Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BMJ - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to BMJ - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Sep 7;11(9):e053004. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053004

Single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Simon Lafrance 1,2,✉, Carlo Santaguida 3, Kadija Perreault 4,5, Brenna Bath 6,7, Kednapa Thavorn 8,9, Debbie Feldman 1,10, Luc J Hébert 5, Julio Fernandes 11,12, François Desmeules 1,2
PMCID: PMC8424421  PMID: 34493525

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain treated conservatively in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care.

Methods and analysis

In this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, 152 older adults (≥65 years old) with neck or back pain initially referred for a consultation in neurosurgery, but treated conservatively, will be recruited through the advanced practice physiotherapy neurosurgery CareAxis programme in the Montreal region (Quebec, Canada). In the CareAxis programme, older patients with spinal pain are triaged by an advance practice physiotherapist and are offered conservative care and only potential surgical candidates are referred to a neurosurgeon. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms: 1—a single session or 2—multiple sessions (6 sessions over 12 weeks) of education and exercise with the advance practice physiotherapist (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Pain Inventory (pain severity and interference subscales). Secondary measures will include self-reported disability (the Neck Disability Index or Oswestry Disability Index), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, satisfaction with care questionnaires (9-item Visit-specific Satisfaction Questionnaire and MedRisk), and the EQ-5D-5L. Participants’ healthcare resources use and related costs will be measured. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after enrolment. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed, and repeated mixed-model analysis of variance will assess differences between treatment arms. Cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Comité d’éthique de la recherche du CIUSS de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (FWA00001935 and IRB00002087). Results of this study will be presented to different stakeholders, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

Protocol version

V.4 August 2021.

Trial registration number

NCT04868591; Pre-results.

Keywords: rehabilitation medicine, health economics, musculoskeletal disorders, organisation of health services

Strengths and limitations of this study.

  • This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will provide new data on the clinical and economic effectiveness of two advanced practice physiotherapy approaches.

  • This trial has been developed in collaboration with a non-profit organisation named CareAxis that implemented a neurosurgery advanced practice physiotherapy model of care in the greater Montreal area in Quebec, Canada.

  • Patients will not be blinded to treatment allocation as the nature of the intervention makes blinding impossible.

  • Although this trial will compare two therapeutic approaches in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care, it does not include a usual medical care control group of participants referred directly to neurosurgeons.

Introduction

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs) are the most common cause of long-term pain and physical disability, and they affect hundreds of millions of people around the world.1 In Canada, the prevalence of MSKDs has increased by more than 25% in the last 10 years and healthcare costs of MSKDs now exceed $22.3 billion per year.2 Among MSKDs, spinal pain is highly prevalent with worldwide estimated point prevalence of 5% and 12% for neck and low back pain, respectively.3 4 The management of neck and low back pain can be complex and costly.5–8 Although the majority of patients with spinal pain can be managed effectively in primary care, a relatively large number of patients will still be referred to specialists such as orthopaedic surgeons or neurosurgeons for further assessment and specialised care.9 Access to specialised care has been especially problematic in the last few decades and there has been a consistent increase in the number of referrals to these two specialties.10 With the ageing of the Canadian population and the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of referrals is expected to increase, leading to longer wait times.9 11–14 Evidence shows that longer wait time before seeing a neurosurgeon leads to poorer outcomes in patients with spinal pain.15 Additionally, the majority of referrals for neurosurgery are ultimately not treated surgically and, instead, are offered conservative medical care by the treating surgeons and often referred to physiotherapy.16 17

New models of care to improve access and efficiency of care for adults with spinal pain are needed. The use of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) models of care where physiotherapists with an advanced clinical training assess, triage and conservatively treat patients with MSKDs has been proposed as a potential solution to alleviate the growing demand for specialised medical care.18–23 For adults with spinal pain, APP models of care in the UK, Ireland, Canada, USA, Sweden, and Australia result in comparable pain and disability improvement.24–26 However, APP models of care have the potential to significantly improve healthcare access by reducing waiting time for initial consultation while maintaining high levels of satisfaction among stakeholders and patients.16 17 26–33

