Factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Guideline-based exercise management for hip and knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional comparison of healthcare professional and patient beliefs in Ireland

OBJECTIVES

To identify within-stakeholder agreement and between-stakeholder differences in beliefs regarding exercise for osteoarthritis among general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and people with hip and knee osteoarthritis (PwOA). A secondary objective was to explore the association between referral patterns and beliefs of PwOA.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Online surveys administered to GPs, PTs and PwOA in Ireland via social media and healthcare networks.

PARTICIPANTS

421 valid responses (n=161 GPs, n=163 PTs, n=97 PwOA).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Nine belief statements related to exercise effectiveness, safety and delivery were rated on a 5-point Likert scale and analysed for within-stakeholder consensus. χ2 tests assessed differences in agreement between groups. Multivariable linear regression models tested associations between beliefs in PwOA and referral to/attendance at physiotherapy.

RESULTS

Positive within-stakeholder consensus (>75% agreement) was reached for most statements (7/9 GPs, 6/9 PTs, 5/9 PwOA). However, beliefs of PwOA were significantly less positive compared with healthcare professionals for six statements. All stakeholders disagreed that exercise is effective regardless of the level of pain. Attendance at physiotherapy (49% of PwOA), rather than referral to physiotherapy from a GP only, was associated with positive exercise beliefs for PwOA (β=0.287 (95% CI 0.299 to 1.821)).

CONCLUSIONS

Beliefs about exercise therapy for osteoarthritis are predominantly positive across all stakeholders, although less positive in PwOA. PwOA are more likely to have positive beliefs if they have seen a PT for their osteoarthritis. Knowledge translation should highlight the effectiveness of exercise for all levels of pain and osteoarthritis disease.

A Guideline for Guidelines: A Novel Method to Assess the Helpfulness of Medical Guidelines

Background/Objectives: The recommendations included in medical guidelines (GLs) provide important help to medical professionals for making clinical decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases. However, there are no systematic methods to measure the helpfulness of GLs. Thus, we developed an objective assessment of GLs which indicates their helpfulness and quality. We hypothesized that a simple mathematical analysis of 'Recommendations' and 'Evidence' would suffice. Methods: As a proof of concept, a mathematical analysis was conducted on the '2020 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Sports Cardiology and Exercise in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease Guideline' (SCE-guideline). First, the frequencies of Classes of Recommendations (CLASS) and the Levels of Evidence (LEVEL) (n = 159) were analysed. Then, LEVEL areas under CLASS were calculated to form a certainty index (CI: -1 to +1). Results: The frequency of CLASS I ('to do') and CLASS III ('not to do') was relatively high in the SCE-guideline (52.2%). Yet, the most frequent LEVEL was C (41.2-83.8%), indicating only a relatively low quality of scientific evidence in the SCE-guideline. The SCE-guideline showed a relatively high CI (+0.57): 78.4% certainty and 21.6% uncertainty. Conclusions: The SCE-guideline provides substantial help in decision making through the recommendations (CLASS), while the supporting evidence (LEVEL) in most cases is of lower quality. This is what the newly introduced certainty index showed: a tool for 'quality control' which can identify specific areas within GLs, and can promote the future improvement of GLs. The newly developed mathematical analysis can be used as a Guideline for the Guidelines, facilitating the assessment and comparison of the helpfulness and quality of GLs.

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.

Translating evidence into practice in primary care management of adolescents and women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The international guideline on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) provides evidence-based recommendations on the management of PCOS. Guideline implementation tools (GItools) were developed for general practitioner (GP) use to aid rapid translation of guidelines into practice. This mixed-methods study aimed to evaluate barriers and enablers of the uptake of PCOS GItools in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional survey was distributed through professional networks and social media to GPs and GPs in training in Australia. Survey respondents were invited to contribute to semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and mapped deductively to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model.

RESULTS

The study engaged 146 GPs through surveys, supplemented by interviews with 14 participants. A key enabler to capability was reflective practice. Barriers relating to opportunity included limited awareness and difficulty locating and using GItools due to length and lack of integration into practice software, while enablers included ensuring recommendations were relevant to GP scope of practice. Enablers relevant to motivation included co-use with patients, and evidence of improved outcomes with the use of GItools.

