Meaningful coproduction with clinicians: establishing a practice-based research network with physiotherapists in regional Australia.

BACKGROUND: The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction. METHODS: We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas. RESULTS: Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes.

Physiotherapists' opinions, barriers, and enablers to providing evidence-based care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists deliver evidence-based guideline recommended treatments only half of the time to patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Physiotherapists' behaviour in clinical practice are influenced by many cognitive, social, and environmental factors including time and financial pressures. Many initiatives aimed at improving physiotherapists' uptake of evidence-based care have failed to appreciate the context involved in clinical decisions and clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to describe: i) opinions toward evidence; ii) how evidence is accessed; iii) factors influencing evidence access; iv) factors influencing evidence application, for physiotherapists working in regional areas. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods study with online survey and focus groups. We included registered physiotherapists in the survey and physiotherapists practising in regional New South Wales in the focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data were used to inform all research objectives. We used eight domains of the Transtheoretical Domains Framework to design survey questions. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data in parallel, then integrated both sources through by developing a matrix while considering the Transtheoretical Domains Framework domains to generate themes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven physiotherapists participated in the study (survey only n = 41; focus group only n = 8; both survey and focus group n = 8). Participants reported that evidence was important, but they also considered patient expectations, colleagues' treatment choices, and business demands in clinical decision making. Physiotherapists reported they access evidence on average 30 minutes or less per week. Competing demands like business administration tasks are barriers to accessing evidence. Participants reported that patient expectations were a major barrier to applying evidence in practice. Environmental and systemic factors, like funding structures or incentives for evidence-based care, and social factors, like lacking or having a culture of accountability and mentorship, were reported as both barriers and enablers to evidence application. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides context to physiotherapists' opinion, access, and application of evidence in clinical practice. Physiotherapists' provision of evidence-based care may be improved by enhancing structural support from workplaces to access and apply evidence and exploring discrepancies between physiotherapists' perceptions of patient expectations and actual patient expectations.

Effectiveness of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain: statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain targeting multiple health risks and behaviours, weight, physical activity, diet and smoking, to improve disability. We describe the methods for the main analyses and economic analysis of the trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: The trial is a two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of the HeLP intervention to usual care on low back pain disability at 26 weeks. A total of 346 adults with low back pain were recruited from the Newcastle and Hunter region between September 2017 and November 2019 and randomised to either HeLP or usual care. HeLP is a 6-month intervention with participant outcomes measured at weeks 6, 12, 26 and 52 post randomisation. This statistical analysis plan describes data integrity, handling and preparation of data for analyses and methods for analyses. The primary endpoint for the trial is disability at 26 weeks using the 24-item self-report Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle using linear mixed regression models. DISCUSSION: The statistical analysis plan for this trial was produced to reduce outcome reporting bias arising from knowledge of the study findings. Any deviations will be described and justified in the final report. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001288314 . Registered on 6 September 2017.

Exercise interventions for low back pain are poorly reported: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of exercise interventions from clinical trials of low back pain (LBP). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of exercise interventions for patients with LBP. Five online databases and Clinical Trial Registries were searched (October 2018). We included RCTs that reported interventions for LBP, containing at least 50% exercise. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) reporting checklists were then used to assess quality of reporting. RESULTS: 582 trials were eligible for inclusion. Due to the large number of eligible studies, 100 studies were randomly selected for data extraction and coding with the TIDieR and CERT checklists. The random sample was representative of the 582 eligible trials. The overall completeness of reporting (median (IQR)) of TIDieR items was 59.2% (45.5%-72.7%) and CERT was 33.3% (22.2%-52.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found poor overall reporting with both checklists, which has not improved over time or since the introduction of the checklists. More dedicated work is required to address poor reporting of exercise interventions in clinical trials.