Using Twitter (X) to mobilise knowledge for First Contact Physiotherapists: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Twitter (now X) is a virtual social network commonly used by healthcare professionals. Little is known about whether it helps healthcare professionals to share, mobilise and co-create knowledge, or reduce the time between research knowledge being created and used in clinical practice (the evidence-to-practice gap). Musculoskeletal First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) are primary care specialists who diagnose and treat people with musculoskeletal conditions without needing to see their General Practitioner (family physician) first. They often work as a sole FCP in practice, hence are an ideal healthcare professional group with whom to explore knowledge mobilisation using Twitter. OBJECTIVE: To explore how Twitter is, and can be used to mobilise knowledge, including research findings, to inform FCP clinical practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of FCPs with experience of working in English primary care. FCPs were purposively sampled based on employment arrangements and Twitter use. Recruitment was via known FCP networks and Twitter, supplemented by snowball sampling. Online interviews used a topic guide exploring FCP's perceptions and experiences of accessing knowledge, via Twitter, for clinical practice. Data were analysed thematically and informed by the knowledge mobilisation mindlines model. Public contributors were involved throughout. RESULTS: Nineteen FCPs consented to interview (Twitter users n=14, female n=9). Three themes were identified: 1) How Twitter meets the needs of FCPs, 2) Twitter and a journey of knowledge to support clinical practice and 3) Factors impeding knowledge sharing on Twitter. FCPs described needs relating to isolated working practice, time demands and role uncertainty. Twitter provided rapid access to succinct knowledge, opportunity to network and peer reassurance regarding clinical cases, evidence and policy. FCPs took a journey of knowledge exchange on Twitter, including scrolling for knowledge, filtering for credibility and adapting knowledge for in-service training and clinical practice. Participants engaged best with images and infographics. FCPs described misinformation, bias, echo chambers, unprofessionalism, hostility, privacy concerns and blurred personal boundaries as factors impeding knowledge sharing on Twitter. Consequently, many did not feel confident to actively participate with Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores how Twitter is, and can be used to mobilise knowledge to inform FCP clinical practice. Twitter can meet knowledge needs of FCPs through rapid access to succinct knowledge, networking opportunities and professional reassurance. The journey of knowledge exchange from Twitter to clinical practice can be explained by considering the mindlines model, which describes how FCPs exchange knowledge in online and offline contexts. Findings demonstrate that Twitter can be a useful adjunct to FCP practice although several factors impeded knowledge sharing on the platform. We recommend social media training and enhanced governance guidance from professional bodies to support the use of Twitter for knowledge mobilisation.

A narrative synthesis of the effectiveness and acceptability of musculoskeletal first contact physiotherapy practitioner roles in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) First Contact Practitioners (FCP), diagnostic clinicians with expertise in the assessment and management of undifferentiated MSK conditions in primary care have been widely employed in the United Kingdom since 2020. The role aims to bring specialist clinical knowledge to patients at the first point of contact and reduce the burden on existing primary care services. Since the national adoption of the role, little has been published to support the effectiveness or acceptability of the role. This narrative synthesis review aims to highlight and summarise the current body of evidence. METHODOLOGY: An adapted systematic review was carried out to inform thematic reporting and narrative synthesis, under the sub-themes of clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, acceptability and cost analysis. RESULTS: Eight publications were included in the review, reporting improvements in clinical outcomes in patients seen by MSK FCP, patient satisfaction and general acceptability of the role. However, all data were collected from observational studies and qualitative sources, some of which were found to be of low methodological quality. CONCLUSION: Although the review identified consistent positivity relating to effectiveness, satisfaction and acceptability across the reviewed publications, conclusions are limited due to the relatively recent introduction of the FCP role leading to limited availability of relevant publications.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Evaluation of an electronic clinical decision support system (DeSSBack) to improve low back pain management: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for primary care consultation; yet doctors often find managing it challenging. An electronic decision support system for LBP (DeSSBack) was developed based on an evidence-based risk stratification tool to improve the management of patients with LBP in a Malaysian primary care setting. This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of DeSSBack for the conduct of a future definitive trial. METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).

