Sionnadh McLean

Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics: A systematic review

Poor adherence to treatment can have negative effects on outcomes and healthcare cost. However, little is known about the barriers to treatment adherence within physiotherapy. The aim of this systematic review was to identify barriers to treatment adherence in patients typically managed in musculoskeletal physiotherapy outpatient settings and suggest strategies for reducing their impact. The review included twenty high quality studies investigating barriers to treatment adherence in musculoskeletal populations. There was strong evidence that poor treatment adherence was associated with low levels of physical activity at baseline or in previous weeks, low in-treatment adherence with exercise, low self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, helplessness, poor social support/activity, greater perceived number of barriers to exercise and increased pain levels during exercise. Strategies to overcome these barriers and improve adherence are considered. We found limited evidence for many factors and further high quality research is required to investigate the predictive validity of these potential barriers. Much of the available research has focussed on patient factors and additional research is required to investigate the barriers introduced by health professionals or health organisations, since these factors are also likely to influence patient adherence with treatment.

Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis

Objective To systematically review fully randomised patient preference trials and to explore the impact of preferences on attrition and outcome by meta-analysis of patient level data. Data sources Citation search using Science Citation Index and Google Scholar and search of the main electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and AMED) with a combination of key words. Study selection Fully randomised patient preference trials that compared treatments for any clinical condition were included. Other types of preference trials and crossover trials were excluded. Other inclusion criteria: participants aged 16 years and over; primary, self-reported outcomes measured on a continuous numerical scale. From 167 studies identified and screened, 17 were identified as fully randomised patient preference trials. Data synthesis Of the 17 trials identified, 11 authors provided raw data for the meta-analysis. Data collected were baseline and follow-up data for the main outcome, randomised allocation data, preference data, and demographic data. Baseline and first post-intervention follow-up data for the main outcome were standardised. To improve homogeneity, data for only the eight musculoskeletal trials (n=1594) were combined. To estimate the effects of preferences on outcomes and attrition, three groups were compared: patients who had a preference and were randomly allocated to their preferred treatment; patients who had a preference and were randomly allocated to the treatment they did not prefer; and patients who had no preference. Results Patients who were randomised to their preferred treatment had a standardised effect size greater than that of those who were indifferent to the treatment assignment (effect size 0.162, 95% confidence interval 0.011 to 0.314; P=0.04). Participants who received their preferred treatment also did better than participants who did not receive their preferred treatment (effect size 0.152, −0.035 to 0.339), although this was not statistically significant (P=0.11). Participants allocated to their undesired treatment had outcomes that were no different from those who were indifferent. Participants who were allocated to their undesired treatment were less likely to be lost to first follow-up compared with indifferent participants (odds ratio 1.70, 1.076 to 2.693; P=0.02). No difference was found in attrition between patients allocated to their preference and those who were indifferent. Conclusions Preferences among patients in musculoskeletal trials are associated with treatment effects. In open randomised trials, preferences should be ascertained before randomisation.

Interventions for enhancing adherence with physiotherapy: a systematic review

Poor adherence to treatment is commonplace and may adversely affect outcomes, efficiency and healthcare cost. The aim of this systematic review was to identify strategies to improve adherence with musculoskeletal outpatient treatment. Five suitable studies were identified which provided moderate evidence that a motivational cognitive-behavioural (CB) programme can improve attendance at exercise-based clinic sessions. There was conflicting evidence that adherence interventions increase short-term adherence with exercise. There was strong evidence that adherence strategies are not effective at improving long-term adherence with home exercise. Due to the multi-dimensional nature of non-adherence, the strategies to improve adherence with physiotherapy treatment are likely to be broad in spectrum. Combined interventions may be effective at promoting adherence with clinic appointments and exercise, though further research would be required to confirm this. Further research to increase basic understanding of the factors, which act as a barrier to adherence, could facilitate development of strategies to overcome non-adherence.

Risk factors for the onset of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

Objective Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, but little is known about which individuals develop neck pain. This systematic review investigated factors that constitute a risk for the onset of non-specific neck pain. Design and setting A range of electronic databases and reference sections of relevant articles were searched to identify appropriate articles. Studies investigating risk factors for the onset of non-specific neck pain in asymptomatic populations were included. All studies were prospective with at least 1 year follow-up. Main results 14 independent cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Thirteen studies were assessed as high quality. Female gender, older age, high job demands, low social/work support, being an ex-smoker, a history of low back disorders and a history of neck disorders were linked to the development of non-specific neck pain. Conclusions Various clinical and sociodemographic risk factors were identified that have implications for occupational health and health policy. However, there was a lack of good-quality research investigating the predictive nature of many other variables.

Is there a relationship between subacromial impingement syndrome and scapular orientation? A systematic review

Background Alterations in scapular orientation and dynamic control, specifically involving increased anterior tilt and downward rotation, are considered to play a substantial role in contributing to a subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS). Non-surgical intervention aims at restoring normal scapular posture. The research evidence supporting this practice is equivocal. Objective The aim of this study was to systematically review the relevant literature to examine whether a difference exists in scapular orientation between people without shoulder symptoms and those with SIS. Data sources MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus databases were searched using relevant search terms up to August 2013. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching the reference lists of pertinent articles. Review methods Of the 7445 abstracts identified, 18 were selected for further analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion, data extraction and quality, using a modified Downs and Black quality assessment tool. Results 10 trials were included in the review. Scapular position was determined through two-dimensional radiological measurements, 360° inclinometers and three-dimensional motion and tracking devices. The findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported patterns of reduced upward rotation, increased anterior tilting and medial rotation of the scapula. In contrast, others reported the opposite, and some identified no difference in motion when compared to asymptomatic controls. Conclusions The underlying aetiology of SIS is still debated. The results of this review demonstrated a lack of consistency of study methodologies and results. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support a clinical belief that the scapula adopts a common and consistent posture in SIS. This may reflect the complex, multifactorial nature of the syndrome. Additionally, it may be due to the methodological variations and shortfalls in the available research. It also raises the possibility that deviation from a ‘normal’ scapular position may not be contributory to SIS but part of normal variations. Further research is required to establish whether a common pattern exists in scapular kinematics in SIS patients or whether subgroups of patients with common patterns can be identified to guide management options. Non-surgical treatment involving rehabilitation of the scapula to an idealised normal posture is currently not supported by the available literature.