DISCUSSION

This study highlights inherent barriers within the Australian healthcare system that hinder GPs from integrating evidence for PCOS. Findings will underpin behaviour change interventions to assist GPs in effectively utilising guidelines in clinical practice, therefore minimising variations in care. While our findings will have a direct influence on guideline translation initiatives, changes at organisational and policy levels are also needed to address identified barriers.

Specification, validation, and adherence of quality indicators to optimize the safe use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis pain in the primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care may cause gastrointestinal or renal injury. This study estimated adherence to two quality indicators (QIs) to optimize NSAID safety: add proton pump inhibitors (PPI) to NSAIDs for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) risk (QI #1 NSAID-PPI) and avoid oral NSAIDs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage G4 or G5 (QI #2 NSAID-CKD).

METHODS

This retrospective study included index primary care clinic visits for knee OA at our health system in 2019. The validation cohort consisted of a random sample of 60 patients. The remainder were included in the expanded cohort. Analysis of structured data extracts was validated against chart review of clinic visit notes (validation cohort) and estimated QI adherence (expanded cohort).

RESULTS

Among 60 patients in the validation cohort, analysis of data extracts was validated against chart review for QI #1 NSAID-PPI (100% sensitivity and 91% specificity) and QI #2 NSAID-CKD (100% accuracy). Among 335 patients in the expanded cohort, 44% used NSAIDs, 27% used PPIs, 73% had elevated GI risk, and only 2% had CKD stage 4 or 5. Twenty-one percent used NSAIDs and had elevated GI risk but were not using PPIs. Therefore, adherence to QI #1 NSAID-PPI was 79% (95% CI, 74-83%). No patients with CKD stage 4 or 5 used NSAIDs. Therefore, adherence to QI #2 NSAID-CKD was 100%.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of knee OA patients with GI risk factors did not receive PPI with NSAID therapy during primary care visits.

Core Recommendations for Osteoarthritis Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for interventions in management of osteoarthritis (OA) and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations.

METHODS

Five databases (OvidSP Medline, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], Embase, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro]) and 4 online guideline repositories were searched. CPGs for the management of OA were included if they were 1) written in English and published from January 2015 to February 2022, focused on adults age ≥18 years, and met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and 2) were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. CPGs for OA were excluded if they were available via institutional access only, only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations, and/or included other arthritic conditions.

RESULTS

Of 20 eligible CPGs, 11 were appraised as high quality and included in the synthesis. Of interest were the hip, knee, hand, and glenohumeral joints and/or polyarticular OA. Consistent recommendations were that care should be patient centered and include exercise, education, and weight loss (where appropriate). Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and surgical interventions were recommended for disabling OA that had not improved with nonsurgical care. Hand orthoses should be recommended for patients with hand OA.

CONCLUSION

This synthesis of high-quality CPGs for OA management offers health care providers with clear, simple guidance of recommended OA care to improve patient outcomes.

Quality indicators for osteoarthritis pain management in the primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Development of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings.

METHODS

Literature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs.

RESULTS

Literature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging.

CONCLUSION

This multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.

Implementation of physical activity interventions for people with inflammatory arthritis: an overview and future recommendations

Regular physical activity is important for both physical and mental health. This is particularly important for people with inflammatory arthritis, because of the benefits on both disease-specific and systemic outcomes and the increased risk of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease. Despite a wealth of evidence supporting physical activity interventions, there remains a significant gap in implementation into routine care. This overview describes what implementation is, examines why it is important to consider implementation approaches to improve uptake of physical activity, highlights factors that influence successful implementation using exemplars from both osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis and recommends where future research is needed.

Barriers and enablers to implementing clinical practice guidelines in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To identify the barriers and enablers to implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations in primary care and to provide recommendations that could facilitate the uptake of CPGs recommendations.

DESIGN

An overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

Nine electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Journals @Ovid Full Text, EMBase, JBI) and three online data sources for guidelines (Turning Research Into Practice, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were searched until May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses or other types of systematic synthesis of quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods studies on the topic of barriers and/or enablers for CPGs implementation in primary care were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently screened the studies and extracted the data using a predesigned data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised by using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Content analysis was used to synthesise the data.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included. The methodological quality of the included reviews was generally robust. Six categories of barriers and enablers were identified, which include (1) political, social and culture factors, (2) institutional environment and resources factors, (3) guideline itself related factors, (4) healthcare provider-related factors, (5) patient-related factors and (6) behavioural regulation-related factors. The most commonly reported barriers within the above-mentioned categories were suboptimal healthcare networks and interprofessional communication pathways, time constraints, poor applicability of CPGs in real-world practice, lack of knowledge and skills, poor motivations and adherence, and inadequate reinforcement (eg, remuneration). Presence of technical support ('institutional environment and resources factors'), and timely education and training for both primary care providers (PCPs) ('healthcare provider-related factors') and patients ('patient-related factors') were the frequently reported enablers.