In terms of rehabilitation interventions, advanced practice physiotherapists (APPTs) often provide physiotherapy care such as education and exercises to patients with spinal pain, as it is well recognised that patients with neck or low back disorders benefit from these therapeutic interventions.34 35 Education may include reassurance, advice to stay active, minimise bed rest as well as pain management strategies addressing pain neurophysiology;34–37 while exercise prescription may include strengthening, neuromuscular control, endurance and functional exercises, stretching, preferential pain-related mobilisations and/or aerobic training.34 35 38 Several authors also report that rehabilitation should also include strategies to promote adherence to the rehabilitation.39 Although it could be argued that more rehabilitation may potentially further improve outcomes for patients with MSKDs,40 little is known about what are the most effective approaches and delivery methods for rehabilitation interventions such as education and exercise.38 Some authors report that traditional clinic-based rehabilitation is superior to home-based rehabilitation for chronic conditions,41 42 while others report no significant differences between these two approaches.43–45 Therefore, the exact types of therapeutic treatment and related dosage for physiotherapy care that include education and exercise prescriptions remain unclear, especially in the context of an APP model of care for adults referred to neurosurgery for spinal pain.

The aim of this pragmatic randomised controlled trial is to evaluate at 6, 12 and 24 weeks the clinical effectiveness in terms of patient-centred outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of a single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain treated conservatively in an APP neurosurgery model of care.

Methods

Study design

This study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial parallel group with cost-effectiveness analyses. The current protocol is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. This trial will use a pragmatic approach within an existing APP model of care in neurosurgery. Therefore, the rehabilitation intervention in both treatment arms will be offered as they are provided in their current clinical reality (see figure 1 for flow chart).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart. APP, advanced practice physiotherapy; CRDS, Centre de répartition des demandes de service.

Setting and participants

This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will be performed within the CareAxis neurosurgery APP model of care. In 2019, CareAxis, a non-profit organisation, developed and implemented an APP model of care for older patients (65 years and older) with spinal pain referred to neurosurgery in the province of Quebec (Canada). The model was developed in partnership with the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The aim of this model is to reduce wait time to consult a neurosurgeon, more efficiently triage surgical candidates, and improve conservative and rehabilitation care for patients referred to the programme. The current model of care involves a group of trained APPTs, who assess and triage potential surgical candidates, recommend medical care (medication or injection), provide education and prescribe a self-management exercise programme. This is systematically offered to all patients in a 1-hour session. Only patients deemed surgical candidates are then referred to see the neurosurgeon. The programme is funded through health charities and is offered at no costs to older adults with a referral from a family physician.

This study will take place in physiotherapy clinics (n=9) associated with the CareAxis group in Quebec, Canada. Eligible participants will be recruited when referred to the CareAxis model of care, either directly through family physicians or from the Centre de répartition des demandes de service de Montréal—the centralised intake system for specialist referrals (including neurosurgery) from primary care in Montreal, Quebec. The eligibility criteria in the current trial are based on the intended clientele to be cared by the APPT within this model of care, representing our pragmatic approach to the definition of our sample. Eligibility criteria: (1) adults consulting for a neck or back condition; (2) aged 65 years old or older; (3) referred for a consultation in neurosurgery to the CareAxis group, either directly by family physicians or from the Centre de répartition des demandes de service de Montréal and (4) not considered as a potential surgical candidate based on the initial APPT assessment. Participants referred for a specialist consultation or for an injection, but who are not considered as a potential surgical candidate by the APPT, are eligible to participate in the trial. For patients who decline participation in the project, demographic data, such as age, gender and duration of symptoms, will be collected to calculate participation proportions and establish comparison between participants and non-participants.

Randomisation

All eligible and consenting patients will be randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either the single session APP arm (no additional care) or the multiple sessions APP arm (five additional sessions with the APPT). A randomisation list will be generated prior to the initiation of the study using an online random number generator. A blocked randomisation will be performed with block sizes of 4, 6 or 8. Randomisation will be stratified for the affected body region (neck or back) and with respect to gender. Allocation will be concealed in opaque and sealed envelopes that will be sequentially numbered. The randomisation procedure will be performed by an independent research assistant not involved in other aspects of the current trial. The randomisation will occur before the APPT provides any intervention.

