Toward Shared Decision-Making in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care decisions are a critical determinant in the evolution of chronic illness. In shared decision-making (SDM), patients and clinicians work collaboratively to reach evidence-based health decisions that align with individual circumstances, values, and preferences. This personalized approach to clinical care likely has substantial benefits in the oversight of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), a type of nontraumatic spinal cord injury. Its chronicity, heterogeneous clinical presentation, complex management, and variable disease course engenders an imperative for a patient-centric approach that accounts for each patient's unique needs and priorities. Inadequate patient knowledge about the condition and an incomplete understanding of the critical decision points that arise during the course of care currently hinder the fruitful participation of health care providers and patients in SDM. This study protocol presents the rationale for deploying SDM for DCM and delineates the groundwork required to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: The study's primary outcome is the development of a comprehensive checklist to be implemented upon diagnosis that provides patients with essential information necessary to support their informed decision-making. This is known as a core information set (CIS). The secondary outcome is the creation of a detailed process map that provides a diagrammatic representation of the global care workflows and cognitive processes involved in DCM care. Characterizing the critical decision points along a patient's journey will allow for an effective exploration of SDM tools for routine clinical practice to enhance patient-centered care and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Both CISs and process maps are coproduced iteratively through a collaborative process involving the input and consensus of key stakeholders. This will be facilitated by Myelopathy.org, a global DCM charity, through its Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy community. To develop the CIS, a 3-round, web-based Delphi process will be used, starting with a baseline list of information items derived from a recent scoping review of educational materials in DCM, patient interviews, and a qualitative survey of professionals. A priori criteria for achieving consensus are specified. The process map will be developed iteratively using semistructured interviews with patients and professionals and validated by key stakeholders. RESULTS: Recruitment for the Delphi consensus study began in April 2023. The pilot-testing of process map interview participants started simultaneously, with the formulation of an initial baseline map underway. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol marks the first attempt to provide a starting point for investigating SDM in DCM. The primary work centers on developing an educational tool for use in diagnosis to enable enhanced onward decision-making. The wider objective is to aid stakeholders in developing SDM tools by identifying critical decision junctures in DCM care. Through these approaches, we aim to provide an exhaustive launchpad for formulating SDM tools in the wider DCM community. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46809.

Provision and Perception of Physiotherapy in the Nonoperative Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM): A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire of People Living With DCM.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVES: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common syndrome of acquired spinal cord impairment caused by canal stenosis secondary to arthritic changes of the spine. International guidelines consider physiotherapy an option for mild, stable DCM; however, few studies have been conducted on nonoperative management. The objective was to determine current usage and perceptions of nonoperative physiotherapy for DCM. METHODS: Persons with DCM were recruited to a web-based survey. Participants with complete responses that had not received surgery were included (n = 167). Variables included symptom duration, treatment history, current disability, and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Disease and demographic characteristics were equivalent between those who did and did not receive physiotherapy. In all, 19.5% of physiotherapy recipients reported subjective benefit from physiotherapy. Those perceiving benefit had significantly higher mJOA (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association) scores, lower neck pain scores, and shorter symptom duration. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, those with mild DCM were more likely to perceive benefit than those with severe DCM, as were those with moderate DCM (to a lesser extent). Individuals whose diagnosis was delayed 1 to 2 years were less likely to perceive benefit than those that waited 0 to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of nonoperative physiotherapy in the management of DCM is inconsistent and appears to differ from international guidelines. Few patients perceived benefit from physiotherapy; however, this was more likely in those with mild DCM and in those with shorter symptom durations. Further work is needed to establish the appropriate role of physiotherapy for this population.

Distance Management of Spinal Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Evidence-Based Patient and Clinician Guides From the Global Spine Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. METHODS: Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. RESULTS: The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient's spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

A randomised controlled trial of multimodal physiotherapy versus advice for recent onset, painful cervical radiculopathy - the PACeR trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: A research gap exists for optimal management of cervical radiculopathy in the first 12 weeks and short term natural history of the condition is somewhat unclear, although thought to be favourable. The primary aim of this assessor blinded, superiority, 2 parallel group randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effects of a 4 week physiotherapy programme (6-8 sessions) of manual therapy, exercise and upper limb neural unloading tape, compared to a control of weekly phone advice; on disability, pain and selected biopsychosocial measures, in acute and sub-acute cervical radiculopathy patients. A secondary aim is to identify whether any baseline variables, symptom duration or group allocation can predict outcome. METHODS: Participants are recruited from GP referrals in an urban setting, from a neurosurgery non-urgent waiting list and from self-referral through Facebook advertising. Eligible participants (n = 64) are diagnosed with radiculopathy based on a clinical prediction rule and must have symptoms of unilateral, single level, radiculopathy for between 2 and 12 weeks, without having yet received physiotherapy. Random 1:1 group allocation (using variable block sizes), allocation concealment, blinded assessment and intention to treat analysis are being employed. Treatment is provided by clinical specialist physiotherapists in primary and secondary care settings. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 4 (primary endpoint) and 12 weeks. Participants' report of pain, disability and their rating of recovery is also recorded by telephone interview at 6 months. Statistical analysis of between group differences will be performed with ANOVAs and MANOVAs, and multivariable regression analysis will be undertaken to explore predictor variables. Ethical approval for this study has been received from the Beaumont Hospital and Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committees. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02449200). DISCUSSION: An internal pilot study to test retention and recruitment strategies led to trial expansion and this is now a multi centre trial involving 5 clinical sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02449200 . Registered 20/05/15.