Developing tailored intervention strategies for implementation of stratified care to low back pain with physiotherapists in Nigeria: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Stratified care approach involving use of the STarT-Back tool to optimise care for patients with low back pain is gaining widespread attention in western countries. However, adoption and implementation of this approach in low-and-middle-income countries will be restricted by context-specific factors that need to be addressed. This study aimed to develop with physiotherapists, tailored intervention strategies for the implementation of stratified care for patients with low back pain. METHODS: A two-round web-based Delphi survey was conducted among purposively sampled physiotherapists with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, with post-graduation certification or specialists. Thirty statements on barriers and enablers for implementation were extracted from the qualitative phase. Statements were rated by a Delphi panel with additional open-ended feedback. After each Delphi round, participants received feedback which informed their subsequent responses. Additional qualitative feedback were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The criteria for consensus and stability were pre-determined using percentage agreement (≥ 75%), median value (≥ 4), Inter-quartile range (≤ 1), and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test respectively. RESULTS: Participants in the first round were 139 and 125 of them completed the study, yielding a response rate of 90%. Participants were aged 35.2 (SD6.6) years, and 55 (39.6%) were female. Consensus was achieved in 25/30 statements. Wilcoxon's test showed stability in responses after the 5 statements failed to reach consensus: 'translate the STarT-Back Tool to pidgin language' 71% (p = 0.76), 'begin implementation with government hospitals' 63% (p = 0.11), 'share knowledge with traditional bone setters' 35% (p = 0.67), 'get second opinion on clinician's advice' 63% (p = 0.24) and 'carry out online consultations' 65% (p = 0.41). Four statements strengthened by additional qualitative data achieved the highest consensus: 'patient education' (96%), 'quality improvement appraisals' (96%), 'undergraduate training on psychosocial care' (96%) and 'patient-clinician communication' (95%). CONCLUSION: There was concordance of opinion that patients should be educated to correct misplaced expectations and proper time for communication is vital to implementation. This communication should be learned at undergraduate level, and for already qualified clinicians, quality improvement appraisals are key to sustained and effective care. These recommendations provide a framework for future research on monitored implementation of stratified care in middle-income countries.

Optimising the process of knowledge mobilisation in Communities of Practice: recommendations from a (multi-method) qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Communities of Practice (CoPs) offer a strategy for mobilising knowledge and integrating evidence-based interventions into musculoskeletal practice, yet little is known about their practical application in this context. This study aimed to (i) explore the process of knowledge mobilisation in the context of a CoP to implement evidence-based interventions in musculoskeletal care and (ii) co-develop recommendations to optimise the process of knowledge mobilisation in CoPs. METHODS: A qualitative study comprising observation of a CoP and related planning meetings (n = 5), and interviews with CoP stakeholders (including clinicians, lay members, managers, commissioners, academics) (n = 15) was undertaken. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and interpreted considering the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services theory. Public contributors were collaboratively involved at key stages of the study. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: identifying and interpreting knowledge, practical implementation of a CoP, culture and relationship building, and responding to the external context. Resource and infrastructure enabled the set-up, delivery and running of the CoP. Support for lay members is recommended to ensure effective participation and equity of power. CoP aims and purpose can develop iteratively, and this may enhance the ability to respond to contextual changes. Several recommendations for the practical application of CoPs are suggested to create the best environment for knowledge exchange and creation, support an equitable platform for participation, and help members to navigate and make sense of the CoP in a flexible way. CONCLUSION: This study identified how a CoP with diverse membership can promote partnership working at the intersection between knowledge and practice. Several important considerations for preparing for and operationalising the approach in implementation have been identified. Evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and impact of CoPs is needed to better understand the value added by the approach. More broadly, research is needed to explore the practical application of online CoPs and the role of international CoPs in optimising the uptake of innovations and best practice.

Mobilizing physiotherapy knowledge: Understanding the best evidence and barriers to implementation of hydrotherapy for musculoskeletal disease.

