Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27020840›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2016

The acceptability to patients of PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice services; a qualitative interview study.

Jennifer Pearson, Jane Richardson, Michael Calnan, Chris Salisbury, Nadine E Foster

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer PearsonFaculty of Health & Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Glenside Campus, Blackberry Hill, Bristol, BS16 1DD, UK. Jen.pearson@uwe.ac.uk.
Jane RichardsonArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffs, ST5 5BG, UK.
Michael CalnanSchool of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Cornwallis North East, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NF, UK.
Chris SalisburyNIHR School for Primary Care Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Nadine E FosterArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffs, ST5 5BG, UK.
Keele University · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Kent · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-015Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to long waiting lists and problems with access to primary care physiotherapy, several Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) (now Clinical Commissioning Groups CCGs) developed physiotherapy-led telephone assessment and treatment services. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funded PhysioDirect trial was a randomised control trial (RCT) in four PCTs, with a total of 2252 patients that compared this approach with usual physiotherapy care. This nested qualitative study aimed to explore the acceptability of the PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice service to patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

methodsWe conducted 57 semi-structured interviews with adults from 4 PCTs who were referred from general practice to physiotherapy with musculoskeletal conditions and were participating in the PhysioDirect trial. The Framework method was used to analyse the qualitative data.

resultsThe PhysioDirect service was largely viewed as acceptable although some saw it as a first step to subsequent face-to-face physiotherapy. Most participants found accessing the PhysioDirect service straightforward and smooth, and they valued the faster access to physiotherapy advice offered by the telephone service. Participants generally viewed both the PhysioDirect service and the physiotherapists providing the service as helpful. Participants' preferences and priorities for treatment defined the acceptable features of PhysioDirect but the acceptable features were traded off against less acceptable features. Some participants felt that the PhysioDirect service was impersonal and impaired the development of a good relationship with their physiotherapist, which made the service feel remote and less valuable.

conclusionThe PhysioDirect service was broadly acceptable to participants since it provided faster access to physiotherapy advice for their musculoskeletal conditions. Participants felt that it is best placed as one method of accessing physiotherapy services, in addition to, rather than as a replacement for, more traditional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment and treatment.

Indexed as

Helping BehaviorPatient SatisfactionTelephoneAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchInterviewPatient experiencePhysiotherapyQualitative studyService delivery

Identifiers

PMID27020840
PMCPMC4810506
OpenAlexW2309905336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.