3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cost-Effectiveness and Outcomes of Direct Access to Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders Compared to Physician-First Access in the United States: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      1 , 1 , 1
      Physical Therapy
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Objective

          Direct access to physical therapy provides an alternative to physician-first systems for patients who need physical therapy for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Direct access across multiple countries and the United States (US) military services has produced improved functional outcomes and/or cost-effectiveness at clinical and health care system levels; however, data remain scarce from civilian health care systems within the United States. The purpose of this study was to compare evidence regarding costs and clinical outcomes between direct access and physician-first systems in US civilian health services.

          Methods

          A database search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Reviews, and PEDro was conducted through May 2019. Studies were selected if they specified civilian US, physical therapy for MSDs, direct access or physician-first, and extractable outcomes for cost, function, or number of physical therapy visits. Studies were excluded if interventions utilized early or delayed physical therapy access compared with physician-first. Five retrospective studies met the criteria. Means and standard deviations for functional outcomes, cost, and number of visits were extracted, converted to effect sizes (d) and 95% CI, and combined into grand effect sizes using fixed-effect or random-effects models depending on significance of the Q heterogeneity statistic.

          Results

          Direct access to physical therapy showed reduced physical therapy costs (d = −0.23; 95% CI = −0.35 to −0.11), total health care costs (d = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.32 to −0.07), and number of physical therapy visits (d = −0.17; 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.05) compared to physician-first systems. Disability decreased in both direct access (d = −1.78; 95% CI = −2.28 to −1.29) and physician-first (d = −0.89; 95% CI = −0.92 to −0.85) groups; functional outcome improved significantly more with direct access (z score = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.40 to 1.39).

          Conclusions

          Direct access to physical therapy is more cost-effective, resulting in fewer visits than physician-first access in the United States, with greater functional improvement.

          Impact

          These findings within civilian US health care services support a cost-effective health care access alternative for spine-related MSDs and can inform health care policy makers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Introduction to Meta-Analysis

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

            Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

            Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Implications of early and guideline adherent physical therapy for low back pain on utilization and costs

              Background Initial management decisions following a new episode of low back pain (LBP) are thought to have profound implications for health care utilization and costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of early and guideline adherent physical therapy for low back pain on utilization and costs within the Military Health System (MHS). Methods Patients presenting to a primary care setting with a new complaint of LBP from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 were identified from the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool. Descriptive statistics, utilization, and costs were examined on the basis of timing of referral to physical therapy and adherence to practice guidelines over a 2-year period. Utilization outcomes (advanced imaging, lumbar injections or surgery, and opioid use) were compared using adjusted odds ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Total LBP-related health care costs over the 2-year follow-up were compared using linear regression models. Results 753,450 eligible patients with a primary care visit for LBP between 18–60 years of age were considered. Physical therapy was utilized by 16.3% (n = 122,723) of patients, with 24.0% (n = 17,175) of those receiving early physical therapy that was adherent to recommendations for active treatment. Early referral to guideline adherent physical therapy was associated with significantly lower utilization for all outcomes and 60% lower total LBP-related costs. Conclusions The potential for cost savings in the MHS from early guideline adherent physical therapy may be substantial. These results also extend the findings from similar studies in civilian settings by demonstrating an association between early guideline adherent care and utilization and costs in a single payer health system. Future research is necessary to examine which patients with LBP benefit early physical therapy and determine strategies for providing early guideline adherent care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0830-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Physical Therapy
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0031-9023
                1538-6724
                January 2021
                January 04 2021
                January 2021
                January 04 2021
                November 27 2020
                : 101
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, University California, San Francisco/San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA
                Article
                10.1093/ptj/pzaa201
                33245117
                cc370466-5649-4630-add6-e51c2e6aee65
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article