Interventions

Participants will initially consult an APPT of the CareAxis group. In a 1-hour consultation, the APPT will assess and triage surgical candidates, recommend medical care (medication or injection), as well as provide education and prescribe a self-management exercise programme aimed at impairments and functional limitations identified during the initial assessment. Participants randomised to the single session arm will not receive additional care by the APPT while those randomised to the multiple sessions arm will receive five additional consultations with the APPT within a 12-week period. During the follow-up visits, the APPT will reassess the participants, provide further education and recommendations, review and modify the home exercise programme and may provide other rehabilitation interventions. Since this is a pragmatic trial, the interventions in both treatment arms will be offered as they are provided in their current clinical reality and will not be standardised. Information regarding rehabilitation intervention will be systematically recorded and will be presented in detail in the following publications. Patients will be allowed to take their usual medication and these data will be systematically collected through a diary. Information on other co-interventions during follow-up will also be collected.

Data collection

Data collection will take place at baseline and at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after the initial evaluation. Prior to being randomised and seen by the APPT, eligible participants will answer a questionnaire regarding sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, gender, education level, household income and living status. Information on clinical variables such as anthropometric data, affected body area (neck or low back), reason for consultation, duration of symptoms and presence of any comorbidities such as arthritis, high blood pressure and diabetes will also be documented. The STarT Back Screening Tool and a modified version for neck pain will be used to evaluate prognosis.46 47 All data collection will be done through the CareAxis web data collection portal already in use for clinical follow-up of patients and with the Centre de Recherche de l’Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont REDCap data collection portal. Both web platforms use Transport Layer Security encryption to secure data.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), short form, pain severity scale and pain interference scale. The BPI is a self-reported questionnaire. The pain severity scale includes four numerical pain rating questions (0–10) related to worst, least, average and current pain intensity, while the pain interference scale includes seven numerical rating questions (0–10) related to the impact of pain on various functional activities. The BPI is valid, reliable and responsive to change in populations with MSKDs, including patients with spinal pain.48–51

The secondary outcome measures will include other validated, reliable and responsive to change self-reported questionnaires. Depending on the affected body region, participants will complete the Neck Disability Index for neck-related disorder52 or the Oswestry Disability Index for back-related disorder.53 Pain catastrophising will be assessed through the Pain Catastrophizing Scale.54 55 To assess satisfaction with received care, patients will be asked to complete a modified validated version of the 9-item Visit-specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9) after the initial assessment.17 19 56 To assess satisfaction following the interventions and follow-up, participants will be asked to complete the MedRisk which was developed to measure patient satisfaction with rehabilitation care.57 EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS will be used to measured health-related quality of life.58 59 The investigators will also collect healthcare resource use, including medical consultations, diagnostic tests, medication, injections, rehabilitation and surgery using a self-reported questionnaire. Occurrence of any adverse events will be questioned at each time point.

Based on their initial assessment, the APPTs will complete a standardised form, indicating their diagnosis, suggestion for additional medical imaging or laboratory tests (if relevant), treatment plan (eg, conservative treatment options, medication, injections or physiotherapy care) and referral to other specialists, if relevant. For the multiple sessions arm, APPTs will document patients’ progress, change in the exercise plan and all treatments provided.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics will be used to present the participants’ characteristics. Participants withdrawing from the study and reasons for withdrawal will be analysed. Characteristics of participants and non-participants will be compared. Baseline demographic data will be compared across groups to establish the comparability across intervention arms. If important differences are observed, statistical models will be adjusted accordingly. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all outcome measures at the different measurement times. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. As secondary analyses, the proportion of responders (percentage of participant with a clinically important response) and the number needed to treat for the two groups will be calculated. Furthermore, per-protocol analyses will also be performed. Primary analyses will include all participants regardless of the involved region (neck and back). Stratified analyses (per region and sex/gender) will also be reported as secondary analyses. Missing data will be handled with multiple data imputation. A repeated mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to determine whether outcomes differ between treatment arms across time points. Separate analyses will be conducted on each of the primary and secondary outcomes. In particular, if a difference (interaction) between groups is detected (p<0.05), individual effects will be examined. Sphericity will be tested with Mauchly’s test.60 If sphericity is rejected (variances of the difference are not equal), correction will be used to determine if repeated measures ANOVA test is statistically significant. If epsilon >0.75, the Huynh-Feldt correction will be used and if epsilon ≤0.75, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction will be used.61 Differences in proportions of adverse events, co-interventions (medication, injections or any other treatment), satisfaction scores (VSQ-9 at initial assessment and MedRisk at 12 weeks) between treatment arms will be calculated using Χ2 tests or Student’s t-tests. Alpha levels will be set at 0.05. All analyses will be carried out using the SPSS software (IBM Corp Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V.26.0) and the Excel software (Microsoft Corporation. 2018. Microsoft Excel for Windows).

