6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

      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

          Background

          Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations.

          Methods

          The design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making.

          Results

          GPs screened 3063 patients (intervention = 1591, control = 1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (interventio n = 513, control = 724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (interventio n = 231, control = 293). Recruitment took 28 weeks (target 12 weeks) with > 90% follow-up retention (target > 75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved “complete success”.

          Conclusions

          A future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments.

          Trial registration

          Name of the registry: ISRCTN. Trial registration number: 15366334.

          Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Single Item Literacy Screener: Evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability

          Background Reading skills are important for accessing health information, using health care services, managing one's health and achieving desirable health outcomes. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS) to identify limited reading ability, one component of health literacy, as measured by the S-TOFHLA. Methods Cross-sectional interview with 999 adults with diabetes residing in Vermont and bordering states. Participants were randomly recruited from Primary Care practices in the Vermont Diabetes Information System June 2003 – December 2004. The main outcome was limited reading ability. The primary predictor was the SILS. Results Of the 999 persons screened, 169 (17%) had limited reading ability. The sensitivity of the SILS in detecting limited reading ability was 54% [95% CI: 47%, 61%] and the specificity was 83% [95% CI: 81%, 86%] with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (ROC) of 0.73 [95% CI: 0.69, 0.78]. Seven hundred seventy (77%) screened negative on the SILS and 692 of these subjects had adequate reading skills (negative predictive value = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.88, 0.92]). Of the 229 who scored positive on the SILS, 92 had limited reading ability (positive predictive value = 0.4 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.47]). Conclusion The SILS is a simple instrument designed to identify patients with limited reading ability who need help reading health-related materials. The SILS performs moderately well at ruling out limited reading ability in adults and allows providers to target additional assessment of health literacy skills to those most in need. Further study of the use of the SILS in clinical settings and with more diverse populations is warranted.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence

            Background & aims Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care. Methods A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach. Results Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options. Conclusion This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review.

              Estimating the future course of musculoskeletal pain is an important consideration in the primary care consultation for patients and healthcare professionals. Studies of prognostic indicators tend to have been viewed in relation to each site separately, however, an alternative view is that some prognostic indicators may be common across different sites of musculoskeletal pain. To identify generic prognostic indicators for patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care. Systematic review. Observational cohort studies in primary care. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2006. Inclusion criteria were that the study was a primary care-based cohort, published in English and contained information on prognostic indicators for musculoskeletal conditions. Forty-five studies were included. Eleven factors, assessed at baseline, were found to be associated with poor outcome at follow up for at least two different regional pain complaints: higher pain severity at baseline, longer pain duration, multiple-site pain, previous pain episodes, anxiety and/or depression, higher somatic perceptions and/or distress, adverse coping strategies, low social support, older age, higher baseline disability, and greater movement restriction. Despite substantial heterogeneity in the design and analysis of original studies, this review has identified potential generic prognostic indicators that may be useful when assessing any regional musculoskeletal pain complaint. However, Its unclear whether these indicators, used alone, or in combination, can correctly estimate the likely course of individual patients' problems. Further research is needed, particularly in peripheral joint pain and using assessment methods feasible for routine practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                j.hill@keele.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2296
                11 February 2020
                11 February 2020
                2020
                : 21
                : 30
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.9757.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0415 6205, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, , Keele University, ; Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.9757.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0415 6205, Keele Clinical Trials Unit, School for Primary, Community and Social Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, , Keele University, ; Newcastle, UK
                Article
                1074
                10.1186/s12875-019-1074-9
                7014664
                32046647
                57fa1004-a2c1-4e99-8da0-84ed9153076a
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 October 2019
                : 23 December 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-1211-20010
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                musculoskeletal pain,stratified care,prognosis,primary care,general practice
                Medicine
                musculoskeletal pain, stratified care, prognosis, primary care, general practice

                Comments

                Comment on this article