5 research outputs found

    Physiotherapy for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis in Germany: a survey of current practice

    No full text
    Abstract Background Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and the knee is common and leads to pain, stiffness and disability. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) provide recommendations to assist healthcare professionals in clinical decision-making. Although evidence-based physiotherapy has been shown to be effective in the management OA, a gap between clinical practice and guideline recommendations exists. Little is known about OA management provided by physiotherapists in Germany and whether treatment aligns with CPGs. The objectives of this study were (1) to investigate the current physiotherapy practice in patients with hip and/or knee OA in Germany, (2) to evaluate physiotherapists’ adherence to guideline recommendations and (3) to explore barriers and facilitators to guideline use. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among physiotherapists. The questionnaire collected information on demographic characteristics, physiotherapists’ management of hip and knee OA and the use of CPGs in clinical practice. Guideline adherence was evaluated by comparing the survey findings with guideline recommendations. Full adherence was assumed if all recommended treatment options were chosen. Results In total, 447 (74.9%) of 597 eligible physiotherapists completed the survey. Data from 442 participants (mean age 41.2 ± 12.8 years; 288 female (65.1%)) were included in the analysis. The most common treatment choices for both hip and knee OA were exercise therapy (hip OA: 424/442, 95.9%; knee OA: 426/442, 96.4%), self-management advice (hip OA: 413/442, 93.2%; knee OA: 395/442, 89.4%) and education (hip OA: 325/442, 73.5%; knee OA: 331/442, 74.9%), followed by manual therapy (hip OA: 311/442, 70.4%; knee OA: 311/442, 70.4%) and joint traction (hip OA: 208/442, 47.1%; knee OA: 199/442, 45.0%). Full guideline adherence was found in 17.2% (76/442) of physiotherapists for hip OA management and in 8.6% (38/442) for knee OA. Less than half of the respondents (212/430, 49.3%) were aware of an OA guideline. Conclusions In accordance with current guideline recommendations, most physiotherapists provide exercise therapy and education for patients with hip and/or knee OA. Interventions with low or conflicting evidence were also frequently provided. The limited awareness of existing OA guidelines and the low guideline adherence indicate an insufficient implementation of CPGs in German physiotherapy practice. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00026702). Registered 14 October 2021

    Guideline-Adherent Physiotherapy for Patients With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Germany: Protocol for an Implementation Research Project Using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behavior Change Wheel

    No full text
    BackgroundHip and knee osteoarthritis is common and leads to pain, stiffness, and disability. Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations based on the best available evidence to assist health care professionals and patients in clinical decision-making. However, several studies have reported a gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice in physiotherapy. Improved implementation strategies and the removal of existing barriers may facilitate the transfer of evidence into clinical practice and contribute to optimized quality of care. ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to describe the current physiotherapy practice in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis and to investigate physiotherapists’ adherence to clinical practice guidelines, to identify and specify barriers to and facilitators of guideline use and implementation, and to develop and pilot test a theory-based tailored implementation intervention aiming to increase guideline use in osteoarthritis care. MethodsThe research project is divided into 4 parts. During the first part, we will conduct a nationwide web-based survey among German physiotherapists to evaluate the current management of hip and knee osteoarthritis and to evaluate whether treatment aligns with guideline recommendations. Subsequently, semistructured interviews will be conducted to specify barriers to and facilitators of guideline use and implementation among physiotherapists (part 2). On the basis of these findings, in part 3, we will develop a theory-driven implementation intervention based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behavior Change Wheel, which will be evaluated in a controlled pilot study in terms of effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability (part 4). ResultsData collection of the web-based survey among German physiotherapists (part 1) was completed in December 2021. The semistructured interviews (part 2) were conducted between January and September 2023. Recruitment of physiotherapy practices to participate in the development of the implementation intervention is expected to start in January 2024. ConclusionsThis research project aims to develop a theory-driven implementation intervention to facilitate the transfer of evidence from hip and knee osteoarthritis guidelines in physiotherapy practice. We hypothesize that successful implementation will lead to increased guideline adherence in physiotherapists, which in turn will improve the quality of care. The results from our project will provide valuable knowledge concerning the development process and effectiveness of tailored implementation interventions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/4783

    Physical therapy for patients with low back pain in Germany: a survey of current practice

