1
|
ShahAli S, Shahabi S, Etemadi M, Hedayati M, Anne BC, Mojgani P, Behzadifar M, Lankarani KB. Barriers and facilitators of integrating physiotherapy into primary health care settings: A systematic scoping review of qualitative research. Heliyon 2023; 9:e20736. [PMID: 37860510 PMCID: PMC10582494 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Revised: 10/02/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose This scoping review investigated the barriers and facilitators to integrating physiotherapy into primary health care (PHC). Materials and methods PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and REHABDATA were searched. Two independent reviewers were involved in screening, selecting, and extracting data. Data were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results Of the 483 screened documents, 44 qualitative studies, primarily from high-income countries, were included. All of the studies had good methodological quality. Barriers and facilitators of integrating physiotherapy into PHC were extracted within the WHO six building blocks framework. In total, 41 items were identified as barriers to the integration process. The studies included 49 recommendations to facilitate integrating physiotherapy services into PHC. Conclusion Integrating physiotherapy services into PHC faces many barriers. The most commonly suggested potential barriers are poor knowledge of physicians about physiotherapy, ineffective teamwork, physiotherapists' time constraints/workload, a lack of clarity over the role and knowledge of physiotherapists, unawareness of physiotherapy users about these services, and lack of intra- and inter-professional collaborations. The most commonly suggested recommendations to facilitate the integration process include: Clarifying the role of involved professionals, strengthening teamwork, improving intra- and inter-professional collaborations, and providing comprehensive training programs for physiotherapists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shabnam ShahAli
- Iranian Center of Excellence in Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Saeed Shahabi
- Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Manal Etemadi
- The National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, UK
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - Maryam Hedayati
- Department of Health Services Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Barth Cornelia Anne
- School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Parviz Mojgani
- Iran-Helal Institute of Applied Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
- Research Center for Emergency and Disaster Resilience, Red Crescent Society of The Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Masoud Behzadifar
- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran
| | - Kamran Bagheri Lankarani
- Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jin MC, Jensen M, Zhou Z, Rodrigues A, Ren A, Barros Guinle MI, Veeravagu A, Zygourakis CC, Desai AM, Ratliff JK. Health Care Resource Utilization in Management of Opioid-Naive Patients With Newly Diagnosed Neck Pain. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2222062. [PMID: 35816312 PMCID: PMC9280399 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.22062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Research has uncovered heterogeneity and inefficiencies in the management of idiopathic low back pain, but few studies have examined longitudinal care patterns following newly diagnosed neck pain. OBJECTIVE To understand health care utilization in patients with new-onset idiopathic neck pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study used nationally sourced longitudinal data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan claims database (2007-2016). Participants included adult patients with newly diagnosed neck pain, no recent opioid use, and at least 1 year of continuous postdiagnosis follow-up. Exclusion criteria included prior or concomitant diagnosis of traumatic cervical disc dislocation, vertebral fractures, myelopathy, and/or cancer. Only patients with at least 1 year of prediagnosis lookback were included. Data analysis was performed from January 2021 to January 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome of interest was 1-year postdiagnosis health care expenditures, including costs, opioid use, and health care service utilization. Early services were those received within 30 days of diagnosis. Multivariable regression models and regression-adjusted statistics were used. RESULTS In total, 679 030 patients (310 665 men [45.6%]) met the inclusion criteria, of whom 7858 (1.2%) underwent surgery within 1 year of diagnosis. The mean (SD) age was 44.62 (14.87) years among nonsurgical patients and 49.69 (9.53) years among surgical patients. Adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, 1-year regression-adjusted health care costs were $24 267.55 per surgical patient and $515.69 per nonsurgical patient. Across all health care services, $95 379 949 was accounted for by nonsurgical patients undergoing early imaging who did not receive any additional conservative therapy or epidural steroid injections, for a mean (SD) of $477.53 ($1375.60) per patient and median (IQR) of $120.60 ($20.70-$452.37) per patient. On average, patients not undergoing surgery, physical therapy, chiropractic manipulative therapy, or epidural steroid injection, who underwent either early advanced imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) or both early advanced and radiographic imaging, accumulated significantly elevated health care costs ($850.69 and $1181.67, respectively). Early conservative therapy was independently associated with 24.8% (95% CI, 23.5%-26.2%) lower health care costs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cross-sectional study, early imaging without subsequent intervention was associated with significantly increased health care spending among patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic neck pain. Early conservative therapy was associated with lower costs, even with increased frequency of therapeutic services, and may have reduced long-term care inefficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael C Jin
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Michael Jensen
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Zeyi Zhou
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Adrian Rodrigues
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Alexander Ren
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | | | - Anand Veeravagu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Corinna C Zygourakis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Atman M Desai
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - John K Ratliff
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Slatman S, Mossink A, Jansen D, Broeks J, van der Lugt P, Prosman GJ, d'Hollosy WON. Factors used by general practitioners for referring patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study. BMC PRIMARY CARE 2022; 23:126. [PMID: 35610564 PMCID: PMC9129062 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01743-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Around 20% of the Dutch population is living with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP), which is a complex and multifactorial problem. This complexity makes it hard to define a classification system, which results in non-satisfactory referring from the general practitioner (GP). CMP is often explained using the biopsychosocial model in which biological, psychological and social factors cause and maintain the pain. The presented study investigated the factors related to the GPs' referral for patients with CMP to further treatment.Using convenience sampling, semi-structured interviews and a focus group were conducted among 14 GPs. The interviews were iteratively analyzed using inductive conventional content analysis.Analysis of the interviews demonstrated that there were 28 referral factors that were mentioned by more than 50% of the interviewed GPs. The results showed that the GPs were mostly focussing on the physical (e.g. pain location) and psychological (e.g. acceptation of pain) factors, indicating that they lack focus on the social factors. Furthermore, unfamiliarity of GPs with treatment options was a noteworthy finding.The referral of patients with CMP by GPs is complex and based on multiple factors. To improve referral, it is recommended to include social factors in the decision-making process and to increase the familiarity of the GPs with available treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Syl Slatman
- Department of Psychology Health & Technology, University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral, Management & Social Sciences (BMS), De Zul 10, 7522NJ, Enschede, the Netherlands.
