associated with diagnostic discordance between health care providers in making a diagnosis for a new knee disorder. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a diagnostic study comparing the diagnostic ability of a physiotherapist to medical musculoskeletal specialists. Patients' socio-demographic, psychosocial and clinical characteristics were compared between the concordant and discordant diagnostic groups. Psychosocial symptoms were evaluated using the validated Kessler 6 (K6) questionnaire. We performed multivariable logistic regressions using the Bayesian Information Criterion to identify the most probable model including patients' characteristics associated with diagnostic discordance. Overall probability of identified variables to explain diagnostic discordance and associated odd ratios (OR) with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrI) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 279 participants were evaluated by a physiotherapist and medical musculoskeletal specialists. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 ± 15.8 years and 57.7% were female. The most common disorder was osteoarthritis (n = 117, 18.8% of cases were discordant). The most probable model explaining diagnostic discordance (11.13%) included having depressive symptoms, which was associated with an increased probability of diagnostic discordance (OR: 3.9; 95% CrI: 1.9 - 8.0) and having a higher number of comorbidities, which was associated with a decreased probability of diagnostic discordance (OR: 0.6; 95% CrI: 0.5 - 0.9). The depression item of the K6 questionnaire had a 99.4% chance to be included in a model explaining diagnostic discordance. Other variables taken separately had less than 50% chance to be included in a model explaining diagnostic discordance and cannot be considered significant. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that depressive symptoms may increase the risk of knee diagnostic discordance. Clinicians may be more likely to make diagnostic errors and should be more cautious when evaluating patients with knee disorders suffering from psychological distress.

What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 1: A synthesis of recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the emergence of multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP) over the last decade, self-reported levels of disability in this population have not improved. This may be explained by the numerous implementation barriers, such as the complexity of information and sheer volumes of CPGs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence and recommendations from the most recent and high-quality CPGs on the rehabilitation management of LBP by developing an infographic summarizing the recommendations to facilitate dissemination into clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of high-quality CPGs with an emphasis on rehabilitation approaches. We searched major health-related research databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, and PEDro). We performed quality assessment via the AGREE-II instrument. Contents of the CPGs were synthesized by extracting recommendations, which were then compared to one another to identify consistencies based on an iterative evaluation process. RESULTS: We identified and assessed 5 recent high-quality CPGs. We synthesized 13 recommendations on the rehabilitation management of LBP (2 for screening procedures, 3 for assessment procedures, and 8 involving treatment approaches) and 2 underlying principles were highlighted. These results were then synthetized and illustrated in a concise infographic that serves as a conceptual roadmap that identifies the specific behavior changes (i.e., adoption of CPGs' recommendations) rehabilitation professionals should adopt in order to integrate an evidenced-based approach for the management of LBP. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically reviewed the literature for CPGs' recommendations for the physical rehabilitation management of LBP and synthesized the information through an infographic.

New galaxies in the universe of shared decision-making and rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Implementing shared decision-making (SDM) is a top international priority to improve care for persons living with rheumatoid arthritis. Using SDM tools, such as decision aids improve patients' knowledge and support communication with their clinicians on treatment benefits and risks. Despite calls for SDM in treat-to-target, studies demonstrating effective SDM strategies in rheumatology clinical practice are scarce. Our objective was to identify recent and relevant literature on SDM in rheumatoid arthritis. RECENT FINDINGS: We found a burgeoning literature on SDM in rheumatoid arthritis that tackles issues of implementation. Studies have evaluated the SDM process within clinical consultations and found that uptake is suboptimal. Trials of newly developed patient decision aids follow high methodological standards, but large-scale implementation is lacking. Innovative SDM strategies, such as shared goals and preference phenotypes may improve implementation of treat-to-target approach. Research and patient engagement are standardizing measures of SDM for clinical uses. SUMMARY: Uptake of SDM in rheumatoid arthritis holds promise in wider clinicians' and patients' awareness, availability of decision aids, and broader treat-to-target implementation strategies, such as the learning collaborative. Focused attention is needed on facilitating SDM among diverse populations and those at risk of poorer outcomes and barriers to communication.

