A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11764-9
Susana Tinoco Duarte, Alexandre Moniz, Daniela Costa, Helena Donato, Bruno Heleno, Pedro Aguiar, Eduardo B Cruz
{"title":"A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare.","authors":"Susana Tinoco Duarte, Alexandre Moniz, Daniela Costa, Helena Donato, Bruno Heleno, Pedro Aguiar, Eduardo B Cruz","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11764-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11764-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.

Methods: MEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Results: Eleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.

Conclusions: The implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare.

Registration: Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).

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
关于初级医疗保健中腰背痛护理模式的实施过程和结果的范围研究。
背景:为了解决腰背痛(LBP)带来的社会负担,一些医疗系统已经采用了护理模式(MoCs)。这些以证据为依据的模式旨在实现一致的护理和结果。然而,现实世界中的应用情况各不相同,每种情况都给初级医疗保健领域带来了独特的挑战和细微差别。本范围综述旨在综合现有证据,说明在初级医疗保健中针对枸杞多糖症的医学模式中使用的实施理论、模式或框架、特定环境因素、实施策略和结果:方法:检索了 MEDLINE(Pubmed)、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、PEDro、Scopus、Web of Science 和灰色文献数据库。符合条件的记录包括初级医疗保健机构为患有枸杞痛的成人提供的医疗记录。两名审稿人独立提取了患者相关、系统相关和实施相关结果的数据。此外,还提取了实施过程,包括指导理论、模型或框架、实施障碍和促进因素以及实施策略。通过描述性定性内容分析对数据进行分析,并通过定量和定性方法对数据进行综合:结果:共纳入 11 个月度指标(n = 29 项研究)。通过定量、定性和混合方法对 6 个月度指标的实施结果进行了评估。可接受性和适宜性是报告最多的结果。只有 5 项世界标准报告了基本理论、模型或框架。有 3 个国家协调机制确定了影响实施的特定环境因素。常见的策略包括培训提供者、编写教材和改变记录系统。值得注意的是,只有一家医疗机构包含了结构化的多方面实施策略,并与患者、组织和实施结果的评估相一致:结论:没有充分报告医疗变革措施的实施过程和结果,也缺乏足够的理论支持。因此,由于所采用的战略与结果不一致,无法得出实施成功与否的结论。本研究强调,在基层医疗机构制定和实施枸杞多糖血症管理方法时,需要理论指导:开放科学框架注册表 ( https://osf.io/rsd8x )。
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
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Patient satisfaction survey in a public hospital: Remera Rukoma District Hospital, Rwanda, 2023. The impact of reform of medical insurance payment method on medical service pricing-based on empirical analysis of matched medical finance comprehensive data. Implementation and sustainability of systems change for mental health promotion and substance misuse prevention: a qualitative study. Male partner involvement in delivery care service and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Costs of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy compared to conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer - a micro-costing study using Time-Driven Activity Based Costing (TDABC).
×
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