Economic evaluation

A cost-utility analysis comparing both arms will be conducted. The analysis will be from the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system. Secondary analyses including publicly and privately healthcare system costs will also be performed. Costs and outcomes will be assessed within the follow-up period of the trial. Data on services used and the efficacy of each approach will be obtained from the concurrent trial. Health utility value will be derived from the EQ-5D-5L using the Canadian validated algorithm.62 Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) will be estimated using the total area under the curve method.63 Unit costs for each healthcare resource, such as physician visits, hospitalisations, medications and emergency department visits, will be obtained from Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. Costs will be expressed in 2021 Canadian dollars.

Results of the cost-utility analysis will be presented as incremental cost per QALY gained. The statistical analysis will be conducted in accordance with current guidelines for a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside randomised controlled trials.64 65 The incremental cost and incremental outcome will be estimated using generalised estimating equations with appropriate links and distributions to account for repeated nature of the trial data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be obtained through the difference in the mean costs of the two approaches divided by the difference in the mean value of QALYs for the two arms as denoted by the coefficient of the intervention indicator variables. Uncertainty in the analysis will be addressed by estimating 95% CIs using a non-parametric bootstrapping method. For this study, 10 000 estimates of costs and outcomes will be obtained for both arms. Results from the bootstrapping exercise will also be used to show cost-effectiveness acceptability curves,66 which represent the probability of each APP approach being cost-effective over a range of willingness to pay values that the health system may be willing to pay for an additional unit of QALY. A series of sensitivity analyses will be undertaken to examine the robustness of the trial findings. For example, we will examine the effects of conducting a complete case-only analysis and of varying costs of APPTs.

Sample size calculation

The sample size required is based on the primary outcome measure, the BPI short form. The BPI interference scale and the severity scale have estimated minimum clinically important difference of 1 point.67–70 To estimate the SD, we used the mean SD at 3-month to 6-month follow-up in three studies using the BPI in adults with spinal pain.69 71 72 The estimated SDs are, respectively, 2.03 and 2 for the BPI interference and severity scales. The considered parameters are 0.05 for a type I error (α) with a power of 0.80 (1−β). For an ANOVA two-sided, the sample size required is 76 participants per group for the BPI interference (74 for the BPI severity). This sample also accounts for a potential 15% loss to follow-up at 6 months. The total sample will be 152 participants and will provide adequate power. Sample size calculation was performed with the Excel software using the sample size formula as described by Zhong.73

Patient and public involvement

The CareAxis steering committee involves one patient with chronic low back pain who is seeking physiotherapy care. This patient has been involved in decision-making with the CareAxis organisation, notably to develop the APP model of care for older adults with back and neck pain. This patient expresses the potential need for patients to receive additional physiotherapy care. This patient will not be involved in the recruitment of participants nor in the analysis of the results but will comment the manuscript and potential implications.

Protocol amendments

Protocol amendments will be described in the final manuscript and will be detailed on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Comité d’éthique de la recherche du CIUSS de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (FWA00001935 and IRB00002087).

Consent

Detailed information about the nature and objectives of the research project and regarding the experimental procedures will be provided to all participants before the signature of the information and consent form. Participants will need to sign the information and consent form before enrolment in the current trial. The information and consent form is available in online supplemental material.

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2021-053004supp001.pdf (121.8KB, pdf)

Confidentiality

All research team members will respect patients’ data confidentiality, in agreement with current regulations. Patients’ names will be coded to keep their identity confidential. The key to the code linking their name to their research file will be kept by the principal investigator of this research project in a password-protected file. All information collected during the study, including test results, will be treated as anonymous. It will not be possible to identify patients in the coming publications. Deidentified individual participant data that underlie the results reported in the primary study manuscript will be made accessible.

