Matching treatment options for risk sub-groups in musculoskeletal pain: a consensus groups study.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain represents a considerable worldwide healthcare burden. This study aimed to gain consensus from practitioners who work with MSK pain patients, on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for subgroups of patients based on prognostic risk of persistent disabling pain. Agreement was sought on treatment options for the five most common MSK pain presentations: back, neck, knee, shoulder and multisite pain, across three risk subgroups: low, medium and high. METHODS: Three consensus group meetings were conducted with multi-disciplinary groups of practitioners (n = 20) using Nominal Group Technique, a systematic approach to building consensus using structured in-person meetings of stakeholders which follows a distinct set of stages. RESULTS: For all five pain presentations, "education and advice" and "simple oral and topical pain medications" were agreed to be appropriate for all subgroups. For patients at low risk, across all five pain presentations "review by primary care practitioner if not improving after 6 weeks" also reached consensus. Treatment options for those at medium risk differed slightly across pain-presentations, but all included: "consider referral to physiotherapy" and "consider referral to MSK-interface-clinic". Treatment options for patients at high risk also varied by pain presentation. Some of the same options were included as for patients at medium risk, and additional options included: "opioids"; "consider referral to expert patient programme" (across all pain presentations); and "consider referral for surgical opinion" (back, knee, neck, shoulder). "Consider referral to rheumatology" was agreed for patients at medium and high risk who have multisite pain. CONCLUSION: In addressing the current lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of different treatment options for MSK pain, this study generated consensus from practitioners on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for MSK patients stratified according to prognostic risk. These findings can help inform future clinical decision-making and also influenced the matched treatment options in a trial of stratified primary care for MSK pain patients.

Content and Evaluation of the Benefits of Effective Exercise for Older Adults With Knee Pain Trial Physiotherapist Training Program.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether participating in the Benefits of Effective Exercise for knee Pain (BEEP) trial training program increased physiotherapists' self-confidence and changed their intended clinical behavior regarding exercise for knee pain in older adults. DESIGN: Before/after training program evaluation. Physiotherapists were asked to complete a questionnaire before the BEEP trial training program, immediately after, and 12 to 18 months later (postintervention delivery in the BEEP trial). The questionnaire included a case vignette and associated clinical management questions. Questionnaire responses were compared over time and between physiotherapists trained to deliver each intervention within the BEEP trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Physiotherapists (N=53) who completed the BEEP trial training program. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-confidence in the diagnosis and management of knee pain in older adults; and intended clinical behavior measured by a case vignette and associated clinical management questions. RESULTS: Fifty-two physiotherapists (98%) returned the pretraining questionnaire, and 44 (85%) and 39 (74%) returned the posttraining and postintervention questionnaires, respectively. Posttraining, self-confidence in managing older adults with knee pain increased, and intended clinical behavior regarding exercise for knee pain in older adults appeared more in line with clinical guidelines. However, not all positive changes were maintained in the longer-term. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in the BEEP trial training program increased physiotherapists' self-confidence and changed their intended clinical behavior regarding exercise for knee pain, but by 12 to 18 months later, some of these positive changes were lost. This suggests that brief training programs are useful, but additional strategies are likely needed to successfully maintain changes in clinical behavior over time.

Cost-utility analysis of interventions to improve effectiveness of exercise therapy for adults with knee osteoarthritis: the BEEP trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of enhancing physical therapy exercise programmes in order to improve outcomes for patients with knee OA remains unclear. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of two enhanced physical therapy interventions compared with usual physical therapy care (UC) for adults with knee OA. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of individually tailored exercise (ITE) or targeted exercise adherence (TEA) compared with UC was undertaken over a period of 18 months. Patient-level costs were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a base-case UK health-care perspective. RESULTS: The UC group was associated with lower National Health Service (NHS) costs [ITE-UC: £273.30, 95% CI: £-62.10 to £562.60; TEA-UC: £141.80, 95% CI: £-135.60 to £408.10)] and slightly higher QALY gains (ITE-UC: -0.015, 95% CI: -0.057 to 0.026; TEA-UC: -0.003, 95% CI: -0.045 to 0.038). In the base case, UC was the most likely cost-effective option (probability <40% of ITE or TEA cost-effective at £20 000/QALY). Differences in total costs were attributable to intervention costs, number of visits to NHS consultants and knee surgery, which were higher in both ITE and TEA groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first economic evaluation comparing usual physical therapy care vs enhanced exercise interventions for knee OA that involves greater exercise individualization, supervision and progression or that focuses on exercise and physical activity adherence over the longer term. Our findings show that UC is likely to be the most cost-effective option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93634563. TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/254 doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-254.

