Physiotherapy - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/260

Filters

2020 - 2023 2
2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Fitzpatrick, Mary × Author: Hinman, Rana × Start date: 2020 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT).
    Taylor, WJ ; Willink, R ; O'Connor, DA ; Patel, V ; Bourne, A ; Harris, IA ; Whittle, SL ; Richards, B ; Clavisi, O ; Green, S ; Hinman, RS ; Maher, CG ; Cahill, A ; McPherson, A ; Hewson, C ; May, SE ; Walker, B ; Robinson, PC ; Ghersi, D ; Fitzpatrick, J ; Winzenberg, T ; Fallon, K ; Glasziou, P ; Billot, L ; Buchbinder, R ; Beaudart, C (Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2023)
    BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus. RESULTS: The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    National Osteoarthritis Strategy brief report Living well with osteoarthritis
    Eyles, JP ; Hunter, DJ ; Briggs, AM ; Hinman, RS ; Fitzpatrick, J ; March, L ; Cicuttini, F ; McNaughton, S ; Ewald, D ; Nicholas, M ; Feng, Y ; Filocamo, K ; Bennell, K (ROYAL AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE GENERAL PRACTITIONERS, 2020-07)
    BACKGROUND: Recommended first-line management of lower limb osteoarthritis (OA) includes support for self-management, exercise and weight loss. However, many Australians with OA do not receive these. A National Osteoarthritis Strategy (the Strategy) was developed to outline a national plan to achieve optimal health outcomes for people at risk of, or with, OA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to identify priorities for action for Australians living with OA. DISCUSSION: The Strategy was developed in consultation with a leadership group, thematic working groups, an implementation advisory committee, multisectoral stakeholders and the public. Two priorities were identified by the 'living well with OA' working group: 1) support primary care practitioners in the delivery of high-value care to Australians with OA, and 2) enhance the uptake of high-value care by Australians with OA. Evidence-informed strategies and implementation plans were developed through consultation to address these priorities.