Series: Public engagement with research. Part 4: Maximising the benefits of involving the public in research implementation.

This final article in the four-part series focuses on the often neglected yet important role of the public in implementing research in General Practice and Primary Care more broadly. Experience in implementation of findings from research with public engagement in Primary Care has highlighted how partnership working with patients and the public is important in transitioning from 'what we know' from the evidence-base to 'what we do' in practice. Factors related to Primary Care research that make public engagement important are highlighted e.g. implementing complex interventions, implementing interventions that increase health equity, implementing interventions in countries with different primary healthcare system strengths. Involvement of patients and public can enhance the development of modelling and simulation included in studies on systems modelling for improving health services. We draw on the emerging evidence base to describe public engagement in implementation and offer some guiding principles for engaging with the public in the implementation in General Practice and Primary Care in general. Illustrative case studies are included to support others wishing to offer meaningful engagement in implementing research evidence.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a combined lifestyle intervention compared with usual care for patients with early-stage knee osteoarthritis who are overweight (LITE): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is the most important modifiable risk factor for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Especially in an early stage of the disease, weight loss is important to prevent further clinical and structural progression. Since 2019, general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands can refer eligible patients to a combined lifestyle intervention (GLI) to promote physical activity, healthy nutrition and behavioural change. However, GPs scarcely refer patients with KOA to the GLI potentially due to a lack of evidence about the (cost-)effectiveness. The aim of this study is to determine the (cost-)effectiveness of the GLI for patients with early-stage KOA in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: For this pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial, 234 participants (aged 45-70 years) with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline diagnosis of clinical KOA and a body mass index above 25 kg/m2 will be recruited using a range of online and offline strategies and from general practices in the Netherlands. Participants will receive nine 3-monthly questionnaires. In addition, participants will be invited for a physical examination, MRI assessment and blood collection at baseline and at 24-month follow-up. After the baseline assessment, participants are randomised to receive either the 24-month GLI programme in addition to usual care or usual care only. Primary outcomes are self-reported knee pain over 24 months, structural progression on MRI at 24 months, weight loss at 24 months, as well as societal costs and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years over 24-month follow-up. Analyses will be performed following the intention-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects regression models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained through the Medical Ethical Committee of the Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands (MEC-2020-0943). All participants will provide written informed consent. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at international conferences and among study participants and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL9355).

The incidence and management of shoulder complaints in general practice: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is the third most common musculoskeletal complaint in primary care. The international guidelines for general practitioners (GPs) recommend a stepwise treatment of shoulder pain. Little is known about the actual distribution of these treatments in current practice. OBJECTIVE: To gain insight in the incidence and current management of shoulder complaints in Dutch general practice. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a health care database containing the full electronic medical records of approximately 200 000 patients in Dutch general practice. A search algorithm was constructed to identify incident cases of shoulder complaints from January 2012 to December 2017. Data on the management of shoulder complaints were manually validated in a random sample of 1000 cases. RESULTS: The overall incidence of shoulder complaints was 30.3 (95% confidence interval 29.9-30.7) per 1000 person-years. More than half of the patients (58.6%) consulted their GP only once, 44.4% two times or more and 19.7% three times or more. For most patients (58.1%), the GP applied a wait-and-see policy or prescription of oral medication in the first consultation. However, no less than 42.9% of the patients were referred or received an injection already in the first consultation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variety of treatments for shoulder complaints applied by the GP. Some patients are referred or received an injection already in the first consultation. The stepwise approach recommended by the guideline, might not always be applicable due to the diversity of patient- and shoulder characteristics presented in general practice.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection versus exercise therapy for shoulder pain in general practice: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SIX Study).

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is common and the prognosis is often unfavourable. Dutch guidelines on the treatment of shoulder pain in primary care recommend a corticosteroid injection or a referral to exercise therapy, if initial pain management fails and pain persists. However, evidence of the effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with exercise therapy, especially in the long term, is limited. This trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with physiotherapist-led exercise therapy over 12 months follow-up in patients with shoulder pain in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SIX Study is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised clinical trial in primary care. A total of 213 patients with shoulder pain, aged ≥18 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients will be randomised (1:1) into two groups: a corticosteroid injection or 12 sessions of physiotherapist-led exercise therapy. The effect of the allocated treatment will be assessed through questionnaires at 6 weeks and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome is patient's reported shoulder pain-intensity and function, measured with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, over 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost effectiveness, pain-intensity, function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, patient's global perceived effect, work absence, healthcare utilisation and adverse events. Between group differences will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. A cost-utility analysis will be performed to assess the cost effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years from a medical and societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (MEC 2020-0300). All participants will give written informed consent prior to data collection. The results from this study will be disseminated in international journals and implemented in the primary care guidelines on shoulder pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Registry (NL8854).

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of duloxetine added to usual care for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a pragmatic open-label cluster randomised trial (the DUO trial).

INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent painful condition of the musculoskeletal system. The effectiveness of current analgesic options has proven to be limited and improved analgesic treatment is needed. Several randomised placebo-controlled trials have now demonstrated the efficacy of duloxetine, an antidepressant with a centrally acting effect, in the treatment of OA pain. The aim of the current study is to investigate if duloxetine is effective and cost-effective as a third-choice analgesic added to usual care for treating chronic pain compared with usual care alone in general practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic open, cluster randomised trial is conducted. Patients with pain due to hip or knee OA on most days of the past 3 months with insufficient benefit of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or contraindications or intolerable side effects are included. General practices are randomised to either (1) duloxetine and usual care or (2) usual care only. Primary outcome is pain at 3 months measured on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcomes at 3 months and 1 year are pain (WOMAC, at 1 year), function (WOMAC), adverse reactions, quality of life and modification of the response to treatment by the presence of centrally sensitised pain (modified PainDETECT). At 1 year, medical and productivity costs will be assessed. Analyses will be performed following the intention-to-treat principle taking the cluster design into account. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the local Medical Ethics Committee (2015-293). Results will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and will be communicated at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Registry(ntr4798); Pre-results.