Nadine E Foster’s research while affiliated with Royal Brisbane Hospital and other places

Background Delegation of clinical tasks from physiotherapists to physiotherapy support workers is common yet varies considerably in musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapy services, leading to variation in patient care. This study aimed to explore patients’ preferences and estimate specific trade-offs patients are willing to make in treatment choices when treated in musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapy services. Methods A discrete choice experiment was conducted using an efficient design with 16 choice scenarios, divided into two blocks. Adult patients with musculoskeletal conditions recruited from a physiotherapy service completed a cross-sectional, online questionnaire. Choice data analyses were conducted using a multinomial logit model. The marginal rate of substitution for waiting time to first follow-up physiotherapy appointment and distance from the physiotherapy clinic was calculated and a probability model was built to estimate the probability of choosing between two distinct physiotherapy service options under different scenarios. Results 382 patient questionnaires were completed; 302 participants were treated by physiotherapists and 80 by physiotherapists and support workers. There was a significant preference to be seen by a physiotherapist, have more follow-up treatments, to wait less time for the first follow-up appointment, to be seen one-to-one, to see the same clinician, to travel a shorter distance to get to the clinic and to go to clinics with ample parking. Participants treated by support workers did not have a significant preference to be seen by a physiotherapist and it was more likely that they would choose to be seen by a support worker for clinic scenarios where the characteristics of the physiotherapy service were as good or better. Conclusions Findings highlight that patients treated by support workers are likely to choose to be treated by support workers again if the other service characteristics are as good or better compared to a service where treatment is provided only by physiotherapists. Findings have implications for the design of physiotherapy services to enhance patient experience when patients are treated by support workers. The findings will contribute to the development of “best practice” recommendations to guide physiotherapists in delegating clinical work to physiotherapy support workers for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Aim People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from non-surgical treatments. However, NICE (UK) guidelines recommended not offering surgery for adults with LBP except within a randomised clinical trial (RCT). This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views regarding equipoise for randomisation of participants in a future RCT comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (the FORENSIC-UK trial). Method An online cross-sectional survey was shared with clinical professional groups in the UK involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had 7 sections covering the respondents' demographics, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future RCTs. Results There were 73 respondents (potential response rate of 9.13%) comprising 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, 2 pain specialists and 15 allied health professionals (AHPs). Most (84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management for all five case vignettes. Over 50% reported willingness to randomise three of the five cases to either surgery or best conservative care (BCC), indicating equipoise facilitating the future RCT. Transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (36.4%) and for BCC, combined program of physical and psychological therapy (48.5%). Conclusions This survey evidence that there is equipoise about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of patients with persistent LBP.

Objective Explore the experiences of people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who received a very low energy diet (VLED) and exercise program from a physiotherapist. Methods Mixed methods study involving questionnaires (n = 42) and semistructured interviews (n = 22) with randomized control trial participants with knee OA who had received a 6‐month physiotherapist‐delivered VLED weight loss and exercise intervention. Questionnaires measured participant satisfaction and perceptions about physiotherapist's skills/knowledge in delivery of the dietary intervention (measured on 5–7 point Likert scales). Interviews explored participant's experiences and were analyzed based on the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. Results Questionnaire response: 90%. Participants were satisfied with the program (95%), confident their physiotherapist had the required skills (84%) and knowledge (79%) to deliver the dietary intervention, felt comfortable talking to the physiotherapist about weight (74%), and would recommend others see a physiotherapist for the intervention they undertook (71%). The following four themes were developed from the interviews: (1) one‐stop‐shop of exercise and diet; (2) physiotherapist‐delivered weight loss works (unsure initially; successfully lost weight); (3) physiotherapists knowledge and skills (exercise is forte; most thought physiotherapists had the necessary weight loss skills/knowledge, but some disagreed); and (4) physiotherapists have a role in weight loss (physiotherapists are intelligent, credible, and trustworthy; specific training in weight loss necessary). Conclusion This study provides, to our knowledge, the first documented perspectives from people with OA who have received a physiotherapist‐delivered weight loss intervention. Findings suggest physiotherapists may have a role in delivering a protocolized dietary intervention for some people with knee OA with overweight and obesity.

