"We have to change our mindsets": a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators in research collaboration across integrated care system organisations.

The introduction of Integrated Care Systems (ICS) in England aimed to increase joint planning and delivery of health and social care, and other services, to better meet the needs of local communities. There is an associated duty to undertake collaborative research across ICS partners to inform this new integrated approach, which might be challenging given that organisations span health, local authority, voluntary and community sector, and research. This study aimed to explore the appetite for collaborative Research and Innovation (R&I) across ICSs, potential barriers and solutions. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 24 stakeholders who held senior positions within organisations across two ICS areas (Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent; Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin). Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive and deductive analysis, first mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), then considering key influences on organisational behaviour in terms of Capability, Opportunity and Motivation from the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. There were fundamental limitations on organisational opportunities for collaborative R&I: a historical culture of competition (rather than collaboration), a lack of research culture and prioritisation, compounded by a challenging adverse economic environment. However, organisations were motivated to undertake collaborative R&I. They recognised the potential benefits (e.g., skill-sharing, staff development, attracting large studies and funding), the need for collaborative research that mirrors integrated care, and subsequent benefits for care recipients. Related barriers included negative experiences of collaboration, fear of failing and low confidence. Capability varied across organisations in terms of research skills and confidence, which reflected the range of partners (from local authorities to NHS Trusts, primary care, and academic institutions). These findings indicate a need to shift from a culture of competition to collaboration, and to help organisations across ICS to prioritise research, and share resources and skills to mitigate the limiting effects of a constrained economic environment. This could be further explored using a systems change approach, to develop the collaborative research efforts alongside the overarching move towards integrated care.

Mobilizing physiotherapy knowledge: Understanding the best evidence and barriers to implementation of hydrotherapy for musculoskeletal disease.

OBJECTIVES: To explore two linked strategies to highlight the best current available evidence for hydrotherapy and to explore the barriers and enablers to mobilizing this evidence into practice. METHOD: Phase 1: The best published evidence for hydrotherapy was collated using a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) methodology. The focus was the best available research evidence for hydrotherapy in musculoskeletal conditions (i.e. osteoarthritis (OA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and low back pain (LBP)). Once evaluated for quality, a summary of the evidence was produced in a Clinical Bottom Line (CBL). Phase 2: A Focus Group explored the: CBL, the barriers and facilitators of embedding the best evidence for hydrotherapy into practice. RESULTS: Phase 1: The CAT identified seven studies that indicated hydrotherapy had beneficial, although short term, effects for common musculoskeletal conditions. Phase 2: Six participants from primary, secondary care, private practice, and education discussed the evidence identified. They highlighted issues such as: understanding the value of hydrotherapy, an overuse of quantitative methodologies and the quality of existing research as being barriers to this knowledge being actively mobilized into clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: These two linked enquiries (CAT and Focus Group) identified the best evidence and the basis for discussion to explore barriers and facilitators of evidence use in practice. This gave an understanding of the reasons for the research to practice gap and thereby allows planning of knowledge mobilization strategies to reduce this.

Core and adjunctive interventions for osteoarthritis: efficacy and models for implementation.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a complex musculoskeletal disease and a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Hip and knee OA alone are major contributors to global disability, having notable effects on individual well-being, increasing the reliance of individuals on health-care services and contributing to a rise in the socioeconomic burden. Consistent, coordinated and tailored approaches are important for providing appropriate care to all people with OA, but despite the scale of the challenge many individuals are still not offered the safe, best-evidence treatments recommended for OA care. This Review discusses the core priority treatments for OA, including exercise and physical activity, weight-loss, education and support for self-management. Additional physical or psychological evidence-based adjunctive therapies and combined therapies that can be used to tailor individual programmes are also discussed. These options include cognitive behavioural therapy, heat therapy, walking aids and splints, manual therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. International examples of OA treatment options, models of care and resources available are also given. Many challenges still need to be addressed to advance the uptake of these conditions, including further discussion around the risks and costs involved with all treatments.