OBJECTIVES: To explore two linked strategies to highlight the best current available evidence for hydrotherapy and to explore the barriers and enablers to mobilizing this evidence into practice. METHOD: Phase 1: The best published evidence for hydrotherapy was collated using a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) methodology. The focus was the best available research evidence for hydrotherapy in musculoskeletal conditions (i.e. osteoarthritis (OA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and low back pain (LBP)). Once evaluated for quality, a summary of the evidence was produced in a Clinical Bottom Line (CBL). Phase 2: A Focus Group explored the: CBL, the barriers and facilitators of embedding the best evidence for hydrotherapy into practice. RESULTS: Phase 1: The CAT identified seven studies that indicated hydrotherapy had beneficial, although short term, effects for common musculoskeletal conditions. Phase 2: Six participants from primary, secondary care, private practice, and education discussed the evidence identified. They highlighted issues such as: understanding the value of hydrotherapy, an overuse of quantitative methodologies and the quality of existing research as being barriers to this knowledge being actively mobilized into clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: These two linked enquiries (CAT and Focus Group) identified the best evidence and the basis for discussion to explore barriers and facilitators of evidence use in practice. This gave an understanding of the reasons for the research to practice gap and thereby allows planning of knowledge mobilization strategies to reduce this.

Patients' and physiotherapists' perspectives on implementing a tailored stratified treatment approach for low back pain in Nigeria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Stratified care has the potential to be efficient in addressing the physical and psychosocial components of low back pain (LBP) and optimise treatment outcomes essential in low-income countries. This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of physiotherapists and patients in Nigeria towards stratified care for the treatment of LBP, exploring barriers and enablers to implementation. METHODS: A qualitative design with semistructured individual telephone interviews for physiotherapists and patients with LBP comprising research evidence and information on stratified care was adopted. Preceding the interviews, patients completed the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment tool. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed following grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Twelve physiotherapists and 13 patients with LBP participated in the study (11 female, mean age 42.8 (SD 11.47) years). Seven key categories emerged: recognising the need for change, acceptance of innovation, resistance to change, adapting practice, patient's learning journey, trusting the therapist and needing conviction. Physiotherapists perceived stratified care to be a familiar approach based on their background training. The prevalent treatment tradition and the patient expectations were seen as major barriers to implementation of stratified care by the physiotherapists. Patients see themselves as more informed than therapists realise, yet they need conviction through communication and education to cooperate with their therapist using this approach. Viable facilitators were also identified as patients' trust in the physiotherapist and adaptations in terms of training and modification of the approach to enhance its use. CONCLUSION: Key barriers identified are the patients' treatment expectations and physiotherapists' adherence to the tradition of practice. Physiotherapists might facilitate implementation of the stratified care by communication, hierarchical implementation and utilisation of patients' trust. Possibilities to develop a consensus on key strategies to overcome barriers and on utilisation of facilitators should be tested in future research.

