Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on a 'fast-track' pathway for patients with sciatica in primary care: qualitative findings from the SCOPiC stratified care 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.

Understanding How Patients With Lumbar Radiculopathy Make Sense of and Cope With Their Symptoms

Lumbar radiculopathy, characterized by pain radiating along a nerve root, significantly diminishes the quality of life due to its neuropathic nature. Patients' understanding of their illness and the coping strategies they employ directly influence how they manage their condition. Understanding these illness representations from the patient's perspective is crucial for healthcare providers seeking to optimize treatment outcomes. This study adopted a qualitative interpretive/constructive paradigm to explore this dynamic. A qualitative evidence synthesis approach, utilizing best-fit framework synthesis for data extraction, was applied to analyze primary qualitative studies focused on patient experiences with lumbar radiculopathy. Using SPiDER (Sample, Phenomenon of interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) to guide the search strategy, extracted data was mapped against the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM) framework. Sixteen studies, with moderate to minor methodological quality concerns, were included in the analysis. Data mapping across CSM domains generated 14 key review findings. Results suggest that patients with high-threat illness representations often exhibit maladaptive coping behaviors (e.g., activity avoidance) driven by emotional responses. In contrast, problem-solving techniques appear to contribute to positive outcomes (e.g., exercise adherence and effective self-management) in patients who perceive their condition as less threatening. These findings highlight the potential benefits of interventions designed to reduce perceived threat levels and enhance self-efficacy in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, leading to improved self-management and ultimately better health outcomes.

Using normalisation process theory for intervention development, implementation and refinement in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic interventions: a qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Normalisation process theory (NPT) provides researchers with a set of tools to support the understanding of the implementation, normalisation and sustainment of an intervention in practice. Previous reviews of published research have explored NPT's use in the implementation processes of healthcare interventions. However, its utility in intervention research, specifically in orthopaedic and musculoskeletal interventions, remains unclear. The aim of this review is to explore how NPT (including extended NPT, ENPT) has been used in orthopaedic/musculoskeletal intervention research.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. Two bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science) and a search engine (Google Scholar) were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles citing key papers outlining the development of NPT, related methods, tools or the web-based toolkit. We included studies of any method, including protocols, and did not exclude based on published language. A data extraction tool was developed, and data were analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Citation searches, of the 12 key studies, revealed 10,420 citations. Following duplicate removal, title, abstract and full-text screening, 14 papers from 12 studies were included. There were 8 key findings assessed against GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). Five were of high confidence supporting NPT/ENPT's use in the implementation process for interventions targeting a range of MSK/orthopaedic conditions. NPT/ENPT offers a useful analytical lens to focus attention and consider implementation factors robustly. There is limited evidence for the selection of NPT/ENPT and for the use of the Normalisation Measure Development instrument. Three findings of moderate confidence suggest that coherence is seen as a fundamental initial step in implementation, there is limited evidence that study population limits NPT's utility and the application of ENPT may pose a challenge to researchers.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates NPT's utility in supporting intervention implementation for orthopaedic and musculoskeletal conditions. We have theorised the benefits ENPT offers to intervention development and refinement and recommend future researchers consider its use. We also encourage future researchers to offer clear justification for NPT's use in their methodology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022358558).

Clinical pathways for the management of low back pain from primary to specialised care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clinical pathways for low back pain (LBP) have potential to improve clinical outcomes and health service efficiency. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence for clinical pathways for LBP and/or radicular leg pain from primary to specialised care and to describe key pathway components.

METHODS

Electronic database searches (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) from 2006 onwards were conducted with further manual and citation searching. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. A narrative synthesis of findings is presented.

RESULTS

From 18,443 identified studies, 28 papers met inclusion criteria. Pathways were developed primarily to address over-burdened secondary care services in high-income countries and almost universally used interface services with a triage remit at the primary-secondary care boundary. Accordingly, evaluation of healthcare resource use and patient flow predominated, with interface services associated with enhanced service efficiency through decreased wait times and appropriate use of consultant appointments. Low quality study designs, heterogeneous outcomes and insufficient comparative data precluded definitive conclusions regarding clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Pathways demonstrated basic levels of care integration across the primary-secondary care boundary.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited volume of research evaluating clinical pathways for LBP/radicular leg pain and spanning primary and specialised care predominantly used interface services to ensure appropriate specialised care referrals with associated increased efficiency of care delivery. Pathways demonstrated basic levels of care integration across healthcare boundaries. Well-designed randomised controlled trials to explore the potential of clinical pathways to improve clinical outcomes, deliver cost-effective, guideline-concordant care and enhance care integration are required.