STEMS pilot trial: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the addition of patient direct access to physiotherapy to usual GP-led primary care for adults with musculoskeletal pain.

INTRODUCTION: Around 17% of general practitioner (GP) consultations are for musculoskeletal conditions, which will rise as the population ages. Patient direct access to physiotherapy provides one solution, yet adoption in the National Health Service (NHS) has been slow. SETTING: A pilot, pragmatic, non-inferiority, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice and physiotherapy services in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Investigate feasibility of a main RCT. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients registered in participating practices and consulting with a musculoskeletal problem. INTERVENTIONS: 4 general practices (clusters) randomised to provide GP-led care as usual or the addition of a patient direct access to physiotherapy pathway. OUTCOMES: Process outcomes and exploratory analyses of clinical and cost outcomes. DATA COLLECTION: Participant-level data were collected via questionnaires at identification, 2, 6 and 12 months and through medical records. BLINDING: The study statistician and research nurses were blinded to practice allocation. RESULTS: Of 2696 patients invited to complete study questionnaires, 978 participated (intervention group n=425, control arm n=553) and were analysed. Participant recruitment was completed in 6 months. Follow-up rates were 78% (6 months) and 71% (12 months). No evidence of selection bias was observed. The direct access pathway was used by 90% of patients in intervention practices needing physiotherapy. Some increase in referrals to physiotherapy occurred from one practice, although waiting times for physiotherapy did not increase (28 days before, 26 days after introduction of direct access). No safety issues were identified. Clinical and cost outcomes were similar in both groups. Exploratory estimates of between group effect (using 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS)) at 6 months was -0.28 (95% CI -1.35 to 0.79) and at 12 months 0.12 (95% CI -1.27 to 1.51). CONCLUSIONS: A full RCT is feasible and will provide trial evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient direct access to physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23378642.

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the addition of direct access to physiotherapy to usual GP-led primary care for adults with musculoskeletal pain: the STEMS pilot trial protocol (ISRCTN23378642).

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal problems are common, accounting for up to 30 % of general practitioner (GP) consultations and are a major cause of chronic disability worldwide. Demand for health care for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to continue to rise given the ageing population and the increasing impact of these common painful conditions. Physiotherapists are well equipped to deliver evidence-based management for these conditions. Direct access allows patients to access physiotherapy without seeing their GP or another referring practitioner first; however, for most patients in the UK, access to National Health Service physiotherapy is controlled through GP referral. METHODS/DESIGN: The aim of this pilot, pragmatic, cluster trial is to assess the feasibility of a future large trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the additional offer of direct access to physiotherapy versus continuing with usual GP-led primary care alone for adults with common musculoskeletal problems. The pilot will focus on process outcomes to assess feasibility, although performance of the likely outcomes of a main trial will also be assessed. This is a two-arm parallel, cluster RCT where GP practices are the units of randomisation (the clusters), yet data are collected from individual patients with musculoskeletal problems (the participants). A direct access service will be set up in the participating physiotherapy service to provide the option of direct access to patients of the intervention arm practices. Inclusion criteria are broad to reflect the 'real-world' operation of an NHS physiotherapy direct access service for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Data collection will be through patient self-reported questionnaires at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months and medical record review. DISCUSSION: No previous trials have been conducted into direct access to physiotherapy for patients with musculoskeletal problems. The strengths of the STEMS pilot trial are its size, the length of follow-up, and collection of process, clinical and cost outcomes to fully inform a future main trial to meet calls to provide robust trial evidence of the impact on clinical outcomes, work loss and costs to provide clinicians and service funders with the high quality trial data they need to guide decisions on the best models of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The STEMS pilot trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN23378642.