CONCLUSION

Policy-driven strategies should be developed to motivate different levels of implementation activities, which include optimising resources allocations, promoting integrated care models, establishing well-coordinated multidisciplinary networks, increasing technical support, encouraging PCPs and patients' engagement in guideline development, standardising the reporting of guidelines, increasing education and training, and stimulating PCPs and patients' motivations. All the activities should be conducted by fully considering the social, cultural and community contexts to ensure the success and sustainability of CPGs implementation.

Implementation of recommendations in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: considerations for development and uptake

A clinical guideline is a document with the aim of guiding decisions based on evidence regarding diagnosis, management and treatment in specific areas of healthcare. Specific to rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), adherence to clinical guidelines recommendations impacts the outcomes of people with these diseases. However, currently, the implementation of recommendations is less than optimal in rheumatology.The WHO has described the implementation of evidence-based recommendations as one of the greatest challenges facing the global health community and has identified the importance of scaling up these recommendations. But closing the evidence-to-practice gap is often complex, time-consuming and difficult. In this context, the implementation science offers a framework to overcome this scenario.This article describes the principles of implementation science to facilitate and optimise the implementation of clinical recommendations in RMDs. Embedding implementation science methods and techniques into recommendation development and daily practice can help maximise the likelihood that implementation is successful in improving the quality of healthcare and healthcare services.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Background

Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. ‘Co’approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished.

Methods

Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong’s seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis.

Results

Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of ‘co’approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that ‘co’approaches improved the management of health conditions.

Conclusion

Those using ‘co’approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of ‘co’approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether ‘co’approaches produce improved health outcomes.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020187463.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y.

Patient and practitioner priorities and concerns about primary healthcare interactions for osteoarthritis: A meta-ethnography

OBJECTIVE

To explore primary care practitioners' (PCPs) and patients' priorities and concerns for healthcare interactions for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care.

METHODS

We searched Embase, CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo (1990 to present) for primary qualitative and mixed methods studies with findings concerning healthcare interactions for OA symptoms. Patient and PCP perceptions were analysed separately then inter-related using a 'line of argument' synthesis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies reporting qualitative data from 557 patients and 199 PCPs were synthesised. Our findings suggest that therapeutic interactions for OA can be based on discordant priorities and concerns; some patients perceive that PCPs hold negative attitudes about OA and feel their concerns about impact are not appreciated; some PCPs feel patients have misconceptions about prognosis, and hold pessimistic views about outcomes; and both tend to de-prioritise OA within consultations.

CONCLUSION

Greater working in partnership could build mutual trust, facilitate tailored provision of information, and foster a shared understanding of OA upon which to build realistic goals for management.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Developing a better shared understanding of OA has the potential to improve the quality of healthcare interactions for both patients and PCPs. The significant impact of OA on everyday life means it should be given higher priority in primary care consultations.

Giving an account of patients' experience: A qualitative study on the care process of hip and knee osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the publication of clinical practice guidelines, the quality of the care process as experienced by patients with osteoarthritis (OA) appears suboptimal. Hence, this study investigates how patients with OA experience their disease and care process, highlighting potential elements that can enhance or spoil it, to optimise their quality of care.

METHODS

A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. Patients with hip and knee OA in Italy were interviewed. The interview guide was created by a pool of health professionals and patients. The interviews were analysed through a theme-based analysis following a philosophy of descriptive phenomenological research.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed seven main themes: (1) Experiencing a sense of uncertainty, as interviewees perceived treatment choices not to be based on medical evidence; (2) Establishing challenging relationships with the self and the other, as they did not feel understood and felt ashamed or hopeless about their condition; (3) Being stuck in one's own or the health professionals' beliefs about the disease management, as a common thought was the perception of movement as something dangerous together with a frequent prescription of passive therapies; (4) Dealing with one's own attitudes towards the disease; Understanding (5) the barriers to and (6) the facilitators of the adherence to therapeutic exercise, which revolve around the therapy cost, the time needed and the patients' willingness to change their life habits and (7) Developing an uneasy relationship with food since the diet was considered as something that "you force yourself to follow" and overeating as a way "to eat your feelings".