Multisite peripheral joint pain: a cross-sectional study of prevalence and impact on general health, quality of life, pain intensity and consultation behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Research into musculoskeletal conditions often focusses on pain at single sites, such as the knee, yet several studies have previously reported the high prevalence of multiple sites of musculoskeletal pain. The most common form of musculoskeletal condition is arthritis, with osteoarthritis (OA) the most common cause of joint pain in adults 45 years and over. However, there is limited recognition of the prevalence of multisite peripheral joint pain in those either living with or at risk of OA, therefore this study set out to estimate the prevalence of multisite peripheral joint pain in adults 45 years and older, and its impact on several dimensions of health. METHODS: A cross-sectional population survey was mailed to adults (n = 28,443) aged 45 years and over from eight general practices in the North West Midlands, United Kingdom (UK). Prevalence rates were established for multisite peripheral joint pain (pain in two or more sites; hands, hips, knees, feet). Impact was measured for general health (SF-12 MCS & PCS), QoL (EQ-5D), pain intensity (0-10 numerical ratings scale) and the number of consultations with a range of health care professionals. RESULTS: Of 15,083 responders (53%), multisite peripheral joint pain was reported by 54%. Peripheral joint pain was present in n = 11,928, of which 68% reported pain in multiple sites. Multisite peripheral joint pain was shown to be significantly associated with reduced physical (Mean difference = -5.9 95% CI -6.3,-5.5) and mental (-2.8 95% CI -3.2,-2.4) components of the SF-12, reduced QoL (-0.14 95% CI -0.15, -0.13), increased pain (+0.70 95% CI 0.62, 0.79) and increased odds of consultations with GPs (OR 2.4 95% CI 2.2, 2.6) and practice nurses (OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.1, 3.2) when compared to single site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite peripheral joint pain is prevalent in the population in adults 45 years and over and has a significant negative impact on several dimensions of health. Health care professionals should consider joint pain beyond the index site in order to address holistic management.

Joint protection and hand exercises for hand osteoarthritis: an economic evaluation comparing methods for the analysis of factorial trials.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of joint protection and hand exercises for the management of hand OA is not well established. The primary aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of these management options. In addition, given the absence of consensus regarding the conduct of economic evaluation alongside factorial trials, we compare different analytical methodologies. METHODS: A trial-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-utility of joint protection only, hand exercises only and joint protection plus hand exercises compared with leaflet and advice was undertaken over a 12 month period from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each trial arm. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. The base case analysis used a within-the-table analysis methodology. Two further methods were explored: the at-the-margins approach and a regression-based approach with or without an interaction term. RESULTS: Mean costs (QALYs) were £58.46 (s.d. 0.662) for leaflet and advice, £92.12 (s.d. 0.659) for joint protection, £64.51 (s.d. 0.681) for hand exercises and £112.38 (s.d. 0.658) for joint protection plus hand exercises. In the base case, hand exercises were the cost-effective option, with an ICER of £318 per QALY gained. Hand exercises remained the most cost-effective management strategy when adopting alternative methodological approaches. CONCLUSION: This is the first trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of occupational therapy-supported approaches to self-management for hand OA. Our findings showed that hand exercises were the most cost-effective option.

Changing policy and practice: making sense of national guidelines for osteoarthritis.

Understanding uptake of complex interventions is an increasingly prominent area of research. The interplay of macro (such as changing health policy), meso (re-organisation of professional work) and micro (rationalisation of clinical care) factors upon uptake of complex interventions has rarely been explored. This study focuses on how English General Practitioners and practice nurses make sense of a complex intervention for the management of osteoarthritis, using the macro-meso-micro contextual approach and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), specifically the construct of coherence. It is embedded in a cluster RCT comprising four control practices and four intervention practices. In order to study sense-making by professionals introduction and planning meetings (N = 14) between researchers and the practices were observed. Three group interviews were carried out with 10 GPs and 5 practice nurses after they had received training in the intervention. Transcripts were thematically analysed before comparison with NPT constructs. We found that: first, most GPs and all nurses distinguished the intervention from current ways of working. Second, from the introduction meeting to the completion of the training the purpose of the intervention increased in clarity. Third, GPs varied in their understanding of their remit, while the practice nurses felt that the intervention builds on their holistic care approach. Fourth, the intervention was valued by practice nurses as it strengthened their expert status. GPs saw its value as work substitution, but felt that a positive conceptualisation of OA enhanced the consultation. When introducing new interventions in healthcare settings the interaction between macro, meso and micro factors, as well as the means of engaging new clinical practices and their sense-making by clinicians needs to be considered.

