Promoting running as the best treatment for lower back pain in physiotherapy practice: a best practice implementation project.

OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to promote running as the best treatment for lower back pain (LBP) in an outpatient setting. INTRODUCTION: LBP is one of the most prevalent conditions worldwide. Sixty-two percent of all Germans experience episodes of non-specific back pain at least once a year, with one-fifth developing chronic conditions. Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a natural process, contributing to periods of acute LBP. However, the scientific literature and guidelines partially overlook the significance of water management in IVD. This implementation project sought to address this gap by educating patients about this process. Running and/or walking were chosen as general approaches for treatment rather than specific disease-related approaches. METHODS: This implementation project was conducted in an outpatient physiotherapy clinic in Brandenburg, Germany, utilizing the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework. An evidence-informed clinical audit and feedback strategy was used to measure compliance with ten audit criteria. Five physiotherapists and 20 patients took part in the audits. RESULTS: At baseline, only 20% of participating physiotherapists screened for yellow flags regarding psychological issues. However, after project implementation, this criterion scored 100% compliance. Some patients performed exercises independently, but confusion persisted regarding the choice of beneficial exercises. Patients continued running, but those who took a break due to pain expressed uncertainty about resuming. CONCLUSIONS: The project highlighted the effectiveness of collaborative efforts between patients and therapists to address the issue. The project team's conviction in action and solution strategies serves as the foundation for this collaboration. This implementation strategy provided "running" patients with the confidence to either resume or reintegrate running after an extended break. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A222.

Cross-disciplinary advance care planning in oncology and palliative care amidst a pandemic: a best practice implementation project.

INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning (ACP) ensures that patients receive medical care aligned with their values, goals, and preferences, especially regarding end-of-life decisions in serious chronic illnesses. OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to introduce and promote evidence-based ACP in oncology and palliative care at a midsized hospital near Berlin, Germany, during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework and used a mixed methods audit cycle. A baseline audit was conducted using qualitative interviews and workshops with representatives from all the health care disciplines involved in oncology and palliative care at the hospital. The findings were compared with eight best practice recommendations. Targeted strategies aimed at the key stakeholders involved in ACP practice were then implemented. Finally, a semi-quantitative questionnaire was used in a follow-up audit with the same participants as in the baseline audit. RESULTS: The baseline audit revealed a high level of familiarity with the concept of ACP. However, there was a lack of a uniformly accepted definition and understanding of ACP among the health care professionals, leading to a lack of coordination in task distribution. The follow-up audit revealed improvements with regard to education and training in ACP (Criterion 1: 50% to 100%) and organizational support to facilitate ACP conversations (Criterion 3: 87.5% to 100%). Other audit criteria compliance rates remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Clinical education and team-based process analysis can facilitate ACP implementation across disciplines in oncology and palliative care facilities. However, the project did not succeed in implementing lasting changes in clinical processes and best practice ACP due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an endeavor would demand considerable resources and time, both of which were constrained during the pandemic. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A236.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Orthodontic Interventions: Methodological Study

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) of interventional studies in orthodontics and assess how the certainty of the evidence is reported using the GRADE approach. Material and Methods: Six electronic databases were searched, followed by a hand search of the reference lists of eligible studies (PROSPERO #CRD42020180852). The required study design was randomized and nonrandomized studies of interventions published between January 2019 and May 2020. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool was used for the quality appraisal of the included SRs. Paired reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality. Results: The study included 46 SRs; 19.5% had moderate to high methodological quality, and the remaining had low to critically low methodological quality. Fifty-four percent of the reviews assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, and 34.8% followed all GRADE criteria. Conclusion: Most reviews had a good judgment of the AMSTAR2 items, although some critical items contributed to decreased overall quality. Half of the reviews used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence, and this approach should be included in future systematic reviews of interventions.