Background and Purpose The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest None Sources of funding No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182).

Introduction Recurrent patellar dislocation is a debilitating musculoskeletal condition, affecting mainly adolescents and adults under the age of 30. It can persist for many decades, causing pain and cartilage and soft-tissue damage, potentially leading to osteoarthritis. Recurrent patellar dislocation can be managed with physiotherapy or surgery. However, it is not known which treatment is most effective. Methods and analysis Recurrent Patellar Dislocation: Personalised Therapy or Operative Treatment (REPPORT) is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. It will compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial management strategy of personalised, phased and progressive rehabilitation, termed personalised knee therapy versus surgery for recurrent patellar dislocation.The trial’s target sample size is 276 participants who will be recruited from approximately 20 sites across the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the two treatment groups via a central computer-based minimisation system. Treatment allocation will be in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by age, presence of patella alta and recruitment site. The primary outcome is participant-reported function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome 4-domain score at 18 months post randomisation. Health economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including patellar instability, health utility, work/education status, satisfaction with social roles and treatment, health resource use and adverse events will be collected at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee on 30 March 2023.Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, in lay summaries, and using the REPPORT website and social media channels. Trial registration number ISRCTN17972668.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is the leading global cause of disability. Patients with moderate to severe LBP who respond positively to a diagnostic medial nerve branch block can be offered radiofrequency denervation (RFD). However, high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of RFD is lacking. Methods and analysis RADICAL (RADIofrequenCy denervAtion for Low back pain) is a double-blind, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 250 adults listed for RFD will be recruited from approximately 20 National Health Service (NHS) pain and spinal clinics. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 12-month internal pilot phase. Participants will be randomised in theatre using a 1:1 allocation ratio to RFD or placebo. RFD technique will follow best practice guidelines developed for the trial. Placebo RFD will follow the same protocol, but the electrode tip temperature will not be raised. Participants who do not experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain 3 months after randomisation will be offered the alternative intervention to the one provided at the outset without disclosing the original allocation. The primary clinical outcome will be pain severity, measured using a pain Numeric Rating Scale, at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 2 years after randomisation and include disability, health-related quality of life, psychological distress, time to pain recovery, satisfaction, adverse events, work outcomes and healthcare utilisation. The primary statistical analyses will be by intention to treat and will follow a prespecified analysis plan. The primary economic evaluation will take an NHS and social services perspective and estimate the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net benefit of RFD over the 2-year follow-up period. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the London—Fulham Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0471). Results will be disseminated in open-access publications and plain language summaries. Trial registration number ISRCTN16473239 .

Aims People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620.

There have been at least 7 separate randomised controlled trials published between 2011 and 2023 that have examined primary care for nonspecific low back pain informed by the STarT Back approach to stratified care based on risk prediction, compared with care not informed by this approach. The results, across 4 countries, have been contrasting—some demonstrating effectiveness and/or efficiency of this approach, others finding no benefits over comparison interventions. This review considers possible explanations for the differences, particularly whether this is related to poor predictive performance of the STarT Back risk-prediction tool or to variable degrees of success in implementing the whole STarT Back approach (subgrouping and matching treatments to predicted risk of poor outcomes) in different healthcare systems. The review concludes that although there is room for improving and expanding the predictive value of the STarT Back tool, its performance in allocating individuals to their appropriate risk categories cannot alone explain the variation in results of the trials to date. Rather, the learning thus far suggests that challenges in implementing stratified care in clinical practice and in changing professional practice largely explain the contrasting trial results. The review makes recommendations for future research, including greater focus on studying facilitators of implementation of stratified care and developing better treatments for patients with nonspecific low back pain at high risk of poor outcomes.

