Improved adherence to clinical guidelines for low back pain after implementation of the BetterBack model of care: A stepped cluster randomized controlled trial within a hybrid type 2 trial

Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care

INTRODUCTION

Models of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were conducted.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible records included MoCs implemented for adult LBP patients in primary healthcare settings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.

Developing a low back pain guideline implementation programme in collaboration with physiotherapists and chiropractors using the Behaviour Change Wheel: a theory-driven design study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is still the leading cause of disability and societal burden, with 619 million prevalent cases worldwide in 2020. Most countries produce clinical guidelines to support healthcare professionals in evidence-based care regarding low back pain. However, several studies have identified relatively poor uptake of guidelines. Tailored strategies to facilitate the implementation of guidelines have been argued to increase uptake. This study aimed to develop a contextually tailored implementation programme to enhance evidence-based low back pain care among Danish physiotherapists and chiropractors in primary care.

METHODS

A theory-driven implementation programme development study was conducted using the Behaviour Change Wheel, with high healthcare professional involvement. Data collection included four workshops with seven physiotherapists and six chiropractors from primary care clinics. The development process consisted of [1] establishing a theoretical frame, [2] involving participants, [3] understanding the behaviour, [4] designing the implementation programme, and [5] final implementation programme.

RESULTS

The target behaviours selected (guideline recommendations) for the implementation programme were (i) screening of psychosocial risk factors and (ii) offering patient education. The barriers and facilitators for the selected behaviours were described and linked to intervention functions and behavioural techniques. Finally, the implementation programme comprised five strategies: webinars, e-learning videos, communication exercises, peer learning, and group dialogue meetings. In addition, the programme consisted of implementation support: champions, a physical material folder, a weekly email reminder, a specially designed website and a visit from an implementation consultant. An essential element of the overall programme was that it was designed as a step-by-step implementation process consisting of 16 h of education and training distributed over 16 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

A programme for implementing low back pain guideline recommendations was developed based on behaviour change theory and four co-design workshops involving healthcare professionals to overcome the contextually identified barriers. A theory-driven approach involving healthcare professionals was useful in identifying relevant target behaviours and tailoring the programme to consider contextual barriers and facilitators for implementation. The effectiveness of the final implementation programme will be evaluated in the project's next phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Central Denmark Region, Registered November 11, 2021, act no. 1-16-02-93-19.

Physiotherapists' experiences of implementation of the BetterBack model of care for low back pain in primary care - a focus group interview study

INTRODUCTION

The BetterBack model of care (MoC), a best practice physiotherapy MoC for low back pain (LBP), was implemented in Swedish primary care to improve management of patients with LBP and provide patients with support tools to better self-manage episodes of LBP.

PURPOSE

The objective was to describe how physiotherapists in primary care experienced the implementation of the BetterBack MoC for LBP.

METHODS

Focus group interviews were conducted with physiotherapists in 2018-2019, 14-18 months after the introduction of the BetterBack MoC. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Five focus group interviews with 23 (15 female and 8 male) physiotherapists, age range 24-61 years were analyzed. A supportive organization and adaptation to the local culture, combined with health care professionals' attitudes and collaboration between physiotherapists emerged as important factors for a successful implementation and for long-term sustainability of the MoC. Physiotherapists had differing opinions if the implementation led to change in clinical practice. Improved confidence in how to manage patients with LBP was expressed by physiotherapists.

CONCLUSIONS

Several barriers and facilitators influence the implementation of a best practice physiotherapy MoC for LBP in primary care, which need to be considered in future implementation and sustainability processes.

Exploring Australian emergency department clinicians' knowledge, attitudes and adherence to the national peripheral intravenous catheter clinical care standard: A cross-sectional national survey

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to (i) capture clinicians' knowledge, attitude and adherence to the first Australian national peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) Clinical Care Standard, (ii) examine the instrument performance of the knowledge related questions and (iii) explore the educational needs for, and barriers to, Standard adherence among Australian ED clinicians.

METHODS

A cross-sectional national online survey was conducted from March to June 2022, using a snowball sampling method. The survey used 5-point Likert scales and multiple-choice questions to capture respondents' knowledge, attitude and adherence to the Standard as well as the educational needs for, and barriers to, Standard adherence.

RESULTS

In total, 433 ED nurses and doctors responded. Although nearly half (n = 206, 47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 55.5-65.8) of respondents claimed that they were unfamiliar with the Standard, questions on PIVC knowledge yielded that most respondents had adequate knowledge of most of the key standards. Respondents' attitudes towards multiple intravenous insertion attempts and ongoing PIVC competency monitoring are not in agreement with the Standard. Self-reported practices regarding routine insertion of idle catheters (55%; 95% CI 49.9-59.9), using antecubital fossa as the first insertion site (84%; 95% CI 80-87), insertion without confidence (46%; 95% CI 41.2-51.1) and lack of routine reviewing the ongoing needs of PIVC (40%; 95% CI 35.3-45.1) were not aligned with the Standard. Unawareness of the Standard and non-practical recommendations were rated as the top barriers to Standard adherence.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the survey suggest that the Standard may need modification to align with the needs of ED clinicians. Future studies need to explore the applicability and relevancy of some recommendations in the ED settings as they may cause low adherence to the Standard.