Patients' perceptions of the treatment and management of hand osteoarthritis: a focus group enquiry.

PURPOSE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the commonest reason for a musculoskeletal consultation in primary care in older adults. There is evidence that appropriate advice and management is sub-optimal. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions and experiences of the treatment and management of hand OA in older adults. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with primary (n = 15) and secondary (n = 14) care participants aged 50-84 years (mean age 64.9 years; 3 males, 14 females) with a clinical diagnosis of hand OA. Data were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison method. RESULTS: Participants described a lack of help and information with regards to management of their hand OA and also a perceived lack of understanding of the impact of hand OA on the individual. Some received contradictory advice about its management. Beliefs about treatment efficacy were balanced against perceived and actual side-effects and tolerance, and such perceptions appeared to influence the use of alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified a perceived unmet need in people with hand OA presenting in primary and secondary care. This may be due to the clinical uncertainty of treatment, lack of high-quality randomised controlled trials evaluating therapeutic options, and the limited written information available incorporating the patient experience. The study emphasised the need to understand patient illness and treatment beliefs. A better understanding of illness and treatment beliefs will facilitate the use of evidence-based approaches in the management of hand OA.

Development and implementation of a physiotherapy intervention for use in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in primary care for shoulder pain.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a package of physiotherapy treatment for a randomized controlled trial in primary care for shoulder pain and audit its use within the trial. METHODS: A survey of current physiotherapy approaches to the management of shoulder pain was conducted. The most frequently reported treatments were proposed as a package of care for a physiotherapy intervention in a trial of shoulder pain. The package was refined by a subgroup of 13 physiotherapists. For patients receiving the physiotherapy intervention in the main trial (n = 98), the frequency of use of modalities over the treatment period was calculated by percentages of modality usage per number of patient contacts. Treatment details were recorded by the physiotherapist at each patient visit. RESULTS: The physiotherapy intervention included passive movements/mobilizations, active movement/mobilizations, a home exercise programme, education and advice, and ultrasound. The most frequently used modality at the assessment visit was the standardized education and advice leaflet for shoulder pain (85%) followed by the home exercise programme (79%), which was reinforced throughout the trial treatment course. The most frequently used modalities over the treatment period were ultrasound (42%), active mobilizations (41%) and passive mobilizations (41%). The mean number of trial treatment visits was 6.2 (SD: 2.1; range 1-8). Additional trial treatments (1-8) were delivered to 12 patients. Eighty-five patients were given only one therapeutic diagnosis, and 13 were given two. The most common diagnoses were tendonitis (32%) and capsulitis (25%). Pain was the major problem in 78% of patients, 15% had stiffness and 7% of patients reported both pain and stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapists complied well with the trial protocol. Few treatments were used in isolation. This report demonstrates how physiotherapists can agree and deliver a standardized package of treatment, which reflects current practice, as part of a randomized controlled trial.

Land- and water-based exercise therapies for musculoskeletal conditions.

This chapter summarizes current evidence from recently published systematic reviews of land- and water-based exercise therapies for musculoskeletal conditions. The aim is to present an overview of the evidence and highlight gaps where more research is still needed. This is not a systematic review, but a systematic search of the literature and a summary of results of the best, most recent systematic reviews evaluating interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. There have been two previous summaries of systematic reviews of evidence for exercise therapies in musculoskeletal conditions. We have updated these searches, and additionally considered the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of exercise in fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain and of hydrotherapy and water-based exercise treatments on pain and disability.