Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity improves health and quality of life for people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have demonstrated the applicability of strategies in health care to promote physical activity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a written physical activity prescription combined with pedometer increases physical activity over one year compared with verbal advice in patients with cardiovascular disease risk in primary care. METHODS: The randomised-controlled, interventional, 12-month PEPPER study recruited patients aged 35 to 74 years, having quarterly followed-ups for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or diabetes, and judged insufficiently active. Seventeen practices randomised patients into either the experimental group, who received a written, personalised prescription for daily step numbers, pedometer and logbook, or control group, who received verbal advice to do at least 15 min of rapid walking or equivalent daily. The primary outcome was the change in total weekly energy expenditure measured using an accelerometer at 3 months. The secondary outcomes were changes in step count, physical activity levels, quality of life, perceived obstacles to physical activity, and biomedical indicators at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one participants were randomised. Although, weekly energy expenditure did not differ between the prescription and verbal instruction group, the estimated time spent doing moderate-intensity activity was significantly higher in the prescription group than the verbal group by an average of four minutes/week (p = 0.018)(95% CI [0.7 - 7.4]) reaching 48 min after 12 months (95% CI: 8 - 89). Similarly, this was associated with a clinically, higher average step number of 5256 steps/week increase over a year (95% CI: 660 - 9852). Among the most sedentary subgroup, walking less than 5000 steps/day at baseline, an 8868 steps/week (95% CI [2988 - 14700]) increase was observed in the prescription group. CONCLUSION: Prescribing physical activity did not significantly modify total weekly energy expenditure, but slightly increased moderate-intensity activity duration and step counts, particularly among the most sedentary participants. Prescribing personalised physical activity goals encourages sedentary patients to engage in physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PEPPER trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry under number NCT02317003 (15/12/2014).

To which non-physician health professionals do French general practitioners refer their patients to and what factors are associated with these referrals? Secondary analysis of the French national cross-sectional ECOGEN study.

BACKGROUND: Multiprofessional practice is a key component in primary care. Examining general practitioner (GP) referral frequency to non-physician health professionals (NPHP) can provide information about how primary care is organised and works which is useful for policymakers. Our study aimed to describe French GP referral frequency to various NPHPs in France and identify associated factors. METHODS: This is an ancillary study to the observational, cross-sectional (ECOGEN) study conducted in 2011/2012 in France among 128 GPs. Data about consultations using the standardised International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2), and patient and GP characteristics were collected from 20,613 GP consultations. Referrals were identified through inductive and deductive approaches using ICPC-2 codes, keywords, and deep, open manual searches. Referral frequency was described overall and per NPHP. Patient, GP, and consultation-related factors associated with referral rates were described for the three most frequently identified NPHPs. To minimise potential sources of bias, this observational study followed the STROBE guidelines. RESULTS: French GPs referred 6.8% of patients to NPHPs, with physiotherapists, podiatrists, and nurses accounting for 85.2% of referrals. Older patients, retired patients, multiple health problems managed, and longer consultation durations were found to be associated with higher referral rates (p < 0.001). Specific trends were observed for nurse, physiotherapist, and podiatrist referrals. Women (p < 0.001) and regular patients (p = 0.002) were more likely to receive physiotherapy referrals while people with no professional activity were less likely (p < 0.001). Female GPs and those working in urban practices were more likely to issue a physiotherapy referral (p < 0.001), while GPs working in rural practices (p < 0.001) and those with higher annual consultation numbers (p = 0.002) were more likely to refer to a nurse. Working in multiprofessional centres appeared to have little impact on referral rates, being only slightly associated with podiatrist referrals (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Referral frequency is more associated with patient characteristics and clinical situations than GP-related factors suggesting patients needing referral most are most often referred. Furthermore, the three NPHPs that GPs refer to the most are those for which a referral is required for reimbursement in France, suggesting that health system legislation and NPHP reimbursement are strong determinants for referrals.

