Evaluation of the usefulness of 2 prediction models of clinical prediction models in physical therapy: a qualitative process evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to (1) evaluate the usefulness of 2 prediction models by assessing the actual use and advantages/disadvantages of application in daily clinical practice and (2) propose recommendations to enhance their implementation. METHODS: Physical therapists working in 283 practices in the area of Breda (the Netherlands) were invited to participate in this study. Two prediction models were presented: (1) to predict persistent shoulder pain and (2) to predict the preferable treatment in nonspecific neck pain. Participants were asked to apply both models in practice. After 2 months, their opinions about the usefulness of both models were gathered during a focus group meeting or by using an online questionnaire in order to identify the most important advantages/disadvantages of each prediction model. RESULTS: In total, 46 physical therapists (13.8%) of 39 practices participated. Evaluative data were available from 32 participants who used the shoulder model 102 times and the neck model 126 times. For the shoulder model, the most frequent advantage (mentioned 14 times) was that it enabled physical therapists to estimate a motivated prognosis, that is, a prognosis based on the score of the model. The most frequent mentioned disadvantage was that participants expressed their doubts about the validity of the model because the model initially was developed for usage in a general practice setting. For the neck model, the most frequently mentioned advantage (29 times) was that the model was easy to interpret. The most important disadvantage (mentioned 14 times) was that the model only takes a few treatment options into account. CONCLUSIONS: The physical therapists participating in this study reported that both models evaluated in this study were not easy to use in daily practice. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that these models are modified to meet the practical needs of the therapist, before assessing their impact on daily clinical care and patient outcomes.

Place Work on a Scale: What Do We Know About the Association Between Employment Status and Weight Loss Outcomes After Bariatric Surgery?

Despite the initial successful weight loss after bariatric surgery, a significant amount of patients experience weight loss failure and weight regain. Several factors are known to contribute to this, though the impact of employment status is unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the impact of employment status on post-surgical weight loss outcomes. Eight studies were included with a follow-up ranging between 2 and 10 years. Employed patients seemed to present more weight loss (9.0-11.0% EWL, 1.3-1.6% BMI loss) compared to unemployed patients, but none of these numbers were statistically significant. Moreover, there were contrasting findings in terms of weight regain. This review may highlight the importance of working status after bariatric surgery and warrants further investigation on this topic.

Managing work-related psychological complaints by general practitioners, in coordination with occupational physicians: a pilot study.

Increasingly, workers have psychological work-related complaints, endangering their work ability and causing considerable economic losses. Many employees consult their general practitioner (GP). He, however, often pays insufficient attention to work-relatedness or to coordination with occupational physicians (OPs). Appropriate guidelines are missing. Consequently, we developed a GP guideline to handle these problems in coordination with OPs, and tested it in a pilot, using an explorative, evaluative study design. 23 GPs were trained to include employed patients and to test the guideline. Patients received questionnaires after 0, 4, 10 and 30 wk, GPs after 4 and 30 wk. The result was a new guideline, regarding problem orientation, diagnosis and advice, meant to avoid contradictory GP-OP advice and to activate patient responsibility. It included a GP-OP-patient communication form concerning information exchange and harmonization of insight/advice. Implementing GPs concluded that the guideline promotes recovery and work resumption and OP-GP contact benefits patients, prevents conflicting advice and promotes agreement on task division. They judged guideline efficiency and OP commitment less positively. Patients were positive, especially about GP-OP contact. Accordingly, an improved guideline, when tested for its effectiveness in a Randomized Controlled Trial, can help GPs to cope with a growing, complex problem, in collaboration with their occupational colleagues.

Preliminary state of development of prediction models for primary care physical therapy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the methodological quality and developmental stage of prediction models for musculoskeletal complaints that are relevant for physical therapists in primary care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature search was carried out in the databases of Medline, Embase, and Cinahl. Studies on prediction models for musculoskeletal complaints that can be used by primary care physical therapists were included. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed and relevant study characteristics were extracted. RESULTS: The search retrieved 4,702 references of which 29 studies were included in this review. The study quality of the included studies showed substantial variation. The studied populations consisted mostly of back (n=10) and neck pain (n=6) patients, and patients with knee complaints (n=4). Most studies (n=22) used "perceived recovery" as primary outcome. Most prediction models (n=18) were at the derivation level of development. CONCLUSIONS: Many prediction models are available for a wide range of patient populations. The developmental stage of most models is preliminary and the study quality is often moderate. We do not recommend physiotherapist to use these models yet. All models reviewed here are in the developmental stage and need validation and impact evaluation before using them in daily practice.