Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Physiotherapists’ views on the Australian Physiotherapy Association’s Choosing Wisely recommendations: a content analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Choosing Wisely holds promise for increasing awareness of low-value care in physiotherapy. However, it is unclear how physiotherapists’ view Choosing Wisely recommendations. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiotherapists’ feedback on Choosing Wisely recommendations and investigate agreement with each recommendation.

          Setting

          The Australian Physiotherapy Association emailed a survey to all 20 029 physiotherapist members in 2015 seeking feedback on a list of Choosing Wisely recommendations.

          Participants

          A total of 9764 physiotherapists opened the email invitation (49%) and 543 completed the survey (response rate 5.6%). Participants were asked about the acceptability of the wording of recommendations using a closed (Yes/No) and free-text response option (section 1). Then using a similar response format, participants were asked whether they agreed with each Choosing Wisely recommendation (sections 2–6).

          Primary and secondary outcomes

          We performed a content analysis of free-text responses (primary outcome) and used descriptive statistics to report agreement and disagreement with each recommendation (secondary outcome).

          Results

          There were 872 free-text responses across the six sections. A total of 347 physiotherapists (63.9%) agreed with the ‘don’t’ style of wording. Agreement with recommendations ranged from 52.3% (electrotherapy for back pain) to 76.6% (validated decision rules for imaging). The content analysis revealed that physiotherapists felt that blanket rules were inappropriate (range across recommendations: 13.9%–30.1% of responses), clinical experience is more valuable than evidence (11.7%–28.3%) and recommendations would benefit from further refining or better defining key terms (7.3%–22.4%).

          Conclusions

          Although most physiotherapists agreed with both the style of wording for Choosing Wisely recommendations and with the recommendations, their feedback highlighted a number of areas of disagreement and suggestions for improvement. These findings will support the development of future recommendations and are the first step towards increasing the impact Choosing Wisely has on physiotherapy practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it.

          Statements like "quality of care is more highly valued than waiting time" can neither be supported nor refuted by comparisons of utility parameters from a traditional discrete choice experiment (DCE). Best--worst scaling can overcome this problem because it asks respondents to perform a different choice task. However, whilst the nature of the best--worst task is generally understood, there are a number of issues relating to the design and analysis of a best--worst choice experiment that require further exposition. This paper illustrates how to aggregate and analyse such data and using a quality of life pilot study demonstrates how richer insights can be drawn by the use of best--worst tasks.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            In search of professional consensus in defining and reducing low-value care.

            Care that confers no benefit or benefit that is disproportionately low compared with its cost is of low value and potentially wastes limited resources. It has been claimed that low-value care consumes at least 20% of health care resources in the United States - the comparable figure in Australia is unknown but there is emerging evidence of overuse of diagnostic tests and therapeutic procedures. Very few clinical interventions are of no value in every clinical circumstance, and efforts to label interventions as being so will meet with professional resistance. In the context of complex and highly individualised clinical decisions, nuanced clinical judgements of experienced and well informed clinicians are likely to outperform any service-level measurement and incentive program aimed at recognising and reducing low-value care. Public policy interventions should focus on supporting clinician-led efforts to seek professional consensus on what constitutes low-value care and the best means for reducing it.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Lumbar Traction for Managing Low Back Pain: A Survey of Physical Therapists in the United States

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                20 September 2019
                : 9
                : 9
                : e031360
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health , University of Sydney , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ] departmentMusculoskeletal Health Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Sydney , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ] departmentSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health , University of Sydney , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Joshua Zadro; joshua.zadro@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-2125
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8080-6359
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-031360
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031360
                6756333
                31542762
                08ed70e4-cd7e-40e6-bfe2-5bb5f25c7b24
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 30 April 2019
                : 07 August 2019
                : 12 September 2019
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research
                1506
                1724
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                physiotherapy,choosing wisely,low-value care,qualitative,content analysis
                Medicine
                physiotherapy, choosing wisely, low-value care, qualitative, content analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article