Purpose To develop and validate prediction models for the risk of future work absence and level of presenteeism, in adults seeking primary healthcare with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). Methods Six studies from the West-Midlands/Northwest regions of England, recruiting adults consulting primary care with MSD were included for model development and internal–external cross-validation (IECV). The primary outcome was any work absence within 6 months of their consultation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month presenteeism and 12-month work absence. Ten candidate predictors were included: age; sex; multisite pain; baseline pain score; pain duration; job type; anxiety/depression; comorbidities; absence in the previous 6 months; and baseline presenteeism. Results For the 6-month absence model, 2179 participants (215 absences) were available across five studies. Calibration was promising, although varied across studies, with a pooled calibration slope of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.41–1.46) on IECV. On average, the model discriminated well between those with work absence within 6 months, and those without (IECV-pooled C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66–0.86). The 6-month presenteeism model, while well calibrated on average, showed some individual-level variation in predictive accuracy, and the 12-month absence model was poorly calibrated due to the small available size for model development. Conclusions The developed models predict 6-month work absence and presenteeism with reasonable accuracy, on average, in adults consulting with MSD. The model to predict 12-month absence was poorly calibrated and is not yet ready for use in practice. This information may support shared decision-making and targeting occupational health interventions at those with a higher risk of absence or presenteeism in the 6 months following consultation. Further external validation is needed before the models’ use can be recommended or their impact on patients can be fully assessed.

Background Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) can cause hip pain and chondrolabral damage that may be managed non-operatively or surgically. Squatting motions require large degrees of hip flexion and underpin many daily and sporting tasks but may cause hip impingement and provoke pain. Differential effects of physiotherapist-led care and arthroscopy on biomechanics during squatting have not been examined previously. This study explored differences in 12-month changes in kinematics and moments during squatting between patients with FAIS treated with a physiotherapist-led intervention (Personalised Hip Therapy, PHT) and arthroscopy. Methods A subsample (n = 36) of participants with FAIS enrolled in a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial underwent three-dimensional motion analysis during squatting at baseline and 12-months following random allocation to PHT (n = 17) or arthroscopy (n = 19). Changes in time-series and peak trunk, pelvis, and hip biomechanics, and squat velocity and maximum depth were explored between treatment groups. Results No significant differences in 12-month changes were detected between PHT and arthroscopy groups. Compared to baseline, the arthroscopy group squatted slower at follow-up (descent: mean difference −0.04 m∙s−1 (95%CI [−0.09 to 0.01]); ascent: −0.05 m∙s−1 [−0.11 to 0.01]%). No differences in squat depth were detected between or within groups. After adjusting for speed, trunk flexion was greater in both treatment groups at follow-up compared to baseline (descent: PHT 7.50° [−14.02 to −0.98]%; ascent: PHT 7.29° [−14.69 to 0.12]%, arthroscopy 16.32° [−32.95 to 0.30]%). Compared to baseline, both treatment groups exhibited reduced anterior pelvic tilt (descent: PHT 8.30° [0.21–16.39]%, arthroscopy −10.95° [−5.54 to 16.34]%; ascent: PHT −7.98° [−0.38 to 16.35]%, arthroscopy −10.82° [3.82–17.81]%), hip flexion (descent: PHT −11.86° [1.67–22.05]%, arthroscopy −16.78° [8.55–22.01]%; ascent: PHT −12.86° [1.30–24.42]%, arthroscopy −16.53° [6.72–26.35]%), and knee flexion (descent: PHT −6.62° [0.56– 12.67]%; ascent: PHT −8.24° [2.38–14.10]%, arthroscopy −8.00° [−0.02 to 16.03]%). Compared to baseline, the PHT group exhibited more plantarflexion during squat ascent at follow-up (−3.58° [−0.12 to 7.29]%). Compared to baseline, both groups exhibited lower external hip flexion moments at follow-up (descent: PHT −0.55 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.05–1.05]%, arthroscopy −0.84 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.06–1.61]%; ascent: PHT −0.464 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [−0.002 to 0.93]%, arthroscopy −0.90 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.13–1.67]%). Conclusion Exploratory data suggest at 12-months follow-up, neither PHT or hip arthroscopy are superior at eliciting changes in trunk, pelvis, or lower-limb biomechanics. Both treatments may induce changes in kinematics and moments, however the implications of these changes are unknown.