Physiotherapists' ability to diagnose and manage shoulder disorders in an outpatient orthopedic clinic: results from a concordance study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced practice physiotherapy has emerged as a promising solution to improve health care access because access to orthopedic care is limited in several countries. However, evidence supporting advanced practice physiotherapy models for the management of shoulder pain remains scarce. The purpose of this study was to establish diagnostic, surgical triage, and medical imaging agreement between advanced practice physiotherapists (APPs) and orthopedic surgeons (OSs) for the management of patients with shoulder disorders in an outpatient orthopedic clinic. METHODS: Patients referred to an OS for shoulder complaints were recruited and independently assessed by an OS and an APP. Each provider completed a standardized form indicating diagnosis, imaging test requests, and triage of surgical candidates. Patient satisfaction with care was recorded with the 9-item Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9). Inter-rater concordance was calculated with the Cohen κ, prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ, and associated 95% confidence interval (CI). We used χ2 tests to compare differences between providers in terms of treatment plan options and Student t tests to compare patient satisfaction between providers. RESULTS: Fifty participants were evaluated. Good diagnostic agreement was observed between providers (κ, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93). Agreement for triage of surgical candidates was moderate (κ, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-0.71) as APPs tended to refer patients more often to OSs for further evaluation. Imaging test request agreement was moderate as well (κ, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.66). Patient satisfaction with care was high, with no significant differences found between providers (P = .70). CONCLUSION: APPs could improve access to orthopedic care for shoulder disorders by safely initiating patient care without compromising satisfaction. These results support further development and evaluation of APP care for orthopedic patients presenting with shoulder disorders.

Validity of Combining History Elements and Physical Examination Tests to Diagnose Patellofemoral Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of diagnostic clusters combining history elements and physical examination tests to diagnose or exclude patellofemoral pain (PFP). DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic study. SETTINGS: Orthopedic outpatient clinics, family medicine clinics, and community-dwelling. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients (N=279) consulting one of the participating orthopedic surgeons (n=3) or sport medicine physicians (n=2) for any knee complaint. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: History elements and physical examination tests were obtained by a trained physiotherapist blinded to the reference standard: a composite diagnosis including both physical examination tests and imaging results interpretation performed by an expert physician. Penalized logistic regression (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) was used to identify history elements and physical examination tests associated with the diagnosis of PFP, and recursive partitioning was used to develop diagnostic clusters. Diagnostic accuracy measures including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine participants were evaluated, and 75 had a diagnosis of PFP (26.9%). Different combinations of history elements and physical examination tests including the age of participants, knee pain location, difficulty descending stairs, patellar facet palpation, and passive knee extension range of motion were associated with a diagnosis of PFP and used in clusters to accurately discriminate between individuals with PFP and individuals without PFP. Two diagnostic clusters developed to confirm the presence of PFP yielded a positive likelihood ratio of 8.7 (95% CI, 5.2-14.6) and 3 clusters to exclude PFP yielded a negative likelihood ratio of .12 (95% CI, .06-.27). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic clusters combining common history elements and physical examination tests that can accurately diagnose or exclude PFP compared to various knee disorders were developed. External validation is required before clinical use.

Establishing the prognostic profile of patients with work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Development and acceptability of the MAPS questionnaire.

PURPOSE: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMD) are the most common causes of disability worldwide and are associated with significant use of healthcare. One way to optimize the clinical outcomes of injured workers receiving rehabilitation is to identify and address individual prognostic factors (PF), which can facilitate the personalization of the treatment plan. As there is no pragmatic and systematic method to collect prognostic-related data, the purpose of the study was to develop and assess the acceptability of a set of questionnaires to establish the "prognostic profile" of workers with WRMD. METHODS: We utilized a multistep process to inform the acceptability of the Measures Associated to PrognoStic (MAPS) questionnaire. During STEP-1, a preliminary version of the was developed through a literature search followed by an expert consensus including a patient-advisor. During STEP-2, future users (rehabilitation professionals, healthcare administrators and compensation officers) were consulted through an online survey and were asked to rate the relevance of each content item; items that obtained ≥80% of "totally agree" answers were included. They were also asked to prioritize PF according to their usefulness for clinical decision-making, as well as perceived efficacy to enhance the treatment plan. RESULTS: The questionnaire was developed with three categories: the outcome predicted, the unique PF, and prognostic tools. Personal PF (i.e.: coping strategies, fear-avoidance beliefs), pain related PF (i.e.: pain intensity/severity, duration of pain), and work-related PF (i.e.: work physical demands, work accommodations) were identified to be totally relevant and included in the questionnaire. 84% of the respondents agreed that their patients could complete the MAPS questionnaire in their clinical setting, while 75% totally agreed that the questionnaire is useful to personalize rehabilitation interventions. CONCLUSION: The MAPS questionnaire was deemed acceptable to establish the "prognostic profile" of injured workers and help the clinicians in the treatment decision-making process.