    No full text
    Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide. The National Disease Management Guideline (NVL) “Non-specific LBP” is a practical decision-making aid for both physicians and non-medical professionals in Germany to improve quality of health care. Although LBP is the most frequent diagnosis resulting in physical therapy treatment, information on the current management of patients with LBP and guideline adherence is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the current physical therapy management of patients with LBP in Germany, and to explore guideline adherence to the NVL “Non-specific LBP” recommendations. Methods An online survey among physical therapists working in Germany was conducted based on the recommendations given in the NVL “Non-specific LBP”. Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling approach and invited to complete the questionnaire. Guideline adherence was evaluated by comparing the survey findings with the recommendations of the NVL. Results In total, 1361 physical therapists (41 years of age (SD 11); 839 female, 514 male; 16 years of clinical experience (SD 10)) completed the survey. Fifty percent (n = 675) of our respondents adhered to the recommendations of the NVL on the therapeutic diagnostic process, and 72% (n = 973) to the recommendations concerning treatment. The guideline adherence across the entire management process (i.e., both diagnosis and treatment) of LBP was 38% (n = 513). German physical therapists predominantly provide active interventions, e.g., exercise therapy, but also use interventions with low or conflicting evidence, respectively. Massage and Kinesio Taping were frequently used despite being not recommended. Less than one third of study participants (n = 400, 29%) answered to know the NVL or had dealt with its recommendations. Conclusions In the management of LBP, overall guideline adherence among German physical therapists was 38% with higher adherence in the treatment section than in the physical therapeutic diagnostic process. Widespread employment of implementation strategies and removal of existing barriers against the application of evidence-based guidelines could facilitate the transfer of scientific evidence into clinical practice and contribute to optimize the quality of health care. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012607). Registered 04 October 2017

    Occupational risk factors for meniscal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    No full text
    Background!#!Meniscal lesions are common and are associated with the development of knee osteoarthritis. Knee-straining activities at work such as kneeling or squatting cause high biomechanical stresses on the knee joints that can lead to acute or chronic injuries. The objective of this systematic review is to update the evidence on the potential relationship between occupational risk factors and meniscal lesions.!##!Methods!#!We searched the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases until August 2021 to identify epidemiological observational studies on the association between occupational risk factors and meniscal lesions. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Effect measures were extracted from individual studies and pooled with random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted. We used GRADE (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to assess the overall quality of evidence.!##!Results!#!The database search resulted in 11,006 references, and 46 additional studies were identified through hand search. Twenty-two studies (represented in 25 publications) met the predefined eligibility criteria and nine records were included in the meta-analysis. There was only one study with an overall low risk of bias. Significant associations between occupational risk factors and the development of meniscal lesions were found for kneeling (effect size (ES) 2.15, 95% CI 1.67-2.76), squatting (ES 2.01, 95% CI 1.34-3.03), climbing stairs (ES 2.28, 95% CI 1.58-3.30), lifting and carrying weights ≥ 10 kg (ES 1.63, 95% CI 1.35-1.96), lifting and carrying weights ≥ 25 kg (ES 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.24), playing football on a professional level (ES 5.22, 95% CI 3.24-8.41), working as a hard coal miner (ES 5.23, 95% CI 2.16-12.69) and floor layers (ES 1.99, 95% CI 1.43-2.78). The overall quality of evidence according GRADE was moderate to low.!##!Conclusion!#!We found consistent evidence of an increased risk of meniscal lesions by occupational knee-straining exposures. Our findings are important for the development of preventive strategies to reduce work-related knee disorders and work absence.!##!Trial registration!#!PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42020196279 )

    Smartphone-assisted training with education for patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (SmArt-E): study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial

    No full text
    Abstract Introduction Hip and knee osteoarthritis are associated with functional limitations, pain and restrictions in quality of life and the ability to work. Furthermore, with growing prevalence, osteoarthritis is increasingly causing (in)direct costs. Guidelines recommend exercise therapy and education as primary treatment strategies. Available options for treatment based on physical activity promotion and lifestyle change are often insufficiently provided and used. In addition, the quality of current exercise programmes often does not meet the changing care needs of older people with comorbidities and exercise adherence is a challenge beyond personal physiotherapy. The main objective of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term (cost-)effectiveness of the SmArt-E programme in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain and physical functioning compared to usual care. Methods This study is designed as a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a target sample size of 330 patients. The intervention is based on the e-Exercise intervention from the Netherlands, consists of a training and education programme and is conducted as a blended care intervention over 12 months. We use an app to support independent training and the development of self-management skills. The primary and secondary hypotheses are that participants in the SmArt-E intervention will have less pain (numerical rating scale) and better physical functioning (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) compared to participants in the usual care group after 12 and 3 months. Other secondary outcomes are based on domains of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The study will be accompanied by a process evaluation. Discussion After a positive evaluation, SmArt-E can be offered in usual care, flexibly addressing different care situations. The desired sustainability and the support of the participants’ behavioural change are initiated via the app through audio-visual contact with their physiotherapists. Furthermore, the app supports the repetition and consolidation of learned training and educational content. For people with osteoarthritis, the new form of care with proven effectiveness can lead to a reduction in underuse and misuse of care as well as contribute to a reduction in (in)direct costs. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00028477. Registered on August 10, 2022
    corecore