Dissemination

This project will use the Canadian Institute of Health Research’s integrated approach to research and knowledge translation based on the knowledge to action framework.74 Results of this study will be presented to the different stakeholder groups such as members of the CareAxis group and of the department of neurosurgery at the Montreal Neurological Hospital. Other usual means of dissemination will include communications in international conferences and in scientific publications in peer-reviewed medical journals in the field of neurosurgery, rehabilitation or health service organisation.

This is the first study to compare two therapeutic approaches in an APP model of care comparing single and multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain. This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will provide key data on the clinical effectiveness and economic efficiency of these approaches. Evidence-based development of APP models of care has the potential to profoundly impact access and quality of care for Canadians and may alleviate increasing healthcare demands in an efficient manner.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments
bmjopen-2021-053004.reviewer_comments.pdf (408.9KB, pdf)
Author's manuscript
bmjopen-2021-053004.draft_revisions.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)

Footnotes

Twitter: @simon_lafrance

Contributors: SL contributed to study design and preparation of the procedures and data collection and he will conduct the recruitment of participants, perform data analyses and the interpretation and writing of the manuscripts. CS, KP, BB, DF, LJH and JF contributed to study design and will contribute to data interpretation and reviewing and editing the manuscripts. KT contributed to study design and preparation of the procedures and will oversee the conduct and the interpretation of the economic data and reviewing and editing the manuscripts. FD led study design, the preparation of the procedures and will supervise overall data collection and interpretation and writing and reviewing of the manuscripts.

Funding: The project is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through a catalyst grant (DC0190GP). FD is an FRQS junior 2 scholar. SL is supported by doctoral scholarships from the Fondation de l’Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, the Réseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation (REPAR) and the Fonds Léopold-Renaud of Société inclusive.

Competing interests: CS declares being the Chief Medical Officer for CareAxis, a non-profit organisation involving an APP model of care for adults with spinal pain, and being a consultant for Medtronic and for Stryker, two medical devices and technology firms.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not required.

