The SelfSTarT intervention for low back pain patients presenting to first contact physiotherapists: A mixed methods service evaluation

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.

A mixed methods exploration of physiotherapist's approaches to analgesic use among patients with hip osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To explore how physiotherapists currently address analgesic use among patients with hip osteoarthritis, and their beliefs about the acceptability of prescribing for these patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire was mailed to 3126 UK-based physiotherapists. Approaches to analgesic use among patients with hip osteoarthritis were explored using a case vignette. Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with 21 questionnaire responders and analysed thematically.

SETTING

UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapists who had treated a patient with hip osteoarthritis in the previous 6 months.

RESULTS

Questionnaire response: 53% (n=1646). One thousand one hundred forty eight physiotherapists reported treating a patient with hip osteoarthritis in the last 6 months (applicable responses), of whom nine (1%) were non-medical prescribers. Nearly all physiotherapists (98%) reported that they would address analgesic use for the patient with hip osteoarthritis, most commonly by signposting them to their GP (83%). Fifty six percent would discuss optimal use of current medication, and 33%, would discuss use of over-the-counter medications. Interviews revealed that variations in physiotherapists' approaches to analgesic use were influenced by personal confidence, patient safety concerns, and their perceived professional remit. Whilst many recognised the benefits of analgesia prescribing for both patients and GP workload, additional responsibility for patient safety was a perceived barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

How physiotherapists currently address analgesic use with patients with hip osteoarthritis is variable. Although the potential benefits of independent prescribing were recognised, not all physiotherapist want the additional responsibility. Further guidance supporting optimisation of analgesic use among patients with hip OA may help better align care with best practice guidelines and reduce GP referrals.

Applying quantitative bias analysis to estimate the plausible effects of selection bias in a cluster randomised controlled trial: secondary analysis of the Primary care Osteoarthritis Screening Trial (POST)

Background

Selection bias is a concern when designing cluster randomised controlled trials (c-RCT). Despite addressing potential issues at the design stage, bias cannot always be eradicated from a trial design. The application of bias analysis presents an important step forward in evaluating whether trial findings are credible. The aim of this paper is to give an example of the technique to quantify potential selection bias in c-RCTs.

Methods

This analysis uses data from the Primary care Osteoarthritis Screening Trial (POST). The primary aim of this trial was to test whether screening for anxiety and depression, and providing appropriate care for patients consulting their GP with osteoarthritis would improve clinical outcomes. Quantitative bias analysis is a seldom-used technique that can quantify types of bias present in studies. Due to lack of information on the selection probability, probabilistic bias analysis with a range of triangular distributions was also used, applied at all three follow-up time points; 3, 6, and 12 months post consultation. A simple bias analysis was also applied to the study.

Results

Worse pain outcomes were observed among intervention participants than control participants (crude odds ratio at 3, 6, and 12 months: 1.30 (95% CI 1.01, 1.67), 1.39 (1.07, 1.80), and 1.17 (95% CI 0.90, 1.53), respectively). Probabilistic bias analysis suggested that the observed effect became statistically non-significant if the selection probability ratio was between 1.2 and 1.4. Selection probability ratios of > 1.8 were needed to mask a statistically significant benefit of the intervention.

Conclusions

The use of probabilistic bias analysis in this c-RCT suggested that worse outcomes observed in the intervention arm could plausibly be attributed to selection bias. A very large degree of selection of bias was needed to mask a beneficial effect of intervention making this interpretation less plausible.

Association between characteristics of pain and stiffness and the functional status of patients with incident polymyalgia rheumatica from primary care

This paper aims to examine the relationship between different characteristics of pain and stiffness and the functional status of patients with newly diagnosed polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). Baseline analysis of an inception cohort study was conducted. Patients aged ≥18 years, with a new diagnosis of PMR were recruited from 382 English general practices. Participants were mailed a baseline questionnaire, including separate pain and stiffness manikins and numerical rating scales (NRS), a question on their ability to raise their arms above their head and the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) to examine participants’ functional status. Linear regression analysis, reported as regression co-efficients (95% confidence intervals (95% CI)), was used to assess the association of pain and stiffness with function, initially unadjusted and then adjusted for age, gender, deprivation status, smoking status, BMI, anxiety and depression. Six hundred fifty two patients responded to the baseline survey (88.5%). The majority (88.2%) reported no, or mild impairment in their functional status. Adjusted linear regression analysis demonstrated that high (NRS ≥8) pain (0.20 (95% CI 0.10–0.28)) or stiffness (0.18 (0.09–0.26)) ratings, an increasing number of sites of pain (0.18 (0.06–0.29)) or stiffness (0.19 (0.08–0.31)) and shoulder pain (0.18 (0.05–0.31)), stiffness (0.10 (0.01–0.20)) and difficulty raising arms above one’s head (0.19 (0.10–0.28)) were all associated with increased functional impairment. The majority of newly diagnosed PMR patients reported no or minimal functional difficulty. However, those who experience severe or widespread pain or stiffness often have significant functional limitation in performing their daily activities and may be a subset worthy of additional focus in primary care.

