Factors influencing implementation of the GLA: D Back, an educational/exercise intervention for low back pain: a mixed-methods study

Development of an interdisciplinary training program about chronic pain management with a cognitive behavioural approach for healthcare professionals: part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study

BACKGROUND

Many applied postgraduate pain training programs are monodisciplinary, whereas interdisciplinary training programs potentially improve interdisciplinary collaboration, which is favourable for managing patients with chronic pain. However, limited research exists on the development and impact of interdisciplinary training programs, particularly in the context of chronic pain.

METHODS

This study aimed to describe the development and implementation of an interdisciplinary training program regarding the management of patients with chronic pain, which is part of a type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study. The targeted groups included medical doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dentists and pharmacists. An interdisciplinary expert panel was organised to provide its perception of the importance of formulated competencies for integrating biopsychosocial pain management with a cognitive behavioural approach into clinical practice. They were also asked to provide their perception of the extent to which healthcare professionals already possess the competencies in their clinical practice. Additionally, the expert panel was asked to formulate the barriers and needs relating to training content and the implementation of biopsychosocial chronic pain management with a cognitive behavioural approach in clinical practice, which was complemented with a literature search. This was used to develop and adapt the training program to the barriers and needs of stakeholders.

RESULTS

The interdisciplinary expert panel considered the competencies as very important. Additionally, they perceived a relatively low level of healthcare professionals' possession of the competencies in their clinical practice. A wide variety of barriers and needs for stakeholders were formulated and organized within the Theoretical Domain Framework linked to the COM-B domains; 'capability', 'opportunity', and 'motivation'. The developed interdisciplinary training program, including two workshops of seven hours each and two e-learning modules, aimed to improve HCP's competencies for integrating biopsychosocial chronic pain management with a cognitive behavioural approach into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

We designed an interdisciplinary training program, based on formulated barriers regarding the management of patients with chronic pain that can be used as a foundation for developing and enhancing the quality of future training programs.

Physiotherapists' barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a behaviour change-informed exercise intervention to promote the adoption of regular exercise practice in patients at risk of recurrence of low back pain: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Recurrences of low back pain (LBP) are frequent and associated with high levels of disability and medical costs. Regular exercise practice may be an effective strategy to prevent recurrences of LBP, however, the promotion of this behaviour by physiotherapists seems to be challenging. This study aims to explore physiotherapists' perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a behaviour change-informed exercise intervention to promote the adoption of regular exercise practice by patients at risk of recurrence of low back pain.

METHODS

Two focus groups with primary healthcare physiotherapists were conducted, based on a semi-structured interview schedule informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel, including the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). All focus groups were held through videoconference, audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim. A deductive content analysis, using a coding matrix based on the COM-B and TDF, was performed by two independent researchers. A third researcher was approached to settle disagreements.

RESULTS

In total, 14 physiotherapists participated in the focus groups. The analysis revealed a total of 13 barriers (4 COM-B components and 7 TDF domains) and 23 facilitators (5 COM-B and 13 TDF) to physiotherapists' implementation of a behaviour change-informed exercise intervention. The most common barriers were the lack of skills and confidence to implement the proposed intervention. These were explained by the fact that it differs from the usual practice of most participants and requires the learning of new skills applied to their contexts. However, for those who had already implemented other similar interventions or whose rationale is aligned with the new intervention, there seemed to exist more positive determinants, such as potential benefits for physiotherapists and the profession, improvement of quality of care and willingness to change clinical practice. For others who did not previously succeed in implementing these types of interventions, more context-related barriers were mentioned, such as lack of time to implement the intervention, schedule incompatibilities and lack of material and human resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified modifiable barriers and facilitators to physiotherapists' implementation of a behaviour change-informed exercise intervention for patients at risk of recurrence of LBP in primary healthcare. The findings of this study will allow the systematic and theory-based development of a behaviour change-informed training programme, aimed at physiotherapists and supporting the successful implementation of the exercise intervention.

Measuring the determinants of implementation behavior in multiprofessional rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

The Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) measures facilitators or barriers of healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors based on the current implementation research on practice and policy. The DIBQ covers 18 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework and consists of 93 items. A previously tailored version (DIBQ-t) covering 10 domains and 28 items focuses on implementing best-practice low back pain care.

AIM

To tailor a shortened version of DIBQ to multiprofessional rehabilitation context with cross-cultural adaptation to Finnish language.

DESIGN

A two-round Delphi study.

SETTING

National-level online survey.

POPULATION

Purposively recruited experts in multiprofessional rehabilitation (N.=25).

METHODS

Cross-cultural translation of DIBQ to Finnish was followed by a two-round Delphi survey involving diverse experts in rehabilitation (physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, nursing scientists, social scientists). In total, 25 experts in Round 1, and 21 in Round 2 evaluated the importance of DIBQ items in changing professionals' implementation behavior by rating on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) of including each item in the final scale. Consensus to include an item was defined as a mean score of ≥4 by ≥75% of Delphi participants. Open comments were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Items with agreement of ≤74% were either directly excluded or reconsidered and modified depending on qualitative judgements, amended with experts' suggestions. After completing an analogous second-round, a comparison with DIBQ-t was performed. Lastly, the relevance of each item was indexed using content validity index on item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI/Ave).

