Acceptability of a vocational advice service for patients consulting in primary care with musculoskeletal pain: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, vocational advisers and patients.

AIMS: Using qualitative interviews, this study explored the experiences of GPs, vocational advisers and patients towards a new vocational advice (VA) service in primary care. METHODS: This study was nested within the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP) cluster randomised controlled trial. The SWAP trial located a VA service within three general practices in Staffordshire. Interviews took place with 10 GPs 12 months after the introduction of the VA service, four vocational advisers whilst the VA service was running and 20 patients on discharge from the VA service. The data were analysed using the constant comparative method, which is a variation of grounded theory. RESULTS: The key factors determining the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the VA service from the perspective of the three groups of stakeholders were (1) the timing of referrals to the VA, (2) the perceived lack of patient demand for the service and (3) role uncertainty experienced by VAs. CONCLUSIONS: Early vocational intervention may not be appropriate for all musculoskeletal patients with work difficulties. Indeed, many patients felt they did not require the support of a VA, either because they had self-limiting work difficulties and/or already had support mechanisms in place to return to work. Future VA interventions may be better implemented in a targeted way so that appropriate patients are identified with characteristics which can best be addressed by the VA service.

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.