Developing a core competency and capability framework for advanced practice physiotherapy: A qualitative study

Introduction: There is an urgent need to develop an international competency and capability framework to support standardization of education and roles in advanced practice physiotherapy (APP). This need arose due to the rapid growth of the APP model of care, implemented out of necessity in the absence of agreement as to the competencies and capabilities or formal education required for the roles. This study explores the views and perceptions of practitioners and key stakeholders on a draft competency and capability framework for advanced practice physiotherapists. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to: 1) gather feedback from key stakeholders (advanced practice physiotherapists, researchers, and leaders) on a draft competency and capability framework and 2) use that feedback to revise and improve the draft framework. Design: Qualitative study using a series of four multi-national online focus groups. Thematic analysis was conducted according to Braun and Clarke. Results: Sixteen participants from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand participated in the study. Five themes were generated after data analysis: clinical expert, experienced communicator, strong leader, collaborator, and knowledge creator). A modified competency and capability framework was developed based on feedback from the focus groups and input from subject matter experts (SMEs). Conclusion: This study provides a modified core competency and capability framework comprising 24 competencies grouped under six domains. This study is a step toward international standardization of advanced practice physiotherapy based on a commonly agreed framework for the education and training of advanced practice physiotherapists

“None of us are lying”: an interpretive description of the search for legitimacy and the journey to access quality health services by individuals living with Long COVID

Abstract Background Understanding of Long COVID has advanced through patient-led initiatives. However, research about barriers to accessing Long COVID services is limited. This study aimed to better understand the need for, access to, and quality of, Long COVID services. We explored health needs and experiences of services, including ability of services to address needs. Methods Our study was informed by the Levesque et al.’s (2013) “conceptual framework of access to health care.” We used Interpretive Description, a qualitative approach partly aimed at informing clinical decisions. We recruited participants across five settings. Participants engaged in one-time, semi-structured, virtual interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. We used reflexive thematic analysis. Best practice to ensure methodological rigour was employed. Results Three key themes were generated from 56 interviews. The first theme illustrated the rollercoaster-like nature of participants’ Long COVID symptoms and the resulting impact on function and health. The second theme highlighted participants’ attempts to access Long COVID services. Guidance received from healthcare professionals and self-advocacy impacted initial access. When navigating Long COVID services within the broader system, participants encountered barriers to access around stigma; appointment logistics; testing and ‘normal’ results; and financial precarity and affordability of services. The third theme illuminated common factors participants liked and disliked about Long COVID services. We framed each sub-theme as the key lesson (stemming from all likes and dislikes) that, if acted upon, the health system can use to improve the quality of Long COVID services. This provides tangible ways to improve the system based directly on what we heard from participants. Conclusion With Long COVID services continuously evolving, our findings can inform decision makers within the health system to better understand the lived experiences of Long COVID and tailor services and policies appropriately

Advanced practice in physiotherapy: a global survey

Introduction: Advanced practice in physiotherapy represents a development in the practice of physiotherapy and has developed in different ways around the world. There is growing evidence to support advanced physiotherapy practice. In May 2019, the member organisations adopted the first World Physiotherapy policy on advanced practice in physiotherapy. However, to date, there is no evidence on the nature and extent of this practice globally. Objectives: To investigate the extent to which advanced practice is present within the global physiotherapy community, to document the titles used, to describe the pathway to become an advanced physiotherapy practitioner and to investigate the barriers and facilitators to the development of the roles. Design: An online cross-sectional survey was sent to the various national associations of the World Physiotherapy. Participants: Participants were the member organisations of World Physiotherapy. Instrument: The survey comprised 14 questions. The questions were developed based on a review of the evidence around advanced practice and in-depth discussions with the expert group set up by World Physiotherapy. Results: A total of 82/112 MOs responded to the survey representing a 73% response rate. Fourteen respondents (14/82, 17%) indicated that they had formal roles in their country/territory. The terms specialist and advanced physiotherapy practitioner were often used interchangeably and were a source of confusion. Seventy-nine (11/14, 79%) percent stated that most advanced physiotherapy practitioners have a combination of clinical practice and a Master's or Doctoral degree. The major facilitators to the development and sustainability of the role were the research evidence, advocacy by the professional organisation, the need to reduce cost and the support received by the advanced physiotherapy practitioners from their employers. Conclusion: The outcomes of this study provide a clearer understanding of how member organisations of World Physiotherapy defined advanced practice in physiotherapy and what titles are used. It provides insights into the barriers and facilitators to the development of advanced practice in physiotherapy

Additional file 1 of “None of us are lying”: an interpretive description of the search for legitimacy and the journey to access quality health services by individuals living with Long COVID

Additional file 1: Appendix A. Participant self-identified cultural or ethic background