Clinical effectiveness of one ultrasound guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection in addition to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis (HIT trial): single blind, parallel group, three arm, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic to advice and education in adults with hip osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three arm, parallel group, single blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two community musculoskeletal services in England. PARTICIPANTS: 199 adults aged ≥40 years with hip osteoarthritis and at least moderate pain: 67 were randomly assigned to receive advice and education (best current treatment (BCT)), 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of triamcinolone and lidocaine, and 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of lidocaine. INTERVENTIONS: BCT alone, BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 mL 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 5 mL 1% lidocaine. Participants in the ultrasound guided arms were masked to the injection they received. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported current intensity of hip pain (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) over six months. Outcomes were self-reported at two weeks and at two, four, and six months. RESULTS: Mean age of the study sample was 62.8 years (standard deviation 10.0) and 113 (57%) were women. Average weighted follow-up rate across time points was 93%. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity over six months was reported with BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT: mean difference -1.43 (95% confidence interval -2.15 to -0.72), P<0.001; standardised mean difference -0.55 (-0.82 to -0.27). No difference in hip pain intensity over six months was reported between BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT plus ultrasound-lidocaine (-0.52 (-1.21 to 0.18)). The presence of ultrasound confirmed synovitis or effusion was associated with a significant interaction effect favouring BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine (-1.70 (-3.10 to -0.30)). One participant in the BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine group with a bioprosthetic aortic valve died from subacute bacterial endocarditis four months after the intervention, deemed possibly related to the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of triamcinolone is a treatment option to add to BCT for people with hip osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Development, spread and impact of primary care and musculoskeletal communities of practice to assist rapid translation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: Embedding research into practice is challenging. Barriers include: a shortage of time, lack of understanding of the evidence and a poor support in the clinical setting. A community of practice (CoP) model has been used to address these issues. Three 'Evidence into Practice' groups use a CoP model to assist the rapid translation of evidence into practice in primary and secondary care settings. We describe how a CoP model supports the functions, operations and outputs of three 'Evidence into Practice Groups'. METHOD: A CoP model is used to engage a broad range of clinicians, researchers, managers, patients and librarians in the complex process of acquiring research knowledge and then translating knowledge into practice. The CoP principles of Domain, Community and Practice are used to describe three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' who cater for different elements of the care and academic sector and engage a range of professional groups. This includes primary and secondary care engaging professionals such as general practitioners (GP), practice nurses, allied health professionals, researchers and librarians. All groups are clinically led, academically supported and follow similar processes to identify the best evidence and translate it into practice. As the groups reflect the context in which they work they have different operational arrangements for example frequency and time of meetings. RESULTS: The CoP model enabled three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' over time to: engage over 180 clinical and academic staff; answer 130 clinical questions; improve clinical care, gain funding for two randomised controlled trials (enrolled over n = 7000 participants) and identify areas for further research, quality improvement audit and training. CONCLUSION: The CoP model encourages the rapid translation of evidence into practice by engaging staff to identify areas of clinical concern in their own context, thereby stimulating their interest and involvement. This creates a meaningful link between research and practice. Clinical leadership and the CoP model ensure that practice change is quick and efficient. This model can be replicated at scale. Consideration needs to be given to the key ingredients to achieve impact.

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

Optimising outcomes of exercise and corticosteroid injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome: a factorial randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of (1) physiotherapist-led exercise versus an exercise leaflet, and (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection versus unguided injection for pain and function in subacromial pain (formerly impingement) syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: This was a single-blind 2×2 factorial randomised trial. Adults with SAPS were randomised equally to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise, (2) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet, (3) unguided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise and (4) unguided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), collected at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months and compared at 6 weeks for the injection interventions and 6 months for the exercise interventions by intention to treat. RESULTS: We recruited 256 participants (64 treatment per group). Response rates for the primary outcome were 94% at 6 weeks, 88% at 6 months and 80% at 12 months. Greater improvement in total SPADI score was seen with physiotherapist-led exercise than with the exercise leaflet at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -8.23; 95% CI -14.14 to -2.32). There were no significant differences between the injection groups at 6 weeks (-2.04; -7.29 to 3.22), 6 months (-2.36; -8.16 to 3.44) or 12 months (1.59; -5.54 to 8.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SAPS, physiotherapist-led exercise leads to greater improvements in pain and function than an exercise leaflet. Ultrasound guidance confers no additional benefit over unguided corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42399123.

Development, implementation and evaluation of a bespoke, advanced practice musculoskeletal training programme within a clinical assessment and treatment service.

