Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient-related barriers and enablers to the implementation of high-value physiotherapy for chronic pain: a systematic review

      review-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

          Objective

          To identify and synthesize patient-related barriers to and enablers of the implementation of high-value physiotherapy (HVP) for chronic pain. Furthermore, to review what patient-related interventions have been used to facilitate the implementation of HVP for chronic pain, as well as their efficacy.

          Methods

          We systematically searched the APA PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, and PEDro databases for peer-reviewed studies (published in English) of adults with chronic pain. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change to synthesize identified themes relating to barriers and enablers. Outcomes from studies reporting on interventions were also qualitatively synthesized.

          Results

          Fourteen studies reported on barriers and enablers, 8 of which related to exercise adherence. Themes common to barriers and enablers included perceived efficacy of treatment, interrelationship with the physiotherapist, exercise burden, and the patient’s understanding of exercise benefits. Other barriers included fear of movement, fragmented care, and cost. Ten studies explored interventions, 9 of which aimed to improve exercise adherence. Of these, evidence from 4 randomized controlled trials of technology-based interventions demonstrated improved exercise adherence among intervention groups compared with controls.

          Conclusion

          Patients with chronic pain experience barriers to HVP, including their beliefs, the nature of their interaction with their physiotherapist, perceived treatment efficacy, and cost. Enablers include rapport with their physiotherapist, achievable exercises, and seamless cost-effective care. Technology-based interventions have demonstrated effectiveness at increasing exercise adherence. Our findings suggest that interventions seeking to enhance implementation of HVP need to consider the multifactorial barriers experienced by patients with chronic pain.

          Study registration

          Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AYGZV).

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

            To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research

              Background An integrative theoretical framework, developed for cross-disciplinary implementation and other behaviour change research, has been applied across a wide range of clinical situations. This study tests the validity of this framework. Methods Validity was investigated by behavioural experts sorting 112 unique theoretical constructs using closed and open sort tasks. The extent of replication was tested by Discriminant Content Validation and Fuzzy Cluster Analysis. Results There was good support for a refinement of the framework comprising 14 domains of theoretical constructs (average silhouette value 0.29): ‘Knowledge’, ‘Skills’, ‘Social/Professional Role and Identity’, ‘Beliefs about Capabilities’, ‘Optimism’, ‘Beliefs about Consequences’, ‘Reinforcement’, ‘Intentions’, ‘Goals’, ‘Memory, Attention and Decision Processes’, ‘Environmental Context and Resources’, ‘Social Influences’, ‘Emotions’, and ‘Behavioural Regulation’. Conclusions The refined Theoretical Domains Framework has a strengthened empirical base and provides a method for theoretically assessing implementation problems, as well as professional and other health-related behaviours as a basis for intervention development.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pain Med
                Pain Med
                painmedicine
                Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine
                Oxford University Press
                1526-2375
                1526-4637
                February 2024
                28 September 2023
                28 September 2023
                : 25
                : 2
                : 104-115
                Affiliations
                School of Allied Health Science and Practice, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, 5005, Australia
                School of Allied Health Science and Practice, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, 5005, Australia
                Allied Health and Human Performance Unit, IIMPACT in Health, The University of South Australia , Adelaide, 5001, Australia
                Hopwood Centre for Neurobiology, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute , Adelaide, 5000, Australia
                Brain Stimulation, Imaging and Cognition Group, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, 5000, Australia
                School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, 5000, Australia
                South Australian Museum , Adelaide, 5000, Australia
                School of Allied Health Science and Practice, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, 5005, Australia
                School of Allied Health Science and Practice, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, 5005, Australia
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: School of Allied Health Science and Practice, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email: cameron.dickson@ 123456adelaide.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5630-2196
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-3377
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5316-0847
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9860-7166
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6280-0391
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5780-3440
                Article
                pnad134
                10.1093/pm/pnad134
                10833081
                37769242
                02c00ce8-7b57-47c8-898f-f01f80797443
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 June 2023
                : 29 August 2023
                : 25 September 2023
                : 24 October 2023
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia;
                Award ID: 1178444
                Categories
                Musculoskeletal, Rehabilitation & Regenerative Medicine Section
                Review Article
                AcademicSubjects/MED00010

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                physical therapy,chronic pain,osteoarthritis,low back pain,knee pain,neck pain,rheumatoid arthritis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content260

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors1,344