A randomised controlled trial comparing graded exercise treatment and usual physiotherapy for patients with non-specific neck pain (the GET UP neck pain trial)

Evidence supports exercise-based interventions for the management of neck pain, however there is little evidence of its superiority over usual physiotherapy. This study investigated the effectiveness of a group neck and upper limb exercise programme (GET) compared with usual physiotherapy (UP) for patients with non-specific neck pain. A total of 151 adult patients were randomised to either GET or UP. The primary measure was the Northwick Park Neck pain Questionnaire (NPQ) score at six weeks, six months and 12 months. Mixed modelling identified no difference in neck pain and function between patients receiving GET and those receiving UP at any follow-up time point. Both interventions resulted in modest significant and clinically important improvements on the NPQ score with a change score of around 9% between baseline and 12 months. Both GET and UP are appropriate clinical interventions for patients with non-specific neck pain, however preferences for treatment and targeted strategies to address barriers to adherence may need to be considered in order to maximise the effectiveness of these approaches.

Recommendations for exercise adherence measures in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review and consensus meeting (protocol)

BackgroundExercise programmes are frequently advocated for the management of musculoskeletal disorders; however, adherence is an important pre-requisite for their success. The assessment of exercise adherence requires the use of relevant and appropriate measures, but guidance for appropriate assessment does not exist. This research will identify and evaluate the quality and acceptability of all measures used to assess exercise adherence within a musculoskeletal setting, seeking to reach consensus for the most relevant and appropriate measures for application in research and/or clinical practice settings.Methods/designThere are two key stages to the proposed research. First, a systematic review of the quality and acceptability of measures used to assess exercise adherence in musculoskeletal disorders; second, a consensus meeting. The systematic review will be conducted in two phases and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure a robust methodology. Phase one will identify all measures that have been used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase two will seek to identify published and unpublished evidence of the measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Study quality will be assessed against the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A shortlist of best quality measures will be produced for consideration during stage two: a meeting of relevant stakeholders in the United Kingdom during which consensus on the most relevant and appropriate measures of exercise adherence for application in research and/or clinical practice settings will be sought.DiscussionThis study will benefit clinicians who seek to evaluate patients’ levels of exercise adherence and those intending to undertake research, service evaluation, or audit relating to exercise adherence in the musculoskeletal field. The findings will impact upon new research studies which aim to understand the factors that predict adherence with exercise and which test different adherence-enhancing interventions. PROSPERO reference: CRD42013006212

Prognostic factors for progressive non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

Abstract Neck pain is one of the four most commonly reported musculoskeletal disorders in the UK. Little is known about which individual neck pain sufferer goes on to have recurrent, persistent or disabling neck pain. The development and persistence of non-specific neck symptoms are thought to be related to multiple factors. This systematic review investigated the prognostic factors that may constitute a risk for recurrent, persistent or disabling problems in patients who suffer from non-specific neck pain. It included prospective studies with a minimum of 1-year follow-up period and excluded cross-sectional and case-control studies. Nine studies were included. Eight were assessed as high quality and one as lower quality. This review found strong evidence of unfavourable outcome associated with older age, a longer duration of the current episode of neck pain, a previous history of neck problems, co-existing shoulder problems and other musculoskeletal disorders. There was conflicting evidence that baseline measures of pain and disability predicted outcome. There was strong evidence that regular exercise predicted a good outcome. This evidence about prognostic indicators can guide clinicians to provide advice or treatment which may help to prevent persistent neck problems. There is an absence of high-quality research investigating the predictive nature of psychological and sociodemographic factors. This has implications for clinical practice and research alike.

Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review

Objective. To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field. Method. A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards. Results. Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure. Conclusion. The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable.

Physical activity promotion in physiotherapy practice: a systematic scoping review of a decade of literature

Background The health benefits of physical activity (PA) have been extensively documented. Globally PA levels are low with only a small proportion of the population reaching recommended levels. Insufficient PA is seen as a major public health problem with high cost to society. Physiotherapists work with people to manage long-term conditions and are well placed to deliver individual interventions to increase PA. Despite this, little is known about the evidence that exists in this field. Methods This scoping review comprises a comprehensive search of key databases using predetermined search terms. This is supplemented with a parallel search that incorporated novel social media strands. In line with current guidance, a robust screening process took place using agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. The number of studies published annually increased over the decade. Ireland and USA yielded the largest number of publications with only 1 study from the UK. The target populations included physiotherapists and service users from a range of clinical populations. The studies were mainly quantitative and observational in design with a predominance of studies that scoped attitudes, perceptions, barriers and current practice. Conclusions This reconnaissance has shown the state of the evidence to be sparse and disparate. However, the sharp rise in published work in recent years is encouraging. The predominance of scoping studies and the clear social, economic and political drivers for change in this area highlights a need for more pragmatic, interventional studies that can inform clinical practice.