Musculoskeletal Care最新文献

Introduction: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine if after hip fracture surgery (1) early mobilisation is associated with improved clinical outcomes, and if so (2) are benefits directly proportional to how soon after surgery the patient mobilises.

Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review was conducted using four databases to identify all studies that compared postoperative early mobilisation with delayed mobilisation, in patients after hip fracture surgery. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was employed for critical appraisal and evaluation of all studies that met the inclusion criteria.

Results: A total of 13 studies, including 297,435 patients were identified, of which 235,275 patients were mobilised early and 62,160 were mobilised late. Six studies assessed 30-day mortality, of which two also investigated 30-day complication rates. Pooled meta-analysis demonstrated that there were significantly lower 30-day mortality rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.41, p < 0.001) and complication rates (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.36-0.51, p < 0.001) in patients mobilising early after hip fracture surgery. Five studies investigated length of stay (LOS) and meta-analysis revealed no difference between groups (mean difference -0.57 days, 95% CI -1.89-0.74, p = 0.39).

Conclusion: Early mobilisation in hip fracture patients is associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality and complication rates compared to delayed mobilisation, but no difference in LOS. These findings illustrate that early mobilisation is associated with superior post operative outcomes. However, a direct casual effect remains to be demonstrated, and further work on the factors underlying delayed mobilisation is required.

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend treatment by a physiotherapist for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. Despite this recommendation, research evidence supporting the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist is uncertain. While developing a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorders, we first aimed to understand current practice as a basis for defining usual care.

Methods: An online survey was developed based on a clinical vignette used in a previous survey exploring physiotherapy practice for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. UK-based physiotherapists were invited to complete the survey via X and email across professional networks.

Results: One Hundred Seventy complete responses were received. 167 (98%) respondents would offer advice/education to patients with shoulder rotator cuff disorders; 146 (86%) would use isotonic exercise (including concentric/eccentric strengthening); 20 (12%) would offer a corticosteroid injection; 7 (4%) would use joint mobilisation. 168/169 (99%) would offer in-person assessment; 115 (68%) expect to deliver treatment over three to four sessions. Fifty percent agreed there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment for patients with shoulder rotator cuff disorders. Seventy six percent agreed that patients with this condition can recover without physiotherapy intervention.

Conclusions: Exercise and advice remain the most common treatments offered by physiotherapists for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. Corticosteroid injections are infrequently considered. Uncertainty about the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist for shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder is evident.

Introduction: Globally, back pain is the leading cause of years of disability. In the United Kingdom, over 20 million people live with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, with low back pain being one of the most common causes. National strategies promote self-management and the use of digital technologies to empower populations.

Aims: To evaluate the uptake and impact of providing the SelfSTart approach (STarT Back and SelfBACK App) when delivered by a First Contact Physiotherapist (FCP) to people presenting with low back pain in primary care.

Methods: Patients presenting with a new episode of low back pain underwent routine assessment and completion of a STarT Back questionnaire. Patients with low/medium scores were offered the SelfBACK App. A control population was provided by the MIDAS-GP study. Patient Experience, outcome measures, healthcare utilisation and retention were captured through the app and clinical systems (EMIS). Interviews with five FCPs explored the experiences of using the SelfSTart approach.

Results: SelfSTarT was taken up by almost half (48%) of those to whom it was offered. Compared to MIDAS-GP, users were more likely to be younger, male, in work, and with higher health literacy. SelfSTarT users reported significant improved experiences relating to receiving an agreed care plan and receiving sufficient information. There were no significant differences in treatments offered. FCPs were positive about the app and felt it had value but wanted feedback on patient progress. They recognised that a digital solution would not be suitable for all.

Conclusion: This approach offers an opportunity to empower and support self-management, using robustly evaluated digital technology.

Background: Prior research demonstrated that people in the United States and Canada (Northern America) hold predominantly biomedical beliefs about Low back pain (LBP); such beliefs were attributed to healthcare professionals (HCP). Further investigation is needed to understand HCP' LBP beliefs, preferred management strategies, and sources of beliefs.

Methods: Participants were recruited via social media to complete a qualitative cross-sectional online survey. The survey was distributed to assess LBP beliefs in a U.S. and Canadian-based clinician population. Participants answered questions about the cause of LBP, reasons for recurrence or persistence, use of imaging, management strategies, and sources of beliefs. Responses were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.

Results: One hundred and sixty three participants were included, reporting multiple causes for LBP. However, many references were anchored to biological problems. When psychological variables were mentioned, it typically involved patient blaming. Like prior research studies, minimal attention was given to societal and environmental influences. Management strategies often aligned with guideline care except for the recommendation of inappropriate imaging and a reliance on passive interventions.

Conclusions: These findings align with prior research studies on general population beliefs, demonstrating a preference for biological causes of LBP. Further updates are needed for clinical education, while future studies should seek to assess the translation of clinician beliefs into clinical practice and health system constraints.

Introduction: Osteoarthritis is the commonest form of chronic joint pain, which patients often self-manage before seeking healthcare advice. Patients frequently seek advice from community pharmacies, and a recent policy has recommended integrating community pharmacies into long-term condition pathways. This study explored community pharmacy teams' (CPs) and other healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views on community pharmacies providing an extended role for osteoarthritis management, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to this.

Methods: A multi-methods study comprising surveys of CPs and other HCPs, followed by qualitative interviews. Descriptive statistics were used in an exploratory analysis of the survey data. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and the identified barriers and facilitators were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Result: CPs and other HCPs in the surveys and interviews reported that an extended role for osteoarthritis management could include: a subjective assessment, explaining the joint problem and its treatment, medication management and support for self-care. There was less consensus on diagnosing the problem as OA and completing an objective assessment. A key facilitator was training to deliver the role, whilst barriers were high workload and lack of access to General Practitioner medical records.

Discussion: Acceptable elements of an extended community pharmacy role for osteoarthritis centre around the provision of information, advice on medication and supported self-management.

Conclusion: CPs are well placed to contribute towards evidenced-based osteoarthritis management. Feasibility testing of delivering the extended role is needed and future implementation requires training for CPs and raising public awareness of the extended role.

Objectives: To explore the experiences of socio-culturally diverse community members attempting to manage their chronic pain and enact evidence-based management plans following an index Emergency Department (ED) visit.

Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design with qualitative interviews and descriptive analysis was undertaken in two public hospitals in a multicultural region in Sydney, Australia. Consecutive adults were recruited from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD: n = 45) or Australian-born (n = 45) backgrounds, who presented to the ED for a chronic neuromusculoskeletal pain condition. Consenting participants were prescribed an individualised chronic pain management plan following examination by a physiotherapist, who collected standardised measures of pain and health literacy. Six months later, participants underwent a structured phone survey regarding their pain status and whether they had actioned management plans. Participants were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview.

Results: Six-month data were available for 82 of 90 participants who attended the ED and consented to the baseline assessment (40 CALD and 42 Australian-born). Participants were 52% females, predominately middle-aged (mean age 54.7 years), with an overall mean symptom duration of 10 years (SD 9.0). At 6 months, there were nine representations by six CALD participants and 23 by nine Australian-born participants. Overall, 52% reported unchanged pain, 24% were worse and 23% improved, with similar action plan progress for CALD (58%) and Australian-born (53%) participants. Pain features and health literacy were similar, irrespective of progress with pain management plans. From 41 participants who consented to phone interviews, three themes emerged to explain their progress with recommendations: 'illness model', 'urgency' and 'control orientation'.

Conclusions: Patients presenting to the ED with chronic pain might be more likely to action discharge recommendations if primary care providers identify patient-specific and contextual barriers to implementation.