A Tailored App for the Self-management of Musculoskeletal Conditions: Evidencing a Logic Model of Behavior Change.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions such as joint pain are a growing problem, affecting 18.8 million people in the United Kingdom. Digital health interventions (DHIs) are a potentially effective way of delivering information and supporting self-management. It is vital that the development of such interventions is transparent and can illustrate how individual components work, how they link back to the theoretical constructs they are attempting to change, and how this might influence outcomes. getUBetter is a DHI developed to address the lack of personalized, supported self-management tools available to patients with musculoskeletal conditions by providing knowledge, skills, and confidence to navigate through a self-management journey. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to map a logic model of behavior change for getUBetter to illustrate how the content and functionality of the DHI are aligned with recognized behavioral theory, effective behavior change techniques, and clinical guidelines. METHODS: A range of behavior change models and frameworks were used, including the behavior change wheel and persuasive systems design framework, to map the logic model of behavior change underpinning getUBetter. The three main stages included understanding the behavior the intervention is attempting to change, identifying which elements of the intervention might bring about the desired change in behavior, and describing intervention content and how this can be optimally implemented. RESULTS: The content was mapped to 25 behavior change techniques, including information about health consequences, instruction on how to perform a behavior, reducing negative emotions, and verbal persuasion about capability. Mapping to the persuasive system design framework illustrated the use of a number of persuasive design principles, including tailoring, personalization, simulation, and reminders. CONCLUSIONS: This process enabled the proposed mechanisms of action and theoretical foundations of getUBetter to be comprehensively described, highlighting the key techniques used to support patients to self-manage their condition. These findings provide guidance for the ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness (including quality of engagement) of the intervention and highlight areas that might be strengthened in future iterations.

Physiotherapy outcome measures of haemophilia acute bleed episodes: What matters to patients?

INTRODUCTION: The research was conducted at a UK teaching hospital and Haemophilia Comprehensive Care Centre (CCC) as part of a research programme investigating physiotherapy for acute bleed management. AIM: The aim of the study was to understand the perspectives of people with haemophilia (PWH) on validated outcome measures (OM) and whether these measures capture changes relevant to them whilst recovering from an acute bleed episode. METHODS: Any person with haemophilia registered to the CCC who reported an acute bleed within the past 2 years was invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews or workshops (activity-focused discussions with small groups) were conducted with PWH who had received physiotherapy treatment in the previous two years. These were used to explore opinions of PWH of commonly used outcome measures. RESULTS: Eight male PWH participated, mean age 61 years, ranging between 39 and 71. Seven participants had severe haemophilia A and 1 had von Willebrands. Participants described numerical rating scales of pain as abstract and expressed a preference for verbal or visual descriptors. In relation to function, the men generally found haemophilia-specific OM to be more relevant. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ5D-5L) and Haemophilia and Exercise Project Test Questionnaire (HEP-Test-Q) were considered as good measures due to brevity and ability to capture relevant changes promptly. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study reported a preference for short OMs that allow them to reference their ability during the acute bleed episode in comparison with their normal function.

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence. SETTING: A single ED in England. PARTICIPANTS: 372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Economic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings. RESULTS: From a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care. CONCLUSIONS: These results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

A randomised trial comparing the clinical effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared to the routine care provided by doctors in a UK emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence. SETTING: One adult ED in England. PARTICIPANTS: 372 patients were randomised; 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (older than 16 years) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups. Patients were excluded if they had any of the following: injury greater than 72 hours old; systemic disease; dislocated joints; recent surgery; unable to give informed consent (eg, dementia), open wounds; major deformities; opiate analgesia required; concurrent chest/rib injury; neurovascular deficits and associated fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to treatment by ESPs, ENPs or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Upper-limb and lower-limb functional scores, quality of life, physical well-being, preference-based health measures and the number of days off work. RESULTS: The clinical outcomes of soft tissue injury treated by ESPs and ENPs in the ED were equivalent to routine care provided by doctors. CONCLUSIONS: As all groups were clinically equivalent it is other factors such as cost, workforce sustainability, service provision and skill mix that become important. This result validates the role of the ENP, which is becoming established as an integral part of minor injuries care, and demonstrates that the ESP should be considered as part of the clinical skill mix without detriment to outcomes. ISRCTN-ISRCTN TRIALS REGISTER NUMBER: 70891354.