CONCLUSION

The lack of clear explanations and a negative attitude towards first-line nonsurgical treatments (mainly physical exercise), which are considered as a way to fill the time while waiting for surgery, underlines the importance of providing patients with adequate information about OA treatments and to better explain the role of first-line intervention in the care of OA. This will enhance patient-centred and shared decision-making treatments.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Patients with hip and knee OA participated in creating the interview and contributed with their experience of their care process.

Clinicians' beliefs and attitudes to physical activity and exercise therapy as treatment for knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To explore clinicians' attitudes and beliefs about physical activity and exercise therapy as treatment for individuals with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

This was a scoping review, mapping available knowledge about the topic derived from qualitative research designs and methods. A comprehensive search of selected databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science) was conducted and data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twelve articles met inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis identified three interrelated main themes: 1) Understandings of OA and its trajectory and management; 2) Attitudes to activity and exercise as part of OA management; 3) Clinicians' perceived knowledge of and expertise in OA management. Findings highlight that many clinicians involved in knee/hip OA management, particularly general practitioners and physiotherapists, perceive OA to be a low priority 'wear-and-tear' disease with expected progression of symptoms, making joint replacement surgery eventually inevitable. Further, many clinicians appear to lack knowledge about and interest in physical activity and exercise therapy in the management of knee/hip OA, and seem to show uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of physical activity and exercise therapy on joint health.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians' attitudes and beliefs about physical activity and exercise therapy in OA seem to reflect an outdated narrative which describes OA as a wear-and-tear disease with inevitable disease progression to joint replacement surgery. Clinicians need to adopt a contemporary narrative, which accurately reflects current knowledge and evidence-based practice, thereby ensuring consistent utilisation of exercise therapy as first-line care as recommended in OA guidelines.

Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.

Methods

This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).

Results

This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways—single intervention, educational meeting—single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback—both strategies implemented in combination with others—were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.

Conclusion

This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.

Briggs A, Cottrell E, Doyle F, Dziedzic K, Finney A, Murphy P, Paskins Z, Sheridan E, Swaithes L, P. French H. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of osteoarthritis management programmes in primary or community care settings: a systematic review and qualitative framework synthesis protocol

Despite consistent international guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) management, evidence-based treatments are underutilised. OA management programmes (OAMPs) are being implemented internationally to address this evidence-practice gap. An OAMP is defined as a 'model of evidence-based, non-surgical OA care that has been implemented in a real-world setting'. Our objective is to identify, synthesise and appraise qualitative research identifying anticipated or experienced micro (individual/behavioural), meso (organisational) or macro (context/system) level barriers or facilitators to the implementation of primary or community care-based OAMPs. Five electronic databases will be searched for papers published between 2010 and 2021. Qualitative or mixed-methods studies that include qualitative data on the anticipated or experienced barriers or facilitators to the implementation of primary or community care-based OAMPs, from the perspective of service users or service providers, will be included. The review will be reported using the PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines. A data extraction form will be used to provide details of the included studies. Data will be analysed and identified barriers and facilitators will be mapped onto an appropriate implementation framework, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework. The appropriate JBI critical appraisal tools will be used to assess methodological quality, while the GRADE-CERQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the findings. Translation of evidence-based guidelines into practice is challenging and reliant on the quality of implementation. By comparing and contrasting anticipated and experienced barriers, this review will determine the extent of congruence between the two, and provide valuable insights into the views and experiences of key stakeholders involved in the implementation of OAMPs. The mapping of identified barriers and facilitators to behaviour change theory will enhance the applicability and construct validity of our findings and will offer significant utility for future development and implementation of OAMPs. Registration: This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255698) on 15/07/21.

Early-stage symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee - time for action

Osteoarthritis (OA) remains the most challenging arthritic disorder, with a high burden of disease and no available disease-modifying treatments. Symptomatic early-stage OA of the knee (the focus of this Review) urgently needs to be identified and defined, as efficient early-stage case finding and diagnosis in primary care would enable health-care providers to proactively and substantially reduce the burden of disease through proper management including structured education, exercise and weight management (when needed) and addressing lifestyle-related risk factors for disease progression. Efforts to define patient populations with symptomatic early-stage knee OA on the basis of validated classification criteria are ongoing. Such criteria, as well as the identification of molecular and imaging biomarkers of disease risk and/or progression, would enable well-designed clinical studies, facilitate interventional trials, and aid the discovery and validation of cellular and molecular targets for novel therapies. Treatment strategies, relevant outcomes and ethical issues also need to be considered in the context of the cost-effective management of symptomatic early-stage knee OA. To move forwards, a multidisciplinary and sustained international effort involving all major stakeholders is required.