Disentangling 'sciatica' to understand and characterise somatosensory profiles and potential pain mechanisms

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to investigate if patients with lumbar radicular pain only and those with combined lumbar radicular pain + radiculopathy differ in their somatosensory profiles and pain experiences.

METHODS

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in 26 patients (mean age 47 ± 10 years, 10 females) with unilateral leg pain in the L5 or S1 distribution in their main pain area (MPA) and contralateral mirror side, in the relevant foot dermatome on the symptomatic side and in the hand dorsum. Pain experience was captured on the painDETECT.

RESULTS

Eight patients presented with lumbar radicular pain only and 18 patients with combined radicular pain + radiculopathy. Patients with radicular pain only demonstrated widespread loss of function (mechanical detection) bilaterally in the MPA (p<0.003) and hand (p=0.002), increased heat sensitivity in both legs (p<0.019) and cold/heat sensitivity in the hand (p<0.024). QST measurements in the dermatome did not differ compared to HCs and patients with radiculopathy. Patients with lumbar radiculopathy were characterised by a localised loss of function in the symptomatic leg in the MPA (warm, mechanical, vibration detection, mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity p<0.031) and dermatome (mechanical, vibration detection p<0.001), consistent with a nerve root lesion. Pain descriptors did not differ between the two groups with the exception of numbness (p<0.001). Patients with radicular pain did not report symptoms of numbness, while 78% of patients with radiculopathy did.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct differences in somatosensory profiles and pain experiences were demonstrated for each patient group, suggesting differing underlying pain mechanisms.

The Impact of Reassurance on Musculoskeletal (MSK) Pain: A Qualitative Review

BACKGROUND

The reassurance provided during patient-therapist interactions is significantly associated with psychosocial outcomes, including fear and increased confidence. Currently, there are no available reviews that discuss the impact of reassurance for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. The aim of the present review was to qualitatively synthesize themes around reassurance mechanisms, and the impact during the interaction between patients with MSK pain and therapists. A systematic search strategy was undertaken. Studies were included if they were qualitative or mixed methods studies, examining the patient-therapist consultation, in any MSK clinical setting, with any health care professional, for adult patients with acute to chronic MSK pain. A thematic synthesis was conducted and supported by a particular assessment using CERQual.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included (451 patients). Certain themes that related to both positive and negative outcomes of reassurance were identified as well as themes that illustrate the mechanisms causative of the outcomes. Using CerQual, we identified the most supported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective reassurance includes affectionate interactions such as therapeutic relationship building and interpersonal skills, an individualized patient-centered approach, education and the provision of self-management strategies. It should be noted that some interactions that use pathoanatomic models led patients to misinterpret the information provided, this created feelings of fear.

Integrating clinician support with intervention design as part of a programme testing stratified care for musculoskeletal pain in general practice

Background

Stratified care involves subgrouping patients based on key characteristics, e.g. prognostic risk, and matching these subgroups to early treatment options. The STarT-MSK programme developed and tested a new stratified primary care intervention for patients with common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in general practice. Stratified care involves changing General Practitioners’ (GPs) behaviour, away from the current ‘stepped’ care approach to identifying early treatment options matched to patients’ risk of persistent pain. Changing healthcare practice is challenging, and to aid the successful delivery of stratified care, education and support for GPs was required. This paper details the iterative development of a clinician support package throughout the lifespan of the programme, to support GPs in delivering the stratified care intervention. We argue that clinician support is a crucial aspect of the intervention itself, which is often overlooked.

Methods

Qualitative research with patients and GPs identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of stratified care, which were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Identified domains were ‘translated’ into an educational paradigm, and an initial version of the support package developed. This was further refined following a feasibility and pilot RCT, and a finalised support package was developed for the main RCT.

Results

The clinician support package comprised face-to-face sessions combining adult-learning principles with behaviour change theory in a multimethod approach, which included group discussion, simulated consultations, patient vignettes and model consultation videos. Structured support for GPs was crucial to facilitate fidelity and, ultimately, a successful trial. Clinician support is a two-way process– the study team can learn from and adapt to specific local factors and issues not previously identified. The support from senior clinicians was required to ensure ‘buy in’. Monitoring of GP performance, provision of regular feedback and remedial support are important aspects of effective clinician support.

Conclusion

Designing effective clinician support from the onset of trial intervention design, in an evidence-based, theory-informed manner, is crucial to encourage active engagement and intervention fidelity within the trial, enabling the delivery of a robust and reliable proof-of-principle trial. We offer practical recommendations for future general practice interventions.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT

BACKGROUND

Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care.

DESIGN

This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration.

LIMITATIONS

Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results.

FUTURE WORK

Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.