Low back pain patients' experience and expectations: A qualitative study focusing on physiotherapist and physician care.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal disorder. LBP experiences and expectations can vary from one person to another and influence their clinical outcomes. Despite the existence of numerous evidence-based treatment recommendations, LBP management in primary care remains challenging. This study aims to investigate the experiences and expectations of patients with LPB in primary care settings. METHODS: A qualitative study with an inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were performed using individuals who had experienced LBP in the past year and had consulted a family physician (FP) or a physiotherapist (PT). RESULTS: Ten participants with LBP were interviewed (5 women, 5 men, mean age 49 ± 17). Five themes were identified: (1) I am always upset because I can't do anything; (2) I waited to consult; I thought it would go away; (3) I want to see what is going on with my LBP; (4) I want to see the person that will provide the right treatment; (5) I need support to get over it. Participants consulted when their pain was severe and disabling. They expected an imaging test to explain the cause of their LBP and placed more importance on the imaging test results than the FP's or PT's evaluation. Their opinions on care selection and being listened to were important for the participants. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted the importance of the patient's point of view in their care. This consideration is important to ensure a comprehensive and collaborative approach with evidence-based practice care.

Motivation to participate and attrition factors in a COVID-19 biobank: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Biobanque québécoise de la COVID-19 (Quebec Biobank for COVID-19, or BQC19) is a provincial initiative that aims to manage the longitudinal collection, storage, and sharing of biological samples and clinical data related to COVID-19. During the study, BQC19 investigators reported a high loss-to-follow-up rate. The current study aimed to explore motivational and attrition factors from the perspective of BQC19 participants and health care and research professionals. METHODS: This was an inductive exploratory qualitative study. Using a theoretical sampling approach, a sample of BQC19 participants and professionals were invited to participate via semi-structured interviews. Topics included motivations to participate; participants' fears, doubts, and barriers to participation; and professionals' experiences with biobanking during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with BQC19 participants (n = 23) and professionals (n = 17) from 8 clinical data collection sites. Motivations included the contribution to science and society in crisis, self-worth, and interactions with medical professionals. Reasons for attrition included logistical barriers, negative attitudes about public health measures or genomic studies, fear of clinical settings, and a desire to move on from COVID-19. Motivations and barriers seemed to evolve over time and with COVID-19 trends and surges. Certain situations were associated with attrition, such as when patients experienced indirect verbal consent during hospitalization. Barriers related to human and material resources and containment/prevention measures limited the ability of research teams to recruit and retain participants, especially in the ever-evolving context of crisis. CONCLUSION: The pandemic setting impacted participation and attrition, either by influencing participants' motivations and barriers or by affecting research teams' ability to recruit and retain participants. Longitudinal and/or biobanking studies in a public health crisis setting should consider these factors to limit attrition.

Personalizing rehabilitation for individuals with musculoskeletal impairments: Feasibility of implementation of the Measures Associated to Prognostic (MAPS) tool.

