Feasibility of interdisciplinary evaluation in non-arthritic hip pain: A randomized trial

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103154
Sarah Depp , Lindsey Brown , Catherine Quatman-Yates , Randi Foraker , Emily S. Patterson , W. Kelton Vasileff , Stephanie Di Stasi
{"title":"Feasibility of interdisciplinary evaluation in non-arthritic hip pain: A randomized trial","authors":"Sarah Depp ,&nbsp;Lindsey Brown ,&nbsp;Catherine Quatman-Yates ,&nbsp;Randi Foraker ,&nbsp;Emily S. Patterson ,&nbsp;W. Kelton Vasileff ,&nbsp;Stephanie Di Stasi","doi":"10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Physical therapy and orthopaedic surgery are two common treatments for non-arthritic hip pain. Interdisciplinary evaluation across these disciplines may produce a more supportive treatment-planning process; however, the feasibility of such an evaluation remains unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Hypothesis Objective</h3><p>To assess the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation with an orthopaedic surgeon and physical therapist for non-arthritic hip pain.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Observational feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were randomized to an interdisciplinary (surgeon + physical therapist) or standard (surgeon) evaluation in a hip preservation clinic. Recruitment rate was recorded. Retention rate was calculated for all variables of interest. Enrollment and refusal reasons were recorded as patient quotes and categorized by a single grader. Time spent in clinic was compared across groups using Mann Whitney U tests (P ≤ 0.05). Study clinicians were interviewed, and responses were categorized based on pre-determined themes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eighty-one percent of eligible patients enrolled over a 15-month recruitment period. Willingness(n = 16), urgency to resolve pain(n = 10), financial compensation(n = 1), interest in research(n = 42), physical therapy(n = 6), or multiple-provider care(n = 15) were participants’ enrollment reasons; reason was not recorded for 22 participants. Time(n = 11), preference for single-provider care(n = 6), current physical therapy treatment(n = 1), and disinterest in physical therapy(n = 7) or research(n = 2) were refusal reasons of patients who did not enroll. Retention for primary variables of interest was 100% in both groups. Participants spent, on average, 23.5 min more time in clinic for the interdisciplinary evaluation compared to the standard (P &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>An interdisciplinary evaluation for patients with non-arthritic hip pain that included a physical therapist and orthopaedic surgeon in a hip preservation clinic was feasible and may better inform the treatment planning process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56036,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","volume":"73 ","pages":"Article 103154"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468781224002492/pdfft?md5=80371b8cca4cb6ccd5f8fe4474b1720a&pid=1-s2.0-S2468781224002492-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468781224002492","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Physical therapy and orthopaedic surgery are two common treatments for non-arthritic hip pain. Interdisciplinary evaluation across these disciplines may produce a more supportive treatment-planning process; however, the feasibility of such an evaluation remains unknown.

Hypothesis Objective

To assess the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation with an orthopaedic surgeon and physical therapist for non-arthritic hip pain.

Study design

Observational feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Participants were randomized to an interdisciplinary (surgeon + physical therapist) or standard (surgeon) evaluation in a hip preservation clinic. Recruitment rate was recorded. Retention rate was calculated for all variables of interest. Enrollment and refusal reasons were recorded as patient quotes and categorized by a single grader. Time spent in clinic was compared across groups using Mann Whitney U tests (P ≤ 0.05). Study clinicians were interviewed, and responses were categorized based on pre-determined themes.

Results

Eighty-one percent of eligible patients enrolled over a 15-month recruitment period. Willingness(n = 16), urgency to resolve pain(n = 10), financial compensation(n = 1), interest in research(n = 42), physical therapy(n = 6), or multiple-provider care(n = 15) were participants’ enrollment reasons; reason was not recorded for 22 participants. Time(n = 11), preference for single-provider care(n = 6), current physical therapy treatment(n = 1), and disinterest in physical therapy(n = 7) or research(n = 2) were refusal reasons of patients who did not enroll. Retention for primary variables of interest was 100% in both groups. Participants spent, on average, 23.5 min more time in clinic for the interdisciplinary evaluation compared to the standard (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

An interdisciplinary evaluation for patients with non-arthritic hip pain that included a physical therapist and orthopaedic surgeon in a hip preservation clinic was feasible and may better inform the treatment planning process.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对非关节炎性髋关节疼痛进行跨学科评估的可行性:随机试验
背景:物理治疗和矫形外科手术是治疗非关节炎性髋关节疼痛的两种常见方法。这些学科之间的跨学科评估可能会产生更有支持性的治疗规划过程;然而,这种评估的可行性仍是未知数:研究设计:研究设计:随机对照试验的观察性可行性研究:参与者在髋关节保护诊所随机接受跨学科(外科医生+理疗师)或标准(外科医生)评估。记录招募率。计算所有相关变量的保留率。入组和拒绝入组的原因以患者报价的形式记录,并由一名评分员进行分类。使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验(P ≤ 0.05)比较各组在诊所花费的时间。研究人员对临床医生进行了访谈,并根据预先确定的主题对回答进行了分类:在为期 15 个月的招募期间,81% 的合格患者加入了研究。意愿(16 人)、解决疼痛的迫切性(10 人)、经济补偿(1 人)、对研究的兴趣(42 人)、物理治疗(6 人)或多方医疗机构护理(15 人)是参与者的注册原因;22 名参与者的原因未记录。时间(11 人)、对单个医疗机构护理的偏好(6 人)、当前的物理治疗(1 人)、对物理治疗(7 人)或研究(2 人)不感兴趣是未注册患者拒绝注册的原因。两组主要相关变量的保留率均为 100%。与标准评估相比,参加者在门诊接受跨学科评估的时间平均多出 23.5 分钟(P 结论:跨学科评估是一种有效的治疗方法:在保髋门诊中对非关节炎性髋关节疼痛患者进行包括理疗师和骨科医生在内的跨学科评估是可行的,并能更好地为治疗规划过程提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
152
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, international journal of musculoskeletal physiotherapy, is a peer-reviewed international journal (previously Manual Therapy), publishing high quality original research, review and Masterclass articles that contribute to improving the clinical understanding of appropriate care processes for musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes articles that influence or add to the body of evidence on diagnostic and therapeutic processes, patient centered care, guidelines for musculoskeletal therapeutics and theoretical models that support developments in assessment, diagnosis, clinical reasoning and interventions.
期刊最新文献
The effectiveness of education for people with shoulder pain: A systematic review. Defining core competencies for telehealth in healthcare higher education: A Delphi study. Effects of a smartphone game to facilitate active neck movements on the incidence of neck pain among office workers: A 6-month cluster-randomized controlled trial. Validity and reliability of the Danish version of the Short Form Brief Pain Inventory. The prognostic reasoning by physiotherapists of musculoskeletal disorders: A phenomenological exploratory study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1