1. Independent prescribing by advanced physiotherapists for patients with low back pain in primary care: A feasibility trial with an embedded qualitative component
- Author
-
Tim Noblet, Amanda Hensman-Crook, Alison Rushton, Simon O’Shea, Sarah Friel, and John F. Marriott
- Subjects
Male ,Questionnaires ,Surveys ,0302 clinical medicine ,Quality of life ,Surveys and Questionnaires ,Health care ,Outcome Assessment, Health Care ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Medicine ,Public and Occupational Health ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Physiotherapy ,Multidisciplinary ,Focus Groups ,Middle Aged ,Low back pain ,Exercise Therapy ,Research Design ,Engineering and Technology ,Female ,Thematic analysis ,medicine.symptom ,Research Article ,Adult ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Adolescent ,Science ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Drug Prescriptions ,03 medical and health sciences ,Young Adult ,Humans ,Pain Management ,Medical prescription ,Primary Care ,Psychological and Psychosocial Issues ,Survey Research ,Primary Health Care ,business.industry ,Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ,Physical Activity ,Focus group ,Clinical trial ,Physical Therapists ,Health Care ,Physical therapy ,Quality of Life ,Feasibility Studies ,Electronics ,Accelerometers ,business ,Low Back Pain ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
Background Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition. Guidelines advocate a multimodal approach, including prescription of medications. Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioners (APPs) are well placed to manage LBP. To date no trial has evaluated the efficacy of physiotherapist-prescribing for LBP. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, suitability and acceptability of assessing the effectiveness of physiotherapist-prescribing for LBP in primary care; informing the design of a future definitive stepped-wedged cluster trial (SWcRCT). Methods Mixed-methods, single-arm feasibility design with two components. 1) Trial component: participants with medium-risk LBP +/-leg pain were recruited across 3 sites. Outcome measures (primary outcome measures-Pain/RMDQ) were completed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks Physical activity/sedentary behaviour were assessed over 7 days using accelerometery. A CONSORT diagram analysed recruitment/follow-up rates. Descriptive analysis evaluated procedure/floor-effects. 2) Embedded qualitative component: focus groups (n = 6) and semi-structured interviews (n = 3) evaluated the views/experiences of patients and APPs about feasibility/suitability/acceptability of the proposed trial. Thematic analysis synthesised the qualitative data. Findings were evaluated against a priori success criteria. Results n = 29 participants were recruited. 90% of success criteria were met. Loss to follow-up at 12 weeks (65.5%) did not satisfy success criteria. Primary and secondary outcome measures were suitable and acceptable with no floor effects. The addition of a sleep assessment tool was advised. Accelerometer use was acceptable with 100% adherence. APPs felt all patients presenting with non-specific LBP +/- leg pain and capture data representative of the full scope of physiotherapist independent prescribing should be included. Data collection methods were acceptable to APPs and patients. APPs advocated necessity for using research assistants owing to time limitations. Conclusions Methods evaluated are feasible, suitable and acceptable for a definitive SWcRCT, with modification of eligibility criteria, and use of research assistants to overcome limited clinician capacity. A definitive SWcRCT is feasible with minor modifications. Registration ISRCTN15516596.
- Published
- 2019