References

  • 1.Woolf AD, Erwin J, March L. The need to address the burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2012;26:183–224. 10.1016/j.berh.2012.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Coyte PC, Asche CV, Croxford R, et al. The economic cost of musculoskeletal disorders in Canada. Arthritis Care Res 1998;11:315–25. 10.1002/art.1790110503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2028–37. 10.1002/art.34347 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:968–74. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Borghouts JAJ, Koes BW, Vondeling H, et al. Cost-Of-Illness of neck pain in the Netherlands in 1996. Pain 1999;80:629–36. 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00268-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 2008;8:8–20. 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study of back pain in the Netherlands. Pain 1995;62:233–40. 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00272-G [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wieser S, Horisberger B, Schmidhauser S, et al. Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005. Eur J Health Econ 2011;12:455–67. 10.1007/s10198-010-0258-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Barua B, Moir M. Waiting your turn: wait times for health care in Canada 2020 report. Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Barua B, Esmail N. Waiting your turn: wait times for health care in Canada 2013 report; 2013.
  • 11.Barua B, Palacios M, Emes J. The sustainability of health care spending in Canada 2017 Fraser Institute; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dall TM, Gallo PD, Chakrabarti R, et al. An aging population and growing disease burden will require a large and specialized health care workforce by 2025. Health Aff 2013;32:2013–20. 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Denton FT, Spencer BG. Chronic health conditions: changing prevalence in an aging population and some implications for the delivery of health care services. Can J Aging 2010;29:11–21. 10.1017/S0714980809990390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Clauw DJ, Häuser W, Cohen SP, et al. Considering the potential for an increase in chronic pain after the COVID-19 pandemic. Pain 2020;161:1694–7. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Braybrooke J, Ahn H, Gallant A, et al. The impact of surgical wait time on patient-based outcomes in posterior lumbar spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1832–9. 10.1007/s00586-007-0452-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Booth R. An advanced practice physiotherapy spine triage service for adults with neck and back pain: a feasibility study 2019.
  • 17.Robarts S, Stratford P, Kennedy D, et al. Evaluation of an advanced-practice physiotherapist in triaging patients with lumbar spine pain: surgeon-physiotherapist level of agreement and patient satisfaction. Can J Surg 2017;60:266–72. 10.1503/cjs.013416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Desmeules F, Roy J-S, MacDermid JC, et al. Advanced practice physiotherapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012;13:107. 10.1186/1471-2474-13-107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Desmeules F, Toliopoulos P, Roy J-S, et al. Validation of an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care in an orthopaedic outpatient clinic. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:162. 10.1186/1471-2474-14-162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Harding P, Prescott J, Sayer J, et al. Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy clinical education framework supporting an emerging new workforce. Aust Health Rev 2015;39:271–82. 10.1071/AH14208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chang AT, Gavaghan B, O'Leary S, et al. Do patients discharged from advanced practice physiotherapy-led clinics re-present to specialist medical services? Aust Health Rev 2018;42:334–9. 10.1071/AH16222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Saxon RL, Gray MA, Oprescu FI. Extended roles for allied health professionals: an updated systematic review of the evidence. J Multidiscip Healthc 2014;7:479–88. 10.2147/JMDH.S66746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stanhope J, Grimmer-Somers K, Milanese S, et al. Extended scope physiotherapy roles for orthopedic outpatients: an update systematic review of the literature. J Multidiscip Healthc 2012;5:37–45. 10.2147/JMDH.S28891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Daker-White G, Carr AJ, Harvey I, et al. A randomised controlled trial. shifting boundaries of doctors and physiotherapists in orthopaedic outpatient departments. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:643–50. 10.1136/jech.53.10.643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Samsson KS, Larsson MEH. Physiotherapy triage assessment of patients referred for orthopaedic consultation - Long-term follow-up of health-related quality of life, pain-related disability and sick leave. Man Ther 2015;20:38–45. 10.1016/j.math.2014.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lafrance S, Lapalme J-G, Méquignon M, et al. Advanced practice physiotherapy for adults with spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2021;30:1–14. 10.1007/s00586-020-06648-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Blackburn MS, Cowan SM, Cary B, et al. Physiotherapy-led triage clinic for low back pain. Aust Health Rev 2009;33:663–70. 10.1071/AH090663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Curley AE, Cassells M, Cooke G. Physiotherapy-led low back pain triage: results of the first two years. Physiotherapy Ireland 2004;25:3–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Heywood JW. Specialist physiotherapists in orthopaedic triage--the results of a military spinal triage clinic. J R Army Med Corps 2005;151:152–6. 10.1136/jramc-151-03-04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Murphy S, Blake C, Power CK, et al. The role of clinical specialist physiotherapists in the management of low back pain in a spinal triage clinic. Ir J Med Sci 2013;182:643–50. 10.1007/s11845-013-0945-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wood L, Hendrick P, Boszczyk B, et al. A review of the surgical conversion rate and independent management of spinal extended scope practitioners in a secondary care setting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016;98:187–91. 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Samsson KS, Bernhardsson S, Larsson MEH. Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016;17:257. 10.1186/s12891-016-1112-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bath B, Janzen B. Patient and referring health care provider satisfaction with a physiotherapy spinal triage assessment service. J Multidiscip Healthc 2012;5:1–15. 10.2147/JMDH.S26375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Blanpied PR, Gross AR, Elliott JM. Neck pain: revision 2017: clinical practice guidelines linked to the International classification of functioning, disability and health from the orthopaedic section of the American physical therapy association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47:A1–83. 10.2519/jospt.2017.0302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Oliveira CB, Maher CG, Pinto RZ, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J 2018;27:2791–803. 10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Louw A, Diener I, Butler DS, et al. The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92:2041–56. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.07.198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Moseley GL, Nicholas MK, Hodges PW. A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain 2004;20:324–30. 