Musculoskeletal disease is burdensome, costly and reported to be the 4th biggest reason for years lived with disability. Lower back and neck pain were the leading causes of disability in England from 1990 to 2016. Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services (CATs) have been established to provide expert assessment and management for this group of patients, with the aim of providing the majority of care within primary care, reducing referrals going through to secondary care. Such services require professionals with the appropriate skills and autonomy to fulfil this aim. This paper describes the development, implementation and evaluation of a bespoke Musculoskeletal Trainee programme within a large Clinical Assessment and Treatment Service. A 12-month training schedule was designed to assist the transition of a Physiotherapist (Band 7) to Advanced Practitioner level (Band 8a). Trainees worked through a series of competencies, captured their experiences and collected evidence of achievement during the 12-month period. Their experiences were explored using content analysis and common themes were identified. Three Physiotherapists were employed on the basis of undertaking this programme and successfully completed the programme. They highlighted the benefits of the programme being its bespoke nature and its flexibility to reflect their learning needs. Mentorship was a key component as they all identified that progressing to an autonomous role can be challenging. Learning new skills and working differently at a pace that suited them were seen as positives aspects. This programme describes the competencies and experiences of three individuals progressing to Advanced Practice Physiotherapists. This paper may assist those who manage and commission such services.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis is limited and conflicting. The primary objective of the Hip Injection Trial (HIT) is to compare pain intensity over 6 months, in people with hip OA between those receiving an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride plus best current treatment with those receiving best current treatment alone. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and to explore, in a linked qualitative study, the lived experiences of patients with hip OA and experiences and impact of, ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection. METHODS: The HIT trial is a pragmatic, three-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial in patients with painful hip OA with a linked qualitative study. The current protocol is described, in addition to details and rationale for amendments since trial registration. 204 patients with moderate-to-severe hip OA will be recruited. Participants are randomised on an equal basis (1:1:1 ratio) to one of three interventions: (1) best current treatment, (2) best current treatment plus ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg) with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or (3) best current treatment plus an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride alone. The primary endpoint is patient-reported hip pain intensity across 2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Recruitment is over 29 months with a 6-month follow-up period. To address the primary objective, the analysis will compare participants' 'average' follow-up pain NRS scores, based on a random effects linear repeated-measures model. Data on adverse events are collected and reported in accordance with national guidance and reviewed by external monitoring committees. Individual semi-structured interviews are being conducted with up to 30 trial participants across all three arms of the trial. DISCUSSION: To ensure healthcare services improve outcomes for patients, we need to ensure there is a robust and appropriate evidence-base to support clinical decision making. The HIT trial will answer important questions regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 50550256 , 28th July 2015.

Development and delivery of a physiotherapist-led exercise intervention in a randomised controlled trial for subacromial impingement syndrome (the SUPPORT trial).

PURPOSE: This paper describes the development, content and delivery of a physiotherapist- led individualised, supervised and progressed exercise programme for use in a factorial randomised controlled trial testing treatments for subacromial impingement syndrome. METHODS: To develop the intervention, a survey of community physiotherapists and national guidelines provided the basis for a consensus workshop through which a protocol was developed for the SUPPORT trial physiotherapist-led exercise programme (SUPPORT: SUbacromial impingement syndrome and Pain: a randomised controlled trial Of exeRcise and injection). The protocol included three stages of exercise progression: (1) scapular stability and active exercise with no resistance (2) range of motion exercise with scapular control, isometrics and stretches, and (3) through range resistance exercise. A two day training programme was developed for physiotherapists which included the trial background, current evidence and strategies to improve exercise adherence. RESULTS: Twenty physiotherapists were trained to deliver the exercise intervention. In the SUPPORT trial, 128 participants were randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise. Ninety nine (81%) participants had their first physiotherapy session within 2 to 3 weeks and 71 (56%) received six to eight treatment sessions. Frequently-used exercises were: stage 1 scapular setting with glenohumeral joint (GHJ) flexion to 90°, stage 2 GHJ medial rotation stretch, stage 3 scapular setting through lateral rotation, with resistance bands. CONCLUSION: We combined clinical and research expertise with national guidance in order to develop a physiotherapist-led, individualised, progressed and supervised exercise intervention for use within a randomised trial. The effectiveness of the intervention is being evaluated within the SUPPORT trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN 42399123.

Getting back to the dissecting room: An evaluation of an innovative course in musculoskeletal anatomy for UK-based rheumatology training.