INTRODUCTION: The Measures Associated to PrognoStic (MAPS) tool is a standardized questionnaire that integrates validated prognostic tools to detect the presence of biopsychosocial prognostic factors in patients consulting for musculoskeletal disorders. PURPOSE: The objectives were to assess the: 1) feasibility of implementation of the MAPS tool, 2) clinicians' acceptability of the dashboard, and 3) patients' acceptability of the MAPS tool. METHODS: Twenty physiotherapists and two occupational therapists from seven outpatient musculoskeletal clinics were recruited to implement the MAPS tool during a 3-month timeframe, where new patients completed the questionnaire upon initial assessment. The results were presented to the clinicians via a dashboard. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted to measure feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: Six out of 11 feasibility criteria (55%) and 21 out of 24 acceptability criteria (88%) reached the a priori threshold for success. The interviews allowed us to identify three main themes to facilitate implementation: 1) limiting the burden, 2) ensuring patients' understanding of the tool's purpose, and 3) integrating the dashboard as a clinical information tool. CONCLUSION: Our quantitative and qualitative results support the feasibility of implementation and acceptability of the MAPS tool pending minor adjustments. Depicting the patients' prognostic profile has the potential to help clinicians optimize their interventions for patients presenting with musculoskeletal disorders.

Relevance and use of health policy, health systems and health services research for strengthening rehabilitation in real-life settings: methodological considerations.

Research on health policy, systems, and services (HPSSR) has seen significant growth in recent decades and received increasing attention in the field of rehabilitation. This growth is driven by the imperative to effectively address real-life challenges in complex healthcare settings. A recent resolution on 'Strengthening rehabilitation in health systems' adopted by the World Health Assembly emphasizes the need to support societal health goals related to rehabilitation, particularly to promote high-quality rehabilitation research, including HPSSR. This conceptual paper, discussed with the participants in the 5th Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting held in Milan on September 2023, outlines study designs at diverse levels at which HPSSR studies can be conducted: the macro, meso, and micro levels. It categorizes research questions into four types: those framed from the perspective of policies, healthcare delivery organizations or systems, defined patient or provider populations, and important data sources or research methods. Illustrative examples of appropriate methodologies are provided for each type of research question, demonstrating the potential of HPSSR in shaping policies, improving healthcare delivery, and addressing patient and provider perspectives. The paper concludes by discussing the applicability, usefulness, and implementation of HPSSR findings, and the importance of knowledge translation strategies, drawing insights from implementation science. The goal is to facilitate the integration of research findings into everyday clinical practice to bridge the gap between research and practice in rehabilitation.

Post-COVID-19 condition symptoms among emergency department patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Symptoms of the Post-COVID-19 Condition are often non-specific making it a challenge to distinguish them from symptoms due to other medical conditions. In this study, we compare the proportion of emergency department patients who developed symptoms consistent with the World Health Organization's Post-COVID-19 Condition clinical case definition between those who tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection and time-matched patients who tested negative. Our results show that over one-third of emergency department patients with a proven acute infection meet Post-COVID-19 Condition criteria 3 months post-index visit. However, one in five test-negative patients who claim never having been infected also report symptoms consistent with Post-COVID-19 Condition highlighting the lack of specificity of the clinical case definition. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the acute phase of a suspected infection should continue until specific biomarkers of Post-COVID-19 Condition become available for diagnosis and treatment.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

Optimising management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: Findings from a pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability. The Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic controlled trial of the PDDM model and to explore its effectiveness compared to clinical practice guidelines' recommendations for LBP management. METHODS: A pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial. Participants included physiotherapists and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design. Secondary exploratory analyses were conducted on LBP-related outcomes such as pain severity and interference at 12-week follow-up. RESULTS: Feasibility of study procedures were confirmed, recruitment exceeded our target number of participants, and the eligibility criteria were deemed suitable. Lost to follow-up at 12 weeks was higher than expected (43.0%) and physiotherapists' compliance rates to the study protocol was lower than our predefined threshold (75.0% vs. 57.5%). A total of 44 physiotherapists and 91 patients were recruited. Recommendations for a larger scale trial were formulated. The PDDM model group demonstrated slightly better improvements in all clinical outcome measures compared to the control group at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: The findings support the feasibility of conducting such trial contingent upon a few recommendations to foster proper future planning to determine the effectiveness of the PDDM model. Our results provide preliminary evidence of the PDDM model effectiveness to optimise LBP management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04893369.