Physiotherapy - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11
-
ItemRecruitment difficulties in a primary care cluster randomised trial: investigating factors contributing to general practitioners' recruitment of patients(BMC, 2011-03-31)BACKGROUND: Recruitment of patients by health professionals is reported as one of the most challenging steps when undertaking studies in primary care settings. Numerous investigations of the barriers to patient recruitment in trials which recruit patients to receive an intervention have been published. However, we are not aware of any studies that have reported on the recruitment barriers as perceived by health professionals to recruiting patients into cluster randomised trials where patients do not directly receive an intervention. This particular subtype of cluster trial is commonly termed a professional-cluster trial. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that contributed to general practitioners recruitment of patients in a professional-cluster trial which evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention to increase general practitioners adherence to a clinical practice guideline for acute low-back pain. METHOD: General practitioners enrolled in the study were posted a questionnaire, consisting of quantitative items and an open-ended question, to assess possible reasons for poor patient recruitment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise quantitative items and responses to the open-ended question were coded into categories. RESULTS: Seventy-nine general practitioners completed at least one item (79/94 = 84%), representing 68 practices (85% practice response rate), and 44 provided a response to the open-ended question. General practitioners recalled inviting a median of two patients with acute low-back pain to participate in the trial over a seven-month period; they reported that they intended to recruit patients, but forgot to approach patients to participate; and they did not perceive that patients had a strong interest or disinterest in participating. Additional open-ended comments were generally consistent with the quantitative data. CONCLUSION: A number of barriers to the recruitment of patients with acute low-back pain by general practitioners in a professional-cluster trial were identified. These barriers were similar to those that have been identified in the literature surrounding the recruitment of patients in individual patient randomised trials. To advance the evidence base for patient recruitment strategies in primary care settings, trialists undertaking professional-cluster trials need to develop and evaluate patient recruitment strategies that minimise the efforts required by practice staff to recruit patients, while also meeting privacy and ethical responsibilities and minimising the risk of selection bias.
-
ItemManagement of people with acute low-back pain: a survey of Australian chiropractors(BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2011-12-15)INTRODUCTION: Chiropractors commonly provide care to people with acute low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this survey was to determine how chiropractors intend to support and manage people with acute LBP and if this management is in accordance with two recommendations from an Australian evidence-based acute LBP guideline. The two recommendations were directed at minimising the use of plain x-ray and encouraging the patient to stay active. METHODS: This is a cross sectional survey of chiropractors in Australia. This paper is part of the ALIGN study in which a targeted implementation strategy was developed to improve the management of acute LBP in a chiropractic setting. This implementation strategy was subsequently tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. In this survey phase of the ALIGN study we approached a random sample of 880 chiropractors in three States of Australia. The mailed questionnaire consisted of five patient vignettes designed to represent people who would typically present to chiropractors with acute LBP. Four vignettes represented people who, according to the guideline, would not require a plain lumbar x-ray, and one vignette represented a person with a suspected vertebral fracture. Respondents were asked, for each vignette, to indicate which investigation(s) they would order, and which intervention(s) they would recommend or undertake. RESULTS: Of the 880 chiropractors approached, 137 were deemed ineligible to participate, mostly because they were not currently practising, or mail was returned to sender. We received completed questionnaires from 274 chiropractors (response rate of 37%). Male chiropractors made up 66% of respondents, 75% practised in an urban location and their mean number of years in practice was 15. Across the four vignettes where an x-ray was not indicated 68% (95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 64%, 71%) of chiropractors responded that they would order or take an x-ray. In addition 51% (95%CI: 47%, 56%) indicated they would give advice to stay active when it was indicated. For the vignette where a fracture was suspected, 95% (95% CI: 91%, 97%) of chiropractors would order an x-ray. CONCLUSION: The intention of chiropractors surveyed in this study shows low adherence to two recommendations from an evidence-based guideline for acute LBP. Quality of care for these patients could be improved through effective implementation of evidence-based guidelines. Further research to find cost-effective methods to increase implementation is warranted.
-
ItemThe journal 'chiropractic & osteopathy' changes its title to 'chiropractic & manual therapies'. a new name, a new era.(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2011-01-10)Chiropractic & Osteopathy changes its title to Chiropractic & Manual Therapies in January 2011. This change reflects the expanding base of submissions from clinical scientists interested in the discipline of manual therapy. It is also in accord with the findings of a review of the journal content and a joint venture between the original parent organisation the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia and a new partner the European Academy of Chiropractic, which is a subsidiary body of the European Chiropractors' Union. The title change should encourage submissions from all professionals interested in manual therapy including chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, medical doctors and scientists interested in this field.
-
ItemChiropractic care for children: too much, too little or not enough?(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2010-06-02)This editorial provides an overview of this Thematic Series of the journal titled Chiropractic Care for Children. In commissioning this series of articles we aimed to bring the busy clinician up to date with the current best evidence in key aspects of evaluation and management of chiropractic care for children. Individual articles address a chiropractic approach to the management of children, chiropractic care of musculoskeletal conditions in children and adolescents, chiropractic care of non-musculoskeletal conditions in children and adolescents, chiropractic care for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and possible adverse effects from chiropractic management of children. The final article by Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde and Lise Hestbaek is an overview of the current state of the evidence and future research opportunities for chiropractic care for children. We conclude this editorial discussing the strengths and weaknesses of contemporary research relevant to chiropractic care of children and the implications for chiropractic practice.