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of PBT2 in Huntington's disease: A phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: PBT2 is a metal protein-attenuating compound that might reduce metal-induced aggregation of mutant huntingtin and has prolonged survival in a mouse model of Huntington's disease. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of PBT2 in patients with Huntington's disease. Methods: In this 26-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults ( ≥ 25 years old ) with early-stage to mid-stage Huntington's disease were randomly assigned ( 1:1:1 ) by a centralised interactive response system to once daily PBT2 250 mg, PBT2 100 mg, or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by site with a block size of three. Participants, carers, the steering committee, site investigators, study staff, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. The safety population consisted of all participants who were randomly assigned and had at least one dose of study drug. The principal secondary endpoint was cognition, measured by the change from baseline to week 26 in the main composite Z score of five cognitive tests ( Category Fluency Test, Trail Making Test Part B, Map Search, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, and Stroop Word Reading Test ) and scores on eight individual cognitive tests ( the five aforementioned plus the Trail Making Test Part A, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Speeded Tapping Test ). The intention-to-treat population comprised participants who were randomly assigned and had at least one efficacy assessment after administration of study drug. This trial is registered with [http://clinicaltrials.gov/] ClinicalTrials.gov, [http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01590888] NCT01590888. Findings: Between April 18, 2012, and Dec 14, 2012, 109 participants were randomly assigned to PBT2 250 mg ( n=36 ), PBT2 100 mg ( n=38 ), or placebo ( n=35 ) at 19 research centres in Australia and the USA. 32 ( 89% ) individuals on PBT2 250 mg, 38 ( 100% ) on PBT2 100 mg, and 34 ( 97% ) on placebo completed the study. Six serious adverse events ( acute coronary syndrome, major depression, pneumonia, suicide attempt, viral infection, and worsening of Huntington's disease ) occurred in five participants in the PBT2 250 mg group, three ( fall with subdural haematoma, suicide attempt, and hospital admission for stabilisation of Huntington's disease ) occurred in two participants in the PBT2 100 mg group, and one ( increasing aggression ) occurred in a participant in the placebo group. The site investigators deemed all, except the worsening of Huntington's disease, as unrelated to study drug. 32 ( 89% ) participants on PBT2 250 mg, 30 ( 79% ) on PBT2 100 mg, and 28 ( 80% ) on placebo had at least one adverse event. Compared with placebo, neither PBT2 100 mg ( least-squares mean 0·02, 95% CI −0·10 to 0·14; p=0·772 ) nor PBT2 250 mg ( 0·07, −0·05 to 0·20; p=0·240 ) significantly improved the main composite cognition Zscore between baseline and 26 weeks. Compared with placebo, the Trail Making Test Part B score was improved between baseline and 26 weeks in the PBT2 250 mg group ( 17·65 s, 0·65–34·65; p=0·042 ) but not in the 100 mg group ( 0·79 s improvement, −15·75 to 17·32; p=0·925 ); neither dose significantly improved cognition on the other tests. Interpretation: PBT2 was generally safe and well tolerated in patients with Huntington's disease. The potential benefit on executive function will need to be confirmed in a larger study. Funding: Prana Biotechnology Limited

Clinical-Genetic Associations in the Prospective Huntington at Risk Observational Study (PHAROS): Implications for Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Identifying measures that are associated with the cytosine-adenine-guanine (CAG) expansion in individuals before diagnosis of Huntington disease (HD) has implications for designing clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify the earliest features associated with the motor diagnosis of HD in the Prospective Huntington at Risk Observational Study (PHAROS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study was conducted at 43 US and Canadian Huntington Study Group research sites from July 9, 1999, through December 17, 2009. Participants included 983 unaffected adults at risk for HD who had chosen to remain unaware of their mutation status. Baseline comparability between CAG expansion (≥37 repeats) and nonexpansion (\u3c37 \u3erepeats) groups was assessed. All participants and investigators were blinded to individual CAG analysis. A repeated-measures analysis adjusting for age and sex was used to assess the divergence of the linear trend between the expanded and nonexpanded groups. Data were analyzed from April 27, 2010, to September 3, 2013. EXPOSURE: Huntington disease mutation status in individuals with CAG expansion vs without CAG expansion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Unified Huntington\u27s Disease Rating Scale motor (score range, 0-124; higher scores indicate greater impairment), cognitive (symbol digits modality is the total number of correct responses in 90 seconds; lower scores indicate greater impairment), behavioral (score range, 0-176; higher scores indicate greater behavioral symptoms), and functional (Total Functional Capacity score range, 0-13; lower scores indicate reduced functional ability) domains were assessed at baseline and every 9 months up to a maximum of 10 years. RESULTS: Among the 983 research participants at risk for HD in the longitudinal cohort, 345 (35.1%) carried the CAG expansion and 638 (64.9%) did not. The mean (SD) duration of follow-up was 5.8 (3.0) years. At baseline, participants with expansions had more impaired motor (3.0 [4.2] vs 1.9 [2.8]; P \u3c .001), cognitive (P \u3c .05 for all measures except Verbal Fluency, P = .52), and behavioral domain scores (9.4 [11.4] vs 6.5 [8.5]; P \u3c .001) but not significantly different measures of functional capacity (12.9 [0.3] vs 13.0 [0.2]; P = .23). With findings reported as mean slope (95% CI), in the longitudinal analyses, participants with CAG expansions showed significant worsening in motor (0.84 [0.73 to 0.95] vs 0.03 [-0.05 to 0.11]), cognitive (-0.54 [-0.67 to -0.40] vs 0.22 [0.12 to 0.32]), and functional (-0.08 [-0.09 to -0.06] vs -0.01 [-0.02 to 0]) measures compared with those without expansion (P \u3c .001 for all); behavioral domain scores did not diverge significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using these prospectively accrued clinical data, relatively large treatment effects would be required to mount a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving premanifest HD individuals who carry the CAG expansion