| | - Annemiek Mossink
- Department of Psychology Health & Technology, University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral, Management & Social Sciences (BMS), De Zul 10, 7522NJ, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Duncan Jansen
- Department of EEMCS/BSS, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - José Broeks
- Department of Rehabilitation, Zorggroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
- Roessingh Rehabilitation Center (Department of Chronic Pain), Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Peter van der Lugt
- Research Department General Practice, General Practitioner Cooperative Twente (THOON), Hengelo, the Netherlands
| | - Gert-Jan Prosman
- Department of Psychology Health & Technology, University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral, Management & Social Sciences (BMS), De Zul 10, 7522NJ, Enschede, the Netherlands
- Roessingh Rehabilitation Center (Department of Chronic Pain), Enschede, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chaibi A, Stavem K, Russell MB. Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Acute Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10215011. [PMID: 34768531 PMCID: PMC8584283 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10215011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2021] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Acute neck pain is common and usually managed by medication and/or manual therapy. General practitioners (GPs) hesitate to refer to manual therapy due to uncertainty about the effectiveness and adverse events (AEs); (2) Method: To review original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute neck pain. Data extraction was done in duplicate and formulated in tables. Quality and evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, respectively; (3) Results: Six studies were included. The overall pooled effect size for neck pain was very large −1.37 (95% CI, −2.41, −0.34), favouring treatments with SMT compared with controls. A single study that showed that SMT was statistically significantly better than medicine (30 mg ketorolac im.) one day post-treatment, ((−2.8 (46%) (95% CI, −2.1, −3.4) vs. −1.7 (30%) (95% CI, −1.1, −2.3), respectively; p = 0.02)). Minor transient AEs reported included increased pain and headache, while no serious AEs were reported; (4) Conclusions: SMT alone or in combination with other modalities was effective for patients with acute neck pain. However, limited quantity and quality, pragmatic design, and high heterogeneity limit our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksander Chaibi
- Head and Neck Research Group, Division for Research and Innovation, Akershus University Hospital, 1478 Oslo, Norway;
- Department for Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, 0317 Oslo, Norway
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +47-91135213
| | - Knut Stavem
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, University of Oslo, 1478 Nordbyhagen, Norway;
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, 1478 Lørenskog, Norway
- Health Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, 1478 Lørenskog, Norway
| | - Michael Bjørn Russell
- Head and Neck Research Group, Division for Research and Innovation, Akershus University Hospital, 1478 Oslo, Norway;
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, University of Oslo, 1478 Nordbyhagen, Norway;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Krijnen-de Bruin E, Muntingh ADT, Hoogendoorn AW, van Straten A, Batelaan NM, Maarsingh OR, van Balkom AJLM, van Meijel B. The GET READY relapse prevention programme for anxiety and depression: a mixed-methods study protocol. BMC Psychiatry 2019; 19:64. [PMID: 30744601 PMCID: PMC6371559 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2018] [Accepted: 01/24/2019] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since anxiety and depressive disorders often recur, self-management competencies are crucial for improving the long-term course of anxiety and depressive disorders. However, few relapse prevention programmes are available that focus on improving self-management. E-health combined with personal contact with a mental health professional in general practice might be a promising approach for relapse prevention. In this protocol, the GET READY (Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression) study will be described in which a relapse prevention programme is developed, implemented and evaluated. The aim of the study is to determine patients' usage of the programme and the associated course of their symptoms, to examine barriers and facilitators of implementation, and to assess patients' satisfaction with the programme. METHODS Participants are discharged from mental healthcare services, and are in complete or partial remission. They receive access to an E-health platform, combined with regular contact with a mental health professional in general practices. Online questionnaires will be completed at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Also, semi-structured qualitative individual interviews and focus group interviews will be conducted with patients and mental health professionals. DISCUSSION This mixed-methods observational cohort study will provide insights into the use of a relapse prevention programme in relation to the occurrence of symptoms, as well as in its implementation and evaluation. Using the results of this study, the relapse prevention programme can be adapted in accordance with the needs of patients and mental health professionals. If this programme is shown to be acceptable, a randomized controlled trial may be conducted to test its efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION Retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR7574 ; 25 October 2018).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Krijnen-de Bruin
- Department of Health, Sports & Welfare, Cluster Nursing, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Research Group Mental Health Nursing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anna D. T. Muntingh
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Adriaan W. Hoogendoorn
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Annemieke van Straten
- Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Neeltje M. Batelaan
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto R. Maarsingh
- Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, De Boelelaan, 1117 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anton J. L. M. van Balkom
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Berno van Meijel
- Department of Health, Sports & Welfare, Cluster Nursing, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Research Group Mental Health Nursing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Parnassia Academy, The Hague, The Netherlands
- GGZ-VS Academy for Masters in Advanced Nursing Practice, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|