-
ItemOutcomes of Usual Chiropractic, Harm & efficacy, the OUCH study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial(BMC, 2011-10-31)BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that adverse events occur during chiropractic treatment. However, because of these studies design we do not know the frequency and extent of these events when compared to sham treatment. The principal aims of this study are to establish the frequency and severity of adverse effects from short term usual chiropractic treatment of the spine when compared to a sham treatment group. The secondary aim of this study is to establish the efficacy of usual short term chiropractic care for spinal pain when compared to a sham intervention. METHODS: One hundred and eighty participants will be randomly allocated to either usual chiropractic care or a sham intervention group. To be considered for inclusion the participants must have experienced non-specific spinal pain for at least one week. The study will be conducted at the clinics of registered chiropractors in Western Australia. Participants in each group will receive two treatments at intervals no less than one week. For the usual chiropractic care group, the selection of therapeutic techniques will be left to the chiropractors' discretion. For the sham intervention group, de-tuned ultrasound and de-tuned activator treatment will be applied by the chiropractors to the regions where spinal pain is experienced. Adverse events will be assessed two days after each appointment using a questionnaire developed for this study. The efficacy of short term chiropractic care for spinal pain will be examined at two week follow-up by assessing pain, physical function, minimum acceptable outcome, and satisfaction with care, with the use of the following outcome measures: Numerical Rating Scale, Functional Rating Index, Neck Disability Index, Minimum Acceptable Outcome Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and a global measure of treatment satisfaction. The statistician, outcome assessor, and participants will be blinded to treatment allocation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12611000542998.
-
ItemImproving the care for people with acute low-back pain by allied health professionals (the ALIGN trial): A cluster randomised trial protocol(BMC, 2010-11-10)BACKGROUND: Variability between clinical practice guideline recommendations and actual clinical practice exists in many areas of health care. A 2004 systematic review examining the effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions concluded there was a lack of evidence to support decisions about effective interventions to promote the uptake of guidelines. Further, the review recommended the use of theory in the development of implementation interventions. A clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low-back pain has been developed in Australia (2003). Acute low-back pain is a common condition, has a high burden, and there is some indication of an evidence-practice gap in the allied health setting. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention which, if effective, may provide benefits for patients with this condition. AIMS: This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention to increase allied health practitioners' (physiotherapists and chiropractors in Victoria, Australia) compliance with a clinical practice guideline for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP), compared with providing practitioners with a printed copy of the guideline. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of acute non-specific LBP patients who are either referred for or receive an x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-onset of acute LBP. METHODS: The design of the study is a cluster randomised trial. Restricted randomisation was used to randomise 210 practices (clusters) to an intervention or control group. Practitioners in the control group received a printed copy of the guideline. Practitioners in the intervention group received a theory-based intervention developed to address prospectively identified barriers to practitioner compliance with the guideline. The intervention primarily consisted of an educational symposium. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific LBP of less than three months duration over a two-week data collection period, three months post the intervention symposia, are eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculations are based on recruiting between 15 to 40 patients per practice. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 (date registered 25th November 2009).
-
ItemIMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT): Cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol(BMC, 2008-02-22)BACKGROUND: Evidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting. AIM: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.
-
ItemSpinal manipulative therapy versus Graston Technique in the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain: design of a randomised controlled trial.(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2008-10-30)BACKGROUND: The one year prevalence of thoracic back pain has been estimated as 17% compared to 64% for neck pain and 67% for low back pain. At present only one randomised controlled trial has been performed assessing the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. In addition no high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique (GT), a soft tissue massage therapy using hand-held stainless steel instruments. The objective of this trial is to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to a placebo for the treatment of non specific thoracic spine pain. METHODS: Eighty four eligible people with non specific thoracic pain mid back pain of six weeks or more will be randomised to one of three groups, either SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each group will receive up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at the Murdoch University Chiropractic student clinic over a 4-week period. Treatment outcomes will be measured at baseline, one week after their first treatment, upon completion of the 4-week intervention period and at three, six and twelve months post randomisation. Outcome measures will include the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Index and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Intention to treat analysis will be utilised in the statistical analysis of any group treatment effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7th February 2008. TRIAL NUMBER: ACTRN12608000070336.
-
ItemInvesting in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2005-10-14)BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period. METHODS: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change. RESULTS: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review. CONCLUSION: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.
-
ItemProtocol for economic evaluation alongside the IMPLEMENT cluster randomised controlled trial(BMC, 2008-02-22)BACKGROUND: The recent development and publication of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for acute low back pain (LBP) has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that, if implemented, have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute LBP. While a strategy has been specified for dissemination of the CPG for acute LBP in Australia, there is no accompanying plan for active implementation. Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of active implementation of CPGs for acute LBP is sparse. The IMPLEMENT study will consider the incremental benefits and costs of progressing beyond development and dissemination to implementation. METHODS/DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses alongside the IMPLEMENT cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) from a societal perspective to quantify the additional costs (savings) and health gains associated with a targeted implementation strategy as compared with access to the CPG via dissemination only. DISCUSSION: The protocol provided here registers our intent to conduct an economic evaluation alongside the IMPLEMENT study, facilitates peer-review of proposed methods and provides a transparent statement of planned analyses.