10.1097/00002508-200409000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.van Tulder MW, Malmivaara A, Esmail R. Exercise therapy for low‐back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Alexandre NMC, Nordin M, Hiebert R, et al. Predictors of compliance with short-term treatment among patients with back pain. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2002;12:86–95. 10.1590/S1020-49892002000800003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nikander R, Mälkiä E, Parkkari J, et al. Dose-Response relationship of specific training to reduce chronic neck pain and disability. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006;38:2068–74. 10.1249/01.mss.0000229105.16274.4b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Deyle GD, Allison SC, Matekel RL, et al. Physical therapy treatment effectiveness for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized comparison of supervised clinical exercise and manual therapy procedures versus a home exercise program. Phys Ther 2005;85:1301–17. 10.1093/ptj/85.12.1301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Holmgren T, Öberg B, Sjöberg I, et al. Supervised strengthening exercises versus home-based movement exercises after arthroscopic acromioplasty: a randomized clinical trial. J Rehabil Med 2012;44:12–18. 10.2340/16501977-0889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Johansson A-C, Linton SJ, Bergkvist L, et al. Clinic-Based training in comparison to home-based training after first-time lumbar disc surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2009;18:398–409. 10.1007/s00586-008-0826-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kramer JF, Speechley M, Bourne R, et al. Comparison of clinic- and home-based rehabilitation programs after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;410:225–34. 10.1097/01.blo.0000063600.67412.11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ben Salah Frih Z, Fendri Y, Jellad A, et al. Efficacy and treatment compliance of a home-based rehabilitation programme for chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2009;52:485–96. 10.1016/j.rehab.2009.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, et al. A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:632–41. 10.1002/art.23563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hill JC, Whitehurst DGT, Lewis M, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (start back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378:1560–71. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9–19. 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kapstad H, Rokne B, Stavem K. Psychometric properties of the brief pain inventory among patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total hip replacement surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:148. 10.1186/1477-7525-8-148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Keller S, Bann CM, Dodd SL, et al. Validity of the brief pain inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain 2004;20:309–18. 10.1097/00002508-200409000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lapane KL, Quilliam BJ, Benson C, et al. One, two, or three? constructs of the brief pain inventory among patients with non-cancer pain in the outpatient setting. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014;47:325–33. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.03.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, et al. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39:400–12. 10.2519/jospt.2009.2930 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine 2000;25:2940–53. 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess 1995;7:524–32. 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Osman A, Barrios FX, Kopper BA, et al. Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the pain Catastrophizing scale. J Behav Med 1997;20:589–605. 10.1023/A:1025570508954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kennedy DM, Robarts S, Woodhouse L. Patients are satisfied with advanced practice physiotherapists in a role traditionally performed by orthopaedic surgeons. Physiother Can 2010;62:298–305. 10.3138/physio.62.4.298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Beattie P, Turner C, Dowda M, et al. The MedRisk instrument for measuring patient satisfaction with physical therapy care: a psychometric analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005;35:24–32. 10.2519/jospt.2005.35.1.24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wahlberg M, Zingmark M, Stenberg G, et al. Rasch analysis of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in persons with back and neck pain receiving physiotherapy in a primary care context. Eur J Physiother 2021;23:102–9. 10.1080/21679169.2019.1646801 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mauchly JW. Significance Test for Sphericity of a Normal $n$-Variate Distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1940;11:204–9. 10.1214/aoms/1177731915 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Verma J. Repeated measures design for empirical researchers. John Wiley & Sons, 2015: 84. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. A time Trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care 2016;54:98–105. 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. 10.1002/hec.944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lee KM, McCarron E, Bryan S, Coyle D, Krahn M, McCabe C. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Canada: Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779–87. 10.1002/hec.635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105–21. 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Krebs EE, Bair MJ, Damush TM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of pain outcome measures among primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Med Care 2010;48:1007–14. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181eaf835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Krebs EE, Gravely A, Nugent S, et al. Effect of opioid vs nonopioid medications on pain-related function in patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain: the space randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;319:872–82. 10.1001/jama.2018.0899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mease PJ, Spaeth M, Clauw DJ, et al. Estimation of minimum clinically important difference for pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:821–6. 10.1002/acr.20449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Archer KR, Devin CJ, Vanston SW, et al. Cognitive-Behavioral-Based physical therapy for patients with chronic pain undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Pain 2016;17:76–89. 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.09.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Lang E, Liebig K, Kastner S, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus usual care for chronic low back pain in the community: effects on quality of life. Spine J 2003;3:270–6. 10.1016/S1529-9430(03)00028-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Zhong B. How to calculate sample size in randomized controlled trial? J Thorac Dis 2009;1:51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a MAP? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006;26:13–24. 10.1002/chp.47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2021-053004supp001.pdf (121.8KB, pdf)

Reviewer comments
bmjopen-2021-053004.reviewer_comments.pdf (408.9KB, pdf)
Author's manuscript
bmjopen-2021-053004.draft_revisions.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)

Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES