Optimising the implementation of evidence-based osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: Development of a Knowledge Mobilisation Toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care is complex. Whilst international guidelines detail what best practice for OA looks like, little is known about how this is best implemented. Limited resources are available to guideline developers, practitioners, researchers, or the public to facilitate implementation. Set in the context of a larger research project which sought to understand the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation (KM) in implementation for OA guidelines, this study reports the development of a toolkit to optimise KM for the implementation of evidence-based OA guidelines in primary care. DESIGN: Triangulation of three qualitative data sets was conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus exercise. Public contributors were involved in dedicated meetings (n = 3) to inform the content, design, and KM plans for the toolkit. RESULTS: From data triangulation, 53 key findings were identified, which were refined into 30 draft recommendation statements, within six domains: approaches to KM; the knowledge mobiliser role; understanding context; implementation planning; the nature of the intervention; and appealing to a range of priorities. Stakeholder voting (n = 27) demonstrated consensus with the recommendations and informed the wording of the final toolkit. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that optimise KM for OA guideline implementation in primary care were identified. Empirical data, practice-based evidence, implementation practice, and stakeholder (including patient and public) engagement have informed a toolkit comprising several overarching principles of KM, which are suitable for use in primary care. Consideration of equitable access when implementing evidence-based OA care among diverse populations is recommended when using the toolkit. Further research is needed to evaluate the toolkit's utility and transferability.

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.

Using Twitter (X) to Mobilize Knowledge for First Contact Physiotherapists: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Twitter (now X) is a digital social network commonly used by health care professionals. Little is known about whether it helps health care professionals to share, mobilize, and cocreate 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, they are an ideal health care professional group with whom to explore knowledge mobilization using Twitter. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore how Twitter is and can be used to mobilize knowledge, including research findings, to inform FCPs' clinical practice. METHODS: Semistructured interviews of FCPs with experience of working in English primary care were conducted. FCPs were purposively sampled based on employment arrangements and Twitter use. Recruitment was accomplished via known FCP networks and Twitter, supplemented by snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted digitally and used a topic guide exploring FCP's perceptions and experiences of accessing knowledge, via Twitter, for clinical practice. Data were analyzed thematically and informed by the knowledge mobilization mindlines model. Public contributors were involved throughout. RESULTS: In total, 19 FCPs consented to the interview (Twitter users, n=14 and 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 practices, time demands, and role uncertainty. Twitter provided rapid access to succinct knowledge, the 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 enough to actively participate on Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores how Twitter is and can be used to mobilize knowledge to inform FCP clinical practice. Twitter can meet the 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 digital and offline contexts. Findings demonstrate that Twitter can be a useful adjunct to FCP practice, although several factors impede 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 mobilization.

Daily Pain Severity but Not Vertebral Fractures Is Associated With Lower Physical Activity in Postmenopausal Women With Back Pain.

Back pain lifetime incidence is 60%-70%, while 12%-20% of older women have vertebral fractures (VFs), often with back pain. We aimed to provide objective evidence, currently lacking, regarding whether back pain and VFs affect physical activity (PA). We recruited 69 women with recent back pain (age 74.5 ± 5.4 years). Low- (0.5 < g < 1.0), medium- (1.0 ≤ g < 1.5), and high-impact (g ≥ 1.5) PA and walking time were measured (100 Hz for 7 days, hip-worn accelerometer). Linear mixed-effects models assessed associations between self-reported pain and PA, and group differences (VFs from spine radiographs/no-VF) in PA. Higher daily pain was associated with reduced low (ß = -0.12, 95% confidence interval, [-0.22, -0.03], p = .013) and medium-impact PA (ß = -0.11, 95% confidence interval, [-0.21, -0.01], p = .041), but not high-impact PA or walking time (p > .11). VFs were not associated with PA (all p > .2). Higher daily pain levels but not VFs were associated with reduced low- and medium-impact PA, which could increase sarcopenia and falls risk in older women with back pain.

Reflecting on activities which support public involvement within an evaluation of public involvement reports from facilities funded by the national institute for health and care research: a co-produced commentary.

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking an evaluation of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project within a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

Reviews for multimorbidity risk in people with inflammatory conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs) are at high risk of developing other conditions including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mood disorders. AIM: To explore perspectives of people with IRCs and healthcare practitioners (HCPs) on the content and delivery of a review consultation aimed at identification and management of multiple long-term conditions (mLTCs). DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with people with IRCs and HCPs in primary and secondary care. METHOD: People with IRCs participated in individual semi-structured interviews by telephone or online platform. HCPs (including primary and secondary care clinicians) participated in online focus groups. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen people with IRCs were interviewed; three focus groups with HCPs were conducted. The following two main themes were identified: reflecting on the value of review consultations; and what would a new review look like? Overall, people with IRCs and HCPs reflected that access to reviews is inequitable, leading to duplication of reviews and fragmentation in care. People with IRCs, at times, had difficulty conceptualising reviews, especially when discussing their future risk of conditions. People suggested that preparation before the healthcare review could align patient and HCP agendas as part of a flexible and person-centred discussion. CONCLUSION: Any review introduced for people with IRCs must move beyond a 'tick-box' exercise. To gain maximum value from a review, preparation from both patient and HCP may be required alongside a person-centred approach while ensuring they are targeted at people most likely to benefit.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients' and doctors' views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but 'continuing with treatment', particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.

An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial.

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain. PURPOSE: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care. METHODS: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.

We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma. PURPOSE: To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards. RESULTS: Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma. CONCLUSION: There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.