Influence of low back pain characteristics on the healthcare procedures prescribed by general practitioners for adult patients: ancillary analysis of the French ECOGEN study.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a frequent reason for consultation, yet little is known about how general practitioners manage it in France. OBJECTIVES: To describe the healthcare procedures general practitioners prescribe for low back pain in France. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an ancillary analysis of an observational, cross-sectional study (ECOGEN) conducted between November 2011 and April 2012 among 128 general practitioners. Adults younger than 65 years consulting for low back pain were included. Patient and general practitioner characteristics, consultation results (diagnosis) and healthcare procedures were collected and coded using the International Classification in Primary Care. Analyses focused on the initial or follow-up consultation, adjusting on age, gender, and socio-occupational category. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Out of 11510 consultations, 845 (7.3%) were for low back pain. Of these, 776 (79.5%) resulted in a clinical examination, 634 (73.4%) in medication prescription, and 203 (23.9%) were prescribed sick leave, but imaging and specialist referral were rare. Imaging was more frequent with radiating pain (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.61; 95% CI [1.07, 2.42]), as were specialist referrals (OR = 2.92; 95% CI [1.40, 6.09]) and sick leave prescription (aOR = 1.52; 95% CI [1.10, 2.09]), but physiotherapist referral was less frequent (aOR = 0.55; 95% CI [0.38, 0.82]). Clinical examinations (aOR = 2.75; 95% CI [1.98, 3.80]), imaging (aOR = 1.61; 95% CI [1.02, 2.31]) and medication prescriptions (aOR = 2.34; 95% CI [1.65, 3.30]) were more common in initial consultations, but specialist referral (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI [0.05, 0.47]) or sick leave prescription (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI [0.48, 0.97]) were rarer. CONCLUSION: Low back pain characteristics could influence healthcare procedures more markedly than patient or general practitioner characteristics.

Physical activity advice given by French general practitioners for low back pain and the role of digital e-health applications: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the fourth most common reason for consulting a general practitioner (GP) among people aged 40-50 years. Beyond the overall benefits of physical activity (PA) on health (psychological, cardiovascular, etc.), PA for low back pain seems to improve the prognosis in terms of pain, disability, and quality of life. The French National Health Insurance developed media campaigns to promote physical activity with low back pain and a smartphone application (app). Despite the known benefits and campaigns, GPs do not routinely provide advice about physical activity during low back pain consultations. To promote giving physical activity advice for low back pain, there is a need to understand how GPs currently provide this advice and whether technology could help. This study aims to explore the content of physical activity advice for low back pain that GPs provide in France, and their opinion about healthcare smartphone app provided electronically via the internet (e-health apps) as a support for this advice. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted with semi-structured individual interviews among French GPs. The verbatim was double coded using a coding tree. Thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Sixteen GPs from Maine et Loire, Sarthe, and Mayenne were included. The thematic analysis identified the following themes: GPs use a global patient-centred approach to physical activity advice for low back pain. The main goal is to enable patients to participate in their care. Advice was almost always general with little information about duration and frequency. The importance of patient-appropriate and easily achievable activities was emphasised. GPs referred patients to physiotherapists to reinforce regular physical activity, maintain motivation and improve patient adherence through supervision and follow-up. GPs knew little about e-health apps but felt they could be useful with young patients. The main barriers to their use included poor internet connection, lack of technical knowledge and no supervision meaning patients could injure themselves. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to assess the contents of physical activity advice GPs provide for low back pain. Further research is needed into the implementation of e-health apps for low back pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Effectiveness of coordinated care to reduce the risk of prolonged disability among patients suffering from subacute or recurrent acute low back pain in primary care: protocol of the CO.LOMB cluster-randomized, controlled study.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition and, globally, a leading cause of years lived with disability. It leads to reduced social participation, impaired quality of life, and direct and indirect costs due to work incapacity. A coordinated approach focusing on psychosocial risk factors, active reeducation, and the early use of tools to maintain employment, may be effective for improving prognosis of patients with LBP. Primary care professionals and multidisciplinary teams, who see patients in the early stages of LBP may be in the best position to implement such a coordinated approach. We designed this study to assess a coordinated multi-faceted strategy in primary care for patients with subacute or recurrent acute LBP. Methods: The CO.LOMB study was designed as a multicentric, cluster-randomized, controlled study. Patients aged 18-60 years, with subacute or recurrent acute LBP are eligible. Patients also need to be employed (but can be on sick leave) with access to occupational health services. The clusters of GPs will be randomized (1:1) to either the Coordinated-care group or the Usual-care group. Patients will be assigned the group allocated to their GP. The healthcare professionals (GPs and associated physiotherapists) allocated to the Coordinated-care group will perform a 2-session study training. The following interventions are planned in the Coordinated-care group: exploration and management of psychosocial factors, active reeducation with a physiotherapist, the implementing of tools to maintain employment, and a reinforced cooperation between primary healthcare professionals. The primary objective is to assess the benefit of coordinated primary care to reduce disability in LBP patients at 12 months after enrollment: measure using the validated French version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary objectives include the evaluation of pain, work status, and quality of life at various time points. The study plans to enroll 500 patients in 20 GP clusters. Patients will be followed up for 12months. Discussion: This study will evaluate the benefit of a coordinated multi-faceted strategy in primary care for patients with LBP. Notably whether this approach will alleviate the associated disability, attenuate pain, and promote the maintenance or return to work. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04826757.