Direct triaging to physiotherapist in primary care - development and evaluation of a triage model

Background: There is evidence that early contact with physiotherapists leads to advantages for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Many patients, however, initially seek contact with general practitioners (GPs) within primary care for musculoskeletal disorders. This often delays or replaces physiotherapist contact. Management interventions which ensure that appropriate patients are initially examined by physiotherapists may lead to advantages for patients, the healthcare system and the community. Aim: The general aim for this thesis was to develop a triage model for primary care with focus on musculoskeletal disorders and evaluate its effects on patients’ health and attitudes as well as on its effects for other relevant stake-holders. Methods: Paper I is a descriptive study examining the development process of the triage model and its effects on access and efficiency at a primary healthcare centre. Paper II is a case-control study which compares the utilization of medical services between patients with musculoskeletal disorders, who were triaged directly to physiotherapist for initial assessment and treatment, and similar patients who were initially assessed by a GP. Paper III is based on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and evaluates the effects of direct triaging to physiotherapist on patients’ health and attitudes. Paper IV is a cost-effectiveness assessment, which compares the costs in relation to health effects for patients who have been triaged directly to physiotherapists, and is based on the same RCT as Paper III. Results: The triage model led to increased access, more efficient use of the personnel, greater patient satisfaction and a better work environment compared with the traditional primary care management model which was employed earlier. Patients who were triaged directly to physiotherapists utilized significantly fewer medical services during the following year compared to patients with initial contact with GPs in the retrospective study. Various health aspects, such as progression of pain, function and risk for chronicity, showed common tendencies to better values for the group initially assessed by physiotherapists in the RCT, and health-related quality of life was significantly improved. It is unclear how patient attitudes of responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders were affected by triaging to physiotherapists. The cost-efficiency assessment favoured triaging to physiotherapists over traditional management, showing greater health gains at lower costs from a societal perspective. Conclusions: Many positive effects of triaging directly to physiotherapists in primary care were found for patients, the healthcare organization and society. The studies in this thesis contribute to a small but growing bank of knowledge about the advantages of using physiotherapists as initial assessors in primary care. The triage model studied here seems to offer a feasible alternative to traditional management of musculoskeletal disorders within primary care

Development and feasibility of a function-based preventive intervention for lifestyle-related disorders

Abstract Background The enormous effect of lifestyle-related disorders on health of the global population warrants the development of preventive interventions. Focusing on musculoskeletal health and physical activity may be a way to encourage necessary lifestyle changes by making them more concrete and understandable. The aims of the current study were to develop a function-based preventive intervention aimed at lifestyle-related disorders in physically inactive 40-year-old people and to investigate the feasibility of the intervention. The feasibility study aimed to solve practical and logistical challenges and to develop the intervention based on the experiences of participants and involved clinical personnel according to defined criteria. Methods Development of the standardised functional examination was based on literature-validated tests and clinical reasoning. Development of a risk profile was based on the functional examination and similar profiles which have already proved feasible. The feasibility of the functional examination and risk profile, together with function-based lifestyle counselling was tested on 27 participants in a pilot study with two physiotherapist examinations over a four-month period. Practical results and feedback from participants and collaborating personnel were examined. Results The functional examination consists of 20 established tests not requiring specialised equipment or training which were deemed relevant for a middle-aged population and a sub-maximal ergometer test. The risk profile consists of seven functional dimensions: cardiovascular fitness, strength in upper extremity, lower extremity and trunk, mobility, balance and posture, and three non-functional dimensions: weight, self-assessed physical activity and pain. Each dimension contains at least two measures. The participants appreciated the intervention and found it motivating for making lifestyle changes. They found the tests and risk profile understandable and could see them as tools to help achieve concrete goals. The examination required 60–75 min for one physiotherapist. The recruitment rate was low and recruited participants were highly motivated to making lifestyle changes. Conclusion This project developed a functional test battery and risk profile aimed at inactive 40-year-olds which fulfilled our feasibility criteria. Functional screening and lifestyle counselling were found to be of value to a sub-group of inactive 40-year-olds who were already motivated to improve their health situations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05535296 first posted on 10/09/2022

Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23-62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624

Additional file 1 of Development and feasibility of a function-based preventive intervention for lifestyle-related disorders

Supplementary Material

Flow diagram of literature searches and search results.

Flow diagram of literature searches and search results.</p

PRISMA checklist.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div

pone.0283013.t001 - Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review

pone.0283013.t001 - Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review</p

Cut-offs for strength of agreement.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div

Search strategy and results.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div

QUADAS-2 risk of bias assessment of included studies reporting validity.

QUADAS-2 risk of bias assessment of included studies reporting validity.</p