BACKGROUND: The rheumatologist relies heavily on clinical skills to diagnose diverse conditions, something that is correlated with one's knowledge of clinical anatomy. More recently, rheumatology has offered further career flexibility with opportunities to develop skills such as joint injection and musculoskeletal (MSK) ultrasound, both of which require a sound understanding of anatomy. Currently, there are no formal strategies to support competency-based anatomy learning in rheumatology in the UK. This study aimed to evaluate an innovative applied anatomy course utilizing cadaveric material, targeted at clinicians practising in rheumatology and MSK medicine. METHODS: A new course was developed for rheumatologists, rheumatology trainees and allied health professionals practising rheumatology and MSK medicine, with the principal focus being on applied MSK anatomy. A questionnaire was given to course attendees and a mixed methods approach of evaluation used. Descriptive statistical data analysis was performed. RESULTS: The course received overall positive feedback and statistically significant improvements in levels of confidence in anatomy (mean 52.35-83.53, p < 0.0001), injections (mean 57.65-81.18, p < 0.0001), examination of the upper limb (mean 60.59-76.47, p < 0.0001) and examination of the lower limb (mean 58.24-77.65, p < 0.0001). Course attendees also favoured a peer-assisted and multidisciplinary learning approach. CONCLUSIONS: This study lends support for the use of cadaveric material in the teaching of postgraduate anatomy to rheumatologists. It has demonstrated a continual need for hands-on and interactive anatomy training in an ever-advancing digital world. To be successful, cadaveric learning should not be viewed in a purely 'pre-clinical' setting, but instead integrated with postgraduate learning.

Reconsultation, self-reported health status and costs following treatment at a musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Service (CATS): a 12-month prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) reconsultation frequency, (2) change in self-reported health status, (3) baseline factors associated with reconsultation and change in health status and (4) associated healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), following assessment at a musculoskeletal Clinical and Assessment Treatment Service (CATS). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Single musculoskeletal CATS at the primary-secondary care interface. PARTICIPANTS: 2166 CATS attenders followed-up by postal questionnaires at 6 and 12 months and review of medical records. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was consultation in primary care with the same musculoskeletal problem within 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were consultation at the CATS with the same musculoskeletal problem within 12 months, physical function and pain (Short Form-36), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), time off work, healthcare costs and QALYs. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 507 (38%) reconsulted for the same problem in primary care and 345 (26%) at the CATS. Primary care reconsultation in the first 3 months was associated with baseline pain interference (relative risk ratio 5.33; 95% CI 3.23 to 8.80) and spinal pain (1.75; 1.09 to 2.82), and after 3-6 months with baseline assessment by a hospital specialist (2.06; 1.13 to 3.75). Small mean improvements were seen in physical function (1.88; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.32) and body pain (3.86; 3.38 to 4.34) at 6 months. Poor physical function at 6 months was associated with obesity, chronic pain and poor baseline physical function. Mean (SD) 6-month cost and QALYs per patient were £422.40 (660.11) and 0.257 (0.144), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While most patients are appropriate for a 'one-stop shop' model, those with troublesome, disabling pain and spinal pain commonly reconsult and have ongoing problems. Services should be configured to identify and address such clinical complexity.

Subacromial impingement syndrome and pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of exercise and corticosteroid injection (the SUPPORT trial).

BACKGROUND: Subacromial impingement syndrome is the most frequent cause of shoulder problems which themselves affect 1 in 3 adults. Management commonly includes exercise and corticosteroid injection. However, the few existing trials of exercise or corticosteroid injection for subacromial impingement syndrome are mostly small, of poor quality, and focus only on short-term results. Exercise packages tend to be standardised rather than individualised and progressed. There has been much recent interest in improving outcome from corticosteroid injections by using musculoskeletal ultrasound to guide injections. However, there are no high-quality trials comparing ultrasound-guided and blind corticosteroid injection in subacromial impingement syndrome. This trial will investigate how to optimise the outcome of subacromial impingement syndrome from exercise (standardised advice and information leaflet versus physiotherapist-led exercise) and from subacromial corticosteroid injection (blind versus ultrasound-guided), and provide long-term follow-up data on clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial. 252 adults with subacromial impingement syndrome will be recruited from two musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services at the primary-secondary care interface in Staffordshire, UK. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1:1:1 basis to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet, (3) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, or (4) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will be the mean differences in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores at 6 weeks for the comparison between injection interventions and at 6 months for the comparison between exercise interventions. Although independence of treatment effects is assumed, the magnitude of any interaction effect will be examined (but is not intended for the main analyses). Secondary outcomes will include comparison of long-term outcomes (12 months) and cost-effectiveness. A secondary per protocol analysis will also be performed. DISCUSSION: This protocol paper presents detail of the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the SUPPORT trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN42399123.