Fatigue as a precursor to polymyalgia rheumatica: an explorative retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is the commonest inflammatory disorder of older adults. Although not part of the recently published classification criteria, patients with PMR frequently complain of fatigue. We compared consultation for fatigue and sleep problems between individuals with and without PMR.

METHOD

Consulters receiving a Read-coded diagnosis of PMR at nine general practices between 2000 and 2009 were matched by age, gender, general practice, and year of consultation to four patients without PMR. Fatigue and sleep problems were defined using Read codes. Cox regression was used to determine the association between PMR diagnosis and consultation for a fatigue/sleep problem.

RESULTS

In total, 549 PMR patients were identified. Their mean (SD) age was 73.9 (8.6) years and 71% of the participants were female. Prior to the index date, 33 PMR patients and 80 matched non-PMR patients consulted with fatigue (0.43 vs. 0.25 consultations per 10 000 person-years, p = 0.006). PMR was associated with significantly more multiple fatigue consultations in the 12 months before PMR diagnosis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-3.08]; no significant difference was seen in rates of consultations for sleep problems between patients with and without PMR.

CONCLUSIONS

PMR patients were significantly more likely to have had multiple fatigue consultations before being diagnosed with PMR. Given the overproduction of inflammatory cytokines seen in PMR, this fatigue may represent a prodromal phase prior to consulting with more classical musculoskeletal symptoms. This suggests that clinicians should consider PMR as a potential diagnosis in older patients consulting with fatigue.

Increased cardiovascular mortality associated with gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hyperuricaemia, the biochemical precursor to gout, has been shown to be an independent risk factor for mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD), although studies examining the clinical phenomenon of gout and risk of CVD mortality report conflicting results. This study aimed to produce a pooled estimate of risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease in patients with gout.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic bibliographic databases were searched from inception to November 2012, with results reviewed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if they reported data on CVD mortality in adults with gout who were free of CVD at time of entry into the study. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for this association were calculated both unadjusted and adjusted for traditional vascular risk factors.

RESULTS

Six papers, including 223,448 patients, were eligible for inclusion (all (CVD) mortality n = 4, coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality n = 3, and myocardial infarction mortality n = 3). Gout was associated with an excess risk of CVD mortality (unadjusted HR 1.51 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.17-1.84)) and CHD mortality (unadjusted HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.25-1.94)). After adjusting for traditional vascular risk factors, the pooled HR for both CVD mortality (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.44) and CHD mortality (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22-1.63) remained statistically significant, but none of the studies reported a significant association with myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Gout increases the risk of mortality from CVD and CHD, but not myocardial infarction, independently of vascular risk factors.

The association between pain intensity and the prescription of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

It is not known whether general practitioners (GPs) prescribe analgesic medication according to intensity of pain or a hierarchical prescribing regimen.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the association of strength of pain-relief medication prescribed by the GP with the strength of previous prescription and pain level.

METHODS

The PROG-RES study collected data on pain intensity in 428 patients aged ≥50 years with non-inflammatory musculoskeletal pain during a consultation with their GP. Prescriptions for analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were identified on the day of the consultation and in the previous year and were classified as basic, moderate or strong analgesic or NSAID. Regression models were used to assess the association of strength of analgesia and prescription of a NSAID with the strength of previous prescription and the level of pain.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were not prescribed medication for their pain at the index consultation, but had such a prescription the previous year. There was an association between strength of analgesic and intensity of pain: more intense pain resulted in a stronger drug. This association was attenuated by adjustment for prescribed analgesia in the previous year. There was no association between intensity of pain and NSAID prescription, but previous NSAID prescription predicted another such prescription.

CONCLUSION

GPs do not always issue prescriptions for musculoskeletal pain. In cases where a prescription is issued, this is more strongly influenced by previous prescriptions than the patient's pain level. GPs adopt an individualized approach to the treatment of musculoskeletal pain in older adults.

Sickness certification and the GP: what really happens in practice?

BACKGROUND

GPs typically sanction absence from work by issuing sickness certificates. There has been some debate recently about changing the way sickness certificates are issued and by whom. However, without understanding GPs' certification practices, their requirements in terms of training and education and how they feel the certification process should or should not be changed, measures aimed at improving the system are unlikely to succeed.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate and describe British GPs' sickness certification practices.

METHODS

A cross-sectional nationwide postal survey of 2154 UK GPs was conducted. GPs were asked about perceived certification practices, training in sickness certification, their opinions about the certification process and potential to improve the system.

RESULTS

Adjusted response was 42% (n = 878). GPs do ask about a patient's work situation but lack training in sickness certification. GPs would like to maintain their role in sickness certification but felt there was scope for other health professionals to issue some sickness certificates. GPs report more frequent sickness certification for mental health and musculoskeletal conditions compared to any other condition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has highlighted the main issues that GPs face during a consultation where sickness certification is a possible outcome. Lack of training in certification was a recurrent theme. However, GPs felt there was scope to improve training and recommendations were made as to how this might be achieved. The survey has highlighted that GPs feel there are opportunities to improve the system and that other health professionals may play a role in the certification process.