Italian physiotherapists' knowledge of and adherence to osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to manage musculoskeletal conditions among physiotherapists appears suboptimal. Osteoarthritis is one of the most disabling conditions worldwide and several studies showed a lack of knowledge of and adherence to osteoarthritis CPGs in physiotherapists' clinical practice. However, those studies are not conclusive, as they examine the knowledge of and adherence to CPGs only in isolation, or only by focussing on a single treatment. Thus, analysis of the knowledge of and adherence to CPGs in the same sample would allow for a better understanding of the evidence-to-practice gap, which, if unaddressed, can lead to suboptimal care for these patients. This study aims at assessing Italian physiotherapists' evidence-to-practice gap in osteoarthritis CPGs.

METHODS

An online survey divided into two sections investigating knowledge of and adherence to CPGs was developed based on three high-quality, recent and relevant CPGs. In the first section, participants had to express their agreement with 24 CPG statements through a 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) scale. We defined a ≥ 70% agreement with a statement as consensus. In the second section, participants were shown a clinical case, with different interventions to choose from. Participants were classified as 'Delivering' (all recommended interventions selected), 'Partially Delivering' (some recommended interventions missing) and 'Non-Delivering' (at least one non-recommended interventions selected) the recommended intervention, depending on chosen interventions.

RESULTS

822 physiotherapists (mean age (SD): 35.8 (13.3); female 47%) completed the survey between June and July 2020. In the first section, consensus was achieved for 13/24 statements. In the second section, 25% of the participants were classified as 'Delivering', 22% as 'Partially Delivering' and 53% as 'Non-Delivering'.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed an adequate level of knowledge of osteoarthritis CPGs regarding the importance of exercise and education. However, an adequate level of adherence has yet to be reached, since many physiotherapists did not advise weight reduction, but rest from physical activity, and often included secondary treatments (e.g. manual therapy) supported by low-level evidence. These results identify an evidence-to-practice gap, which may lead to non-evidence based practice behaviours for the management of patients with osteoarthritis.

Patient and physician perceptions of knee and hip osteoarthritis care: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) are common, chronic conditions affecting function, morbidity and mortality. Although the societal burden is high and guidelines are available to guide management, many patients do not receive recommended care. We investigated patient and physician perspectives on barriers and facilitators to KHOA guideline-based treatment and patient experiences in living with KHOA and navigating care.

METHODS

Thirty-minute face-to-face interviews were conducted with primary care physicians and up to 4 patients of each physician at a US academic medical center. Physicians were recruited from 1 general internal medicine clinic and 1 family medicine clinic. All of their patients diagnosed with knee or hip osteoarthritis from 2008 to 2011 and under their care during the study period (2008-2015) were mailed study recruitment materials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was performed using QSR NVivo.

RESULTS

Six of 19 physicians (31.6%) responded to the recruitment email and completed the interview. Seventy-three patients were sent recruitment letters; 18 (24.7%) expressed interest and 11 were scheduled for and completed the interview. Many patients reported a poor understanding of osteoarthritis and available treatment options and obtained most of their information from sources other than their medical team. They expressed fear of joint pain and often modified activities to avoid all pain. Many developed complex, time intensive treatment regimens that were not always evidence-based. Physicians expressed difficulties in managing osteoarthritis given time constraints and competing agenda items at appointments. Many felt that asking patients to make lifestyle changes for weight loss and exercise was daunting and unachievable. Both physicians and patients expressed interest in obtaining osteoarthritis education.

CONCLUSIONS

Although evidence-based treatments for KHOA exist, our study highlights patient and physician barriers to receipt of this care. Better educational resources and new models of care to address these barriers may contribute to improved osteoarthritis management.

Understanding the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care: a qualitative study of knowledge mobilisation using the i-PARIHS framework

Background

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation.

Methods

This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5–8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results.

Results

In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. ‘Instinctive facilitation’ may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation.

Conclusion

This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-020-01055-2.