RESULTS

After Round 1, 17 items were included and 48 excluded by consensus whereas 28 items were reconsidered, and 20 items added for Round 2. The open comments were categorized as: 1) "modifying"; 2) "supportive"; and 3) "critical". After Round 2, consensus was reached regarding all items, to include 21 items. After comparison with DIBQ-t, the final multiprofessional DIBQ (DIBQ-mp) covers 11 TDF domains and 21 items with I-CVIs of ≥0.78 and S-CVI/Ave of 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS

A Delphi study condensed a DIBQ-mp with excellent content validity for multiprofessional rehabilitation context.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

A potential tool for evaluating determinants in implementing evidence-based multiprofessional rehabilitation interventions.

GLA:D® Back Australia: a mixed methods feasibility study for implementation

Background

Practice-based guidelines recommend patient education and exercise as first-line care for low back pain (LBP); however, these recommendations are not routinely delivered in practice. GLA:D® Back, developed in Denmark to assist clinicians to implement guideline recommendations, offers a structured education and supervised exercise program for people with LBP in addition to a clinical registry to evaluate patient outcomes. In this study we evaluated the feasibility of implementing the GLA:D® Back program in Australia. We considered clinician and patient recruitment and retention, program fidelity, exploring clinicians’ and patients’ experiences with the program, and participant outcome data collection.

Methods

Clinicians (chiropractors and physiotherapists) were recruited and participated in a 2-day GLA:D® Back training course. Patients were eligible to participate if they had persistent or recurrent LBP. Feasibility domains included the ability to: (1) recruit clinicians to undergo training; (2) recruit and retain patients in the program; (3) observe program fidelity; and (4) perceive barriers and facilitators for GLA:D® Back implementation. We also collected data related to: (5) clinician confidence, attitudes, and behaviour; and (6) patient self-reported outcomes related to pain, disability, and performance tests.

Results

Twenty clinicians (8 chiropractors, 12 physiotherapists) participated in the training, with 55% (11/20) offering GLA:D® Back to their patients. Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in the program, with 67% (38/57) attending the final follow-up assessment. Loss to follow up was mainly due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed program fidelity, with clinicians generally delivering the program as intended. Interviews revealed two clinician themes related to: (i) intervention acceptability; and (ii) barriers and facilitators to implementation. Patient interviews revealed themes related to: (i) intervention acceptability; and (ii) program efficacy. At 3 months follow-up, clinicians demonstrated high treatment confidence and biomedical orientation. Patient outcomes trended towards improvement.

Conclusion

GLA:D® Back implementation in Australia appears feasible based on clinician recruitment, program acceptability and potential benefits for patient outcomes from the small sample of participating clinicians and patients. However, COVID-19 impacted patient recruitment, retention, and data collection. To scale-up GLA:D® Back in private and public settings, further work is warranted to address associated barriers, and to leverage facilitators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00427-3.

The utilisation of regulated standardised care packages by Danish chiropractors: a mixed methods study

Background

In Denmark, chiropractors in primary care work as independent private contractors regulated by the Danish National Health Authorities. The regulation includes partial reimbursement intended for standardised care packages for lumbar and cervical radiculopathy and lumbar spinal stenosis. Random checks have shown lower use than expected. This study aimed to describe and explore the utilisation of standardised chiropractic care packages and identify barriers to uptake.

Methods

A convergent mixed-method design was conceptualised. The use of standardised care packages was collected by register data. Potential determinants of difference in utilisation were assessed using a modified version of the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire (DIBQ) divided into 13 domains and sent to chiropractors in private clinics in Denmark in 2019. An open-ended question was added to the questionnaire, and thematic content analysis was applied. Qualitative findings were used to expand on the DIBQ data providing further insight into the clinicians’ perspective on standardised care packages. 

Results

Registry data of 244 included chiropractic clinics showed limited and inconsistent use of the standardised chiropractic care packages. A total of 269 chiropractors (44%) answered the DIBQ, and 45 provided data for the qualitative analyses. At least 60% of the clinicians answered ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ in 10 out of 13 DIBQ domains suggesting a positive attitude towards using the standardised care packages. Three domains were identified as ‘problematic’ as more than 20% of clinicians disagreed or strongly disagreed: ‘Socio-political context’, ‘Goals’ and ‘Innovation’. Qualitative findings indicated that lack of usage of the standardised care packages was mainly related to the practical organization of standardised care, the chiropractor’s role when managing patients, and the patient population of interest to the clinic (e.g., children, athletes).

Conclusion

In general, Danish chiropractors displayed positive attitudes towards standardised packages of care. However, considerable variation in the use of the standardised care programs was observed. Low utilisation seemed mainly related to logistics, the chiropractor’s role, collaboration with GPs, and the patient population of interest to the clinic. These findings should be further explored in more extensive qualitative studies to inform implementation initiatives to increase and rectify utility.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00423-7.