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.

Low back pain presentations to rural, regional, and metropolitan emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the context of low back pain (LBP) presentations to emergency departments (EDs) by remoteness areas, hospital delineation level and staffing portfolios. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study using routinely captured ED and admission data over a 5-year period (July 2014-June 2019). SETTINGS: Thirty seven EDs across a large health district in NSW, Australia, covering major cities, inner regional areas and outer regional areas. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department (ED) presentations with a principal or secondary diagnosis of LBP based on ICD-10 code (M54.5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ED presentation and associated admission measures, including presentation rate, referral source, time in ED, re-presentation rate, admission details and cost to the health system. RESULTS: There were 26 509 ED presentations for LBP across the 5 years. Time spent in ED was 206 min for EDs in major cities, 146 min for inner regional EDs and 89 min for outer regional EDs. Re-presentation rates were 6% in major cities, 8.8% in inner regional EDs and 11.8% in outer regional EDs. Admission rates were 20.4%, 15.8% and 18.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes LBP presentations across 37 EDs, highlighting the potential burden these presentations place on hospitals. LBP presentations appear to follow different pathways depending on the ED remoteness area, delineation level and staff portfolio.

Exercise Increases Pain Self-efficacy in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of exercise on pain self-efficacy in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from October 20, 2018, to March 23, 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of exercise on pain self-efficacy to control, in adults with NSCLBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: Seventeen trials were included, of which eight (n = 1121 participants; 60.6% female; mean age: 49.6 years) were included in the meta-analysis. Exercise increased pain self-efficacy by 3.02 points (95% confidence interval: 1.72, 4.32) on the 60-point Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The certainty of evidence was moderate; all trials were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise increased pain self-efficacy in adults with NSCLBP. Future research should investigate if this effect is meaningful, whether it increases with more targeted treatments to enhance pain self-efficacy, and the effects on outcomes for adults with NSCLBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(6):1-8. Epub: 10 May 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11622.

Mixed messages: most spinal pain and osteoarthritis observational research is unclear or misaligned.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed authors' language and methods to determine alignment between reported aims, methods, intent, and interpretations in observational studies in spinal pain or osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched five databases for observational studies that included people with spinal pain or osteoarthritis published in the last 5 years. We randomized 100 eligible studies, and classified study intent (aims and methods) and interpretations as causal, non-causal, unclear, or misaligned. RESULTS: Overall, 38% of studies were aligned regarding their intent and interpretation (either causally (22%) or non-causally (16%)). 29% of studies' aims and 29% of study methods were unclear. Intent was misaligned in 16% of studies (where aim differed to method) and 23% of studies had misaligned interpretations (where there were multiple conflicting claims). The most common kind of aim was non-causal (38%), and the most common type of method (39%), intent (38%), and interpretations (35%) was causal. CONCLUSIONS: Misalignment and mixed messages are common in observational research of spinal pain and osteoarthritis. More than 6 in 10 observational studies may be uninterpretable, because study intent and interpretations do not align. While causal methods and intent are most common in observational research, authors commonly shroud causal intent in non-causal terminology.

"Myths and Facts" Education Is Comparable to "Facts Only" for Recall of Back Pain Information but May Improve Fear-Avoidance Beliefs: An Embedded Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of patient education with "myths and facts" versus "facts only" on recall of back pain information and fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomized Study Within A Trial. METHODS: One hundred fifty-two participants with chronic LBP were included. Participants allocated to the "facts only" group received an information sheet with 6 LBP facts, whereas those allocated to the "myths and facts" group received the same information sheet, with each myth refuted by its respective fact. The primary outcome was a correct recall of back pain facts, and the secondary outcome was the physical activity component of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-PA), 2 weeks after the provision of the information sheet. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with a correct recall between the "myths and facts" and "facts only" groups (odds ratio = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48, 1.99) and no significant difference in FABQ-PA mean scores between groups (-1.58; 95% CI: -3.77, 0.61). Sensitivity analyses adjusted for prognostic factors showed no difference in information recall but a larger difference in FABQ-PA scores (-2.3; 95% CI: -4.56, -0.04). CONCLUSION: We found no overall difference in the recall of back pain information for patients provided with "myths and facts" compared with that for patients provided with "facts only" and a slight reduction in fear-avoidance beliefs for physical activity using "myths and facts" compared with that using "facts only," but the meaningfulness of this result is uncertain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(9):586-594. Epub: 9 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10989.

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.