A brief report on the development of a theoretically-grounded intervention to promote patient autonomy and self-management of physiotherapy patients: face validity and feasibility of implementation

Background Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of low back pain suggest the inclusion of a biopsychosocial approach in which patient self-management is prioritized. While many physiotherapists recognise the importance of evidence-based practice, there is an evidence practice gap that may in part be due to the fact that promoting self-management necessitates change in clinical behaviours. Evidence suggests that a patient’s motivation and maintenance of self-management behaviours can be positively influenced by the clinician’s use of an autonomy supportive communication style. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and pilot-test the feasibility of a theoretically derived implementation intervention to support physiotherapists in using an evidence-based autonomy supportive communication style in practice for promoting patient self-management in clinical practice. Methods A systematic process was used to develop the intervention and pilot-test its feasibility in primary care physiotherapy. The development steps included focus groups to identify barriers and enablers for implementation, the theoretical domains framework to classify determinants of change, a behaviour change technique taxonomy to select appropriate intervention components, and forming a testable theoretical model. Face validity and acceptability of the intervention was pilot-tested with two physiotherapists and monitoring their communication with patients over a three-month timeframe. Results Using the process described above, eight barriers and enablers for implementation were identified. To address these barriers and enablers, a number of intervention components were selected ranging from behaviour change techniques such as, goal-setting, self-monitoring and feedback to appropriate modes of intervention delivery (i.e. continued education meetings and audit and feedback focused coaching). Initial pilot-testing revealed the acceptability of the intervention to recipients and highlighted key areas for refinement prior to scaling up for a definitive trial. Conclusion The development process utilised in this study ensured the intervention was theory-informed and evidence-based, with recipients signalling its relevance and benefit to their clinical practice. Future research should consider additional intervention strategies to address barriers of social support and those beyond the clinician level

Effect of a self-determination theory-based communication skills training program on physiotherapists' psychological support for their patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To examine the effects of communication skills training on physiotherapists' supportive behavior during clinical practice. Design: Randomized trial. Setting: Hospital outpatient physiotherapy clinics. Participants: Physiotherapists (N=24) and patients (N=24) with chronic low back pain. Interventions: Two hospital clinics were randomly assigned to the intervention arm. Physiotherapists (n=12) received 8 hours of communication skills training focused on supporting patients' psychological needs. Physiotherapists (n=12) from 2 other hospital clinics formed a waitlist control arm. Main Outcome Measures: Verbal communication between each physiotherapist and a patient was recorded on an audiotape, and independent, blinded raters used the Health Care Climate Questionnaire to assess physiotherapists' needs-supportive behavior (primary outcome). Results: Independent raters' Health Care Climate Questionnaire scores favored the intervention arm (Cohen's d=2.27; P<.01). Conclusions: Compared with controls, independent ratings demonstrated that physiotherapists who completed the Communication style and exercise compliance in physiotherapy training were found to provide greater support for patients' needs in a single assessed session. Long-term maintenance of this needs-supportive behavior should be examined

Using theatre as an arts-based knowledge translation strategy for health-related information: a scoping review protocol.

Substantial delays in translating evidence to practice mean that many beneficial and vital advances in medical care are not being used in a timely manner. Traditional knowledge translation (KT) strategies have tended to target academics by disseminating findings in academic journals and at scientific conferences. Alternative strategies, such as theatre-based KT, appear to be effective at targeting broader audiences. The purpose of this scoping review is to collate and understand the current state of science on the use of theatre as a KT strategy. This will allow us to identify gaps in literature, determine the need for a systematic review and develop additional research questions to advance the field. This review will follow established scoping review methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley in conjunction with enhanced recommendations made by Levac et al. The search strategy, guided by an experienced librarian, will be conducted in PubMed, CINHAL and OVID. Study selection will consist of three stages: (1) initial title and abstract scan by one author to remove irrelevant articles and create a shortlist for double screening, (2) title and abstract scan by two authors, and (3) full-text review by two authors. Included studies will report specifically on the use of theatre as means of KT of health-related information to any target population. Two reviewers will independently extract and chart the data using a standardised data extraction form. Descriptive statistics will be used to produce numerical summaries related to study characteristics, KT strategy characteristics and evaluation characteristics. For those studies that included an evaluation of the theatre production as a KT strategy, we will synthesise the data according to outcome. Ethical approval was not required for this study. Results will be published in relevant journals, presented at conferences and distributed via social media

Feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a theory-driven group-based complex intervention versus usual physiotherapy to support self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain (SOLAS).

