2
|
Campbell L, Quicke J, Stevenson K, Paskins Z, Dziedzic K, Swaithes L. Using Twitter (X) to Mobilize Knowledge for First Contact Physiotherapists: Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res 2024; 26:e55680. [PMID: 38742615 PMCID: PMC11263900 DOI: 10.2196/55680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2024] [Revised: 04/26/2024] [Accepted: 05/06/2024] [Indexed: 05/16/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Campbell
- Impact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Jonathan Quicke
- STARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Services (STARS), The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Kay Stevenson
- Impact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
- Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
- Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, United Kingdom
| | - Krysia Dziedzic
- Impact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Laura Swaithes
- Impact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Stevenson K, Hadley-Barrows T, Evans N, Campbell L, Southam J, Chudyk A, Ellington D, Jeeves B, Jenson C, Kleberg S, Birkinshaw H, Mair F, Dziedzic K, Peat G, Jordan KP, Yu D, Bailey J, Braybooke A, Mallen CD, Hill JC. The SelfSTarT intervention for low back pain patients presenting to first contact physiotherapists: A mixed methods service evaluation. Musculoskeletal Care 2024; 22:e1876. [PMID: 38511963 DOI: 10.1002/msc.1876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2024] [Revised: 02/28/2024] [Accepted: 03/01/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Globally, back pain is the leading cause of years of disability. In the United Kingdom, over 20 million people live with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, with low back pain being one of the most common causes. National strategies promote self-management and the use of digital technologies to empower populations. AIMS To evaluate the uptake and impact of providing the SelfSTart approach (STarT Back and SelfBACK App) when delivered by a First Contact Physiotherapist (FCP) to people presenting with low back pain in primary care. METHODS Patients presenting with a new episode of low back pain underwent routine assessment and completion of a STarT Back questionnaire. Patients with low/medium scores were offered the SelfBACK App. A control population was provided by the MIDAS-GP study. Patient Experience, outcome measures, healthcare utilisation and retention were captured through the app and clinical systems (EMIS). Interviews with five FCPs explored the experiences of using the SelfSTart approach. RESULTS SelfSTarT was taken up by almost half (48%) of those to whom it was offered. Compared to MIDAS-GP, users were more likely to be younger, male, in work, and with higher health literacy. SelfSTarT users reported significant improved experiences relating to receiving an agreed care plan and receiving sufficient information. There were no significant differences in treatments offered. FCPs were positive about the app and felt it had value but wanted feedback on patient progress. They recognised that a digital solution would not be suitable for all. CONCLUSION This approach offers an opportunity to empower and support self-management, using robustly evaluated digital technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Stevenson
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
- Midlands Partnership University Foundation NHS Trust, Haywood Hospital, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - T Hadley-Barrows
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
- Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - N Evans
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - L Campbell
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - J Southam
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - A Chudyk
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - D Ellington
- Midlands Partnership University Foundation NHS Trust, Haywood Hospital, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - B Jeeves
- Midlands Partnership University Foundation NHS Trust, Haywood Hospital, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - C Jenson
- SelfBack Company, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - H Birkinshaw
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - F Mair
- Glasgow University, Glasgow, UK
| | - K Dziedzic
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - G Peat
- Centre for Applied Health & Social Care Research (CARe), Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
| | - K P Jordan
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - D Yu
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - J Bailey
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - A Braybooke
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - C D Mallen
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Jonathan C Hill
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Blackburn S, Clinch M, de Wit M, Moser A, Primdahl J, van Vliet E, Walker C, Stevenson F. Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research. Eur J Gen Pract 2023; 29:2232111. [PMID: 37578421 PMCID: PMC10431741 DOI: 10.1080/13814788.2023.2232111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2023] [Revised: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research. OBJECTIVES The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research. DISCUSSION Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding. CONCLUSION We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Blackburn
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Megan Clinch
- Centre for Public Health & Policy, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Maarten de Wit
- Patient Research Partner Stichting Tools, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Albine Moser
- Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Jette Primdahl
- Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| | - Esther van Vliet
- Academic Collaborative Centers, Knowledge Transfer Office, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Christine Walker
- Research User Group, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Fiona Stevenson
- Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|