Search

Background: Choosing Wisely recommendations could reduce physical therapists' use of low-value care., Objective: To investigate whether language influences physical therapists' willingness to follow the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations., Design: Best-worst Scaling survey METHODS: The six original APA Choosing Wisely recommendations were modified based on four language characteristics (level of detail, strength- qualified/unqualified, framing, and alternatives to low-value care) to create 60 recommendations. Physical therapists were randomised to a block of seven choice tasks, which included four recommendations. Participants indicated which recommendation they were most and least willing to follow. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to create normalised (0=least preferred; 10=most preferred) and marginal preference scores., Results: 215 physical therapists (48.5% of 443 who started the survey) completed the survey. Participants' mean age (SD) was 38.7 (10.6) and 47.9% were female. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations with more detail (marginal preference score of 1.1) or that provided alternatives to low-value care (1.3) and less willing to follow recommendations with negative framing (-1.3). The use of qualified ('don't routinely') language (vs. unqualified - 'don't') did not affect willingness. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations to avoid imaging for non-specific low back pain (3.9) and electrotherapy for low back pain (3.8) vs. recommendation to avoid incentive spirometry after upper abdominal and cardiac surgery., Conclusion: Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations that provided more detail, alternatives to low-value care, and were positively framed. These findings can inform the development of future Choosing Wisely recommendations and could help reduce low-value physical therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Explore physiotherapists' attitudes, views, and beliefs towards the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations., Design: Qualitative interview study., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists who were registered to practise in Australia. We purposively recruited participants with different demographics, clinical backgrounds, and years of experience to achieve diversity in views and opinions. Interviews explored barriers and facilitators to adopting the APA's Choosing Wisely recommendations, and strategies to increase adoption. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically., Results: We interviewed 19 participants (79.2% of 26 who expressed interest to be interviewed). Mean (SD) age of participants was 33.4 (11.6), mean (SD) years of experience was 10 (11.4), 90% were male (n = 17) and 53% worked in private practice (n = 10). Most participants were slightly (42.1%, n = 8) or at least moderately familiar (42.1%, n = 8) with the recommendations. Barriers to adopting the recommendations included 1) clinicians' beliefs, experience, and knowledge, 2) patients' clinical presentation, their beliefs, and expectations, 3) workplace demands and culture, and 4) vague and restrictive language, and lack of awareness. Facilitators to adopting the recommendations included 1) physiotherapists' beliefs and practise patterns, 2) organisational support, and 3) clear and appropriate recommendations. Suggested strategies to increase adoption of the recommendations were 1) interventions targeting clinicians, 2) amendments to the recommendations and 3) increased awareness and access to the recommendations., Conclusion: These findings will inform the development and dissemination of future Choosing Wisely recommendations, and development of strategies to replace low-value physiotherapy with high-value physiotherapy., Level of Evidence: IV., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: No study to our knowledge has explored physical therapy utilization following lumbar spine surgery in a workers' compensation setting., Objectives: Describe physical therapy utilization and costs, and return-to-work status in patients following lumbar spine surgery under a workers' compensation claim., Methods: Using data from the New South Wales (NSW) State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Australia), we audited physical therapy billing codes for patients who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2017. We summarised, by fusion versus decompression, the number of physical therapy sessions patients received up to 12 months post-operatively, total cost of physical therapy and time to initiation of physical therapy. Number of physical therapy sessions and physical therapy utilization at 12 months were summarised by return-to-work status at 12 months., Results: We included 3524 patients (1220 had fusion; 2304 decompression). On average, patients received 22 ± 22 physical therapy sessions to 12 months post-operatively (mean cost=AU$1902, US$1217); 24% were receiving physical therapy at 12 months. Most had 9-24 (31%) or 25-50 sessions (25%); 11% had > 50 sessions, whereas 11% had no physical therapy. Patients who had fusion (compared to decompression) had more physical therapy and incurred higher physical therapy costs. Time post-surgery to initiate physical therapy increased from 2010 to 2017. Patients with > 50 sessions and still having physical therapy by 12 months were least likely to be working., Conclusions: For most patients, physical therapy utilization following lumbar spine surgery aligns with the best available evidence. However, some patients may be receiving too much physical therapy or initiating physical therapy too early., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding how much physiotherapy people receive before lumbar spine surgery could give insight into what people and clinicians consider an adequate trial of non-operative management. The aim of this study was to investigate physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery under a workers' compensation claim in New South Wales (NSW), Australia., Methods: Using data from the NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority, we audited physiotherapy billing codes used before surgery for people who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2018. We summarised, separately for fusion and decompression, the time from initiation of physiotherapy to surgery, number of physiotherapy sessions people received before surgery, total cost of physiotherapy before surgery, and time from injury date to initiation of physiotherapy. All analyses were descriptive., Results: We included 3070 people (800 had fusion, 2270 decompression). Mean age (standard deviation, SD) was similar between those who received fusion and decompression [42.9 (10.4) vs. 41.9 (11.6)]. Compared to people who had fusion, those who had decompression were more likely to not have any physiotherapy before surgery (28.4% vs. 15.4%), received physiotherapy for a shorter duration before surgery [median (interquartile range, IQR): 5 (3 to 11) vs. 15 (4-26) months], were less likely to have physiotherapy for ≥2 years before surgery (5.6% vs. 27.5%), had fewer physiotherapy sessions before surgery [mean (SD): 16 (21) vs. 28 (35) sessions], were less likely to have > 50 physiotherapy sessions before surgery (6.8% vs. 18.1%), and had lower total physiotherapy-related costs [mean (IQR): $1265 ($0-1808) vs. $2357 ($453-2947)]. Time from injury date to first physiotherapy session was similar between people who had fusion and decompression [median (IQR): 23 (9-66) vs.19 (7-53) days]., Conclusions: There is variation in physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery for people funded by NSW Workers' Compensation. Some people may not be receiving an adequate trial of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before decompression surgery. Others may be receiving an excessive amount of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before fusion.