The self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP) through activity and skills (SOLAS) theory-driven group-based complex intervention was developed primarily for the evaluation of its acceptability to patients and physiotherapists and the feasibility of trial procedures, to inform the potential for a definitive trial. This assessor-blinded multicentre two-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial compared the SOLAS intervention to usual individual physiotherapy (UP; pragmatic control group). Patients with OA of the hip, knee, lumbar spine and/or chronic LBP were recruited in primary care physiotherapy clinics (i.e. clusters) in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2014 and November 2015. The primary feasibility objectives were evaluated using quantitative methods and individual telephone interviews with purposive samples of participants and physiotherapists. A range of secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, 6â weeks (behaviour change only), 2â months and 6â months to explore the preliminary effects of the intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat according to participants' cluster allocation and involved descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews. A linear mixed model was used to contrast change over time in participant secondary outcomes between treatment arms, while adjusting for study waves and clusters. Fourteen clusters were recruited (7 per trial arm), each cluster participated in two waves of recruitment, with the average cluster size below the target of six participants (intervention: mean (SD)â =â 4.92 (1.31), range 2-7; UP: mean (SD)â =â 5.08 (2.43), range 1-9). One hundred twenty participants (83.3% of nâ =â 144 expected) were recruited (intervention nâ =â 59; UP nâ =â 61), with follow-up data obtained from 80.8% (nâ =â 97) at 6â weeks, 84.2% (nâ =â 101) at 2â months and 71.7% (nâ =â 86) at 6â months. Most participants received treatment as allocated (intervention nâ =â 49; UP nâ =â 54). The qualitative interviews (12 participants; 10 physiotherapists (PTs) found the intervention and trial procedures acceptable and appropriate, with minimal feasible adaptations required. Linear mixed methods showed improvements in most secondary outcomes at 2 and 6â months with small between-group effects. While the SOLAS intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants and PTs, the recruitment of enough participants is the biggest obstacle to a definitive trial. ISRCTN ISRCTN49875385 . Registered on 26 March 2014

Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Background: Adoption of low back pain guidelines is a well-documented problem. Information to guide the development of behaviour change interventions is needed. The review is the first to synthesise the evidence regarding physicians’ barriers to providing evidence-based care for LBP using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Using the TDF allowed us to map specific physician-reported barriers to individual guideline recommendations. Therefore, the results can provide direction to future interventions to increase physician compliance with evidencebased care for LBP. Methods: We searched the literature for qualitative studies from inception to July 2018. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extracted data on study characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological rigour. Guided by a TDF coding manual, two reviewers independently coded the individual study themes using NVivo. After coding, we assessed confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Results: Fourteen studies (n = 318 physicians) from 9 countries reported barriers to adopting one of the 5 guidelinerecommended behaviours regarding in-clinic diagnostic assessments (9 studies, n = 198), advice on activity (7 studies, n = 194), medication prescription (2 studies, n = 39), imaging referrals (11 studies, n = 270), and treatment/specialist referrals (8 studies, n = 193). Imaging behaviour is influenced by (1) social influence—from patients requesting an image or wanting a diagnosis (n = 252, 9 studies), (2) beliefs about consequence—physicians believe that providing a scan will reassure patients (n = 175, 6 studies), and (3) environmental context and resources—physicians report a lack of time to have a conversation with patients about diagnosis and why a scan is not needed (n = 179, 6 studies). Referrals to conservative care is influenced by environmental context and resources—long wait-times or a complete lack of access to adjunct services prevented physicians from referring to these services (n = 82, 5 studies). Conclusions: Physicians face numerous barriers to providing evidence-based LBP care which we have mapped onto 7 TDF domains. Two to five TDF domains are involved in determining physician behaviour, confirming the complexity of this problem. This is important as interventions often target a single domain where multiple domains are involved. Interventions designed to address all the domains involved while considering context-specific factors may prove most successful in increasing guideline adoption. Registration: PROSPERO 2017, CRD4201707070

Using intervention mapping to develop a theory-driven, group-based complex intervention to support self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain (SOLAS).

The Medical Research Council framework provides a useful general approach to designing and evaluating complex interventions, but does not provide detailed guidance on how to do this and there is little evidence of how this framework is applied in practice. This study describes the use of intervention mapping (IM) in the design of a theory-driven, group-based complex intervention to support self-management (SM) of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Ireland's primary care health system. The six steps of the IM protocol were systematically applied to develop the self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain through activity and skills (SOLAS) intervention through adaptation of the Facilitating Activity and Self-management in Arthritis (FASA) intervention. A needs assessment including literature reviews, interviews with patients and physiotherapists and resource evaluation was completed to identify the programme goals, determinants of SM behaviour, consolidated definition of SM and required adaptations to FASA to meet health service and patient needs and the evidence. The resultant SOLAS intervention behavioural outcomes, performance and change objectives were specified and practical application methods selected, followed by organised programme, adoption, implementation and evaluation plans underpinned by behaviour change theory. The SOLAS intervention consists of six weekly sessions of 90-min education and exercise designed to increase participants' physical activity level and use of evidence-based SM strategies (i.e. pain self-management, pain coping, healthy eating for weight management and specific exercise) through targeting of individual determinants of SM behaviour (knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, fear, catastrophizing, motivation, behavioural regulation), delivered by a trained physiotherapist to groups of up to eight individuals using a needs supportive interpersonal style based on self-determination theory. Strategies to support SOLAS intervention adoption and implementation included a consensus building workshop with physiotherapy stakeholders, development of a physiotherapist training programme and a pilot trial with physiotherapist and patient feedback. The SOLAS intervention is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial. IM is a time-intensive collaborative process, but the range of methods and resultant high level of transparency is invaluable and allows replication by future complex intervention and trial developers