Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28893343›Full record

ArticlePrimary health care research & development2018

Physiotherapy-as-first-point-of-contact-service for patients with musculoskeletal complaints: understanding the challenges of implementation.

Fiona Moffatt, Rob Goodwin, Paul Hendrick

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Primary health care research & development, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Fiona Moffatt1Assistant Professor,School of Health Sciences,University of Nottingham,Nottingham,UK.
Rob Goodwin2Doctoral Student,School of Medicine,University of Nottingham,Nottingham,UK.
Paul Hendrick1Assistant Professor,School of Health Sciences,University of Nottingham,Nottingham,UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care faces unprecedented challenges. A move towards a more comprehensive, multi-disciplinary service delivery model has been proposed as a means with which to secure more sustainable services for the future. One seemingly promising response has been the implementation of physiotherapy self-referral schemes, however there is a significant gap in the literature regarding implementation. Aim This evaluation aimed to explore how the professionals and practice staff involved in the delivery of an in-practice physiotherapy self-referral scheme understood the service, with a focus on perceptions of value, barriers and impact. Design and setting A qualitative evaluation was conducted across two UK city centre practices that had elected to participate in a pilot self-referral scheme offering 'physiotherapy-as-a-first-point-of-contact' for patients presenting with a musculoskeletal complaint.

methodsIndividual and focus group interviews were conducted amongst participating physiotherapists, administration/reception staff, general practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse (in their capacity as practice partner). Interview data were collected from a total of 14 individuals. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsThree key themes were highlighted by this evaluation. First, the imperative of effecting a cultural change - including management of patient expectation with particular reference to the belief that GPs represented the 'legitimate choice', re-visioning contemporary primary care as a genuine team approach, and the physiotherapists' reconceptualisation of their role and practices. Second, the impact of the service on working practice across all stakeholders - specifically re-distribution of work to 'unburden' the GP, and the critical role of administration staff. Finally, beliefs regarding the nature and benefits of physiotherapeutic musculoskeletal expertise - fears regarding physiotherapists' ability to work autonomously or identify 'red flags' were unfounded.

conclusionThis qualitative evaluation draws on the themes to propose five key lessons which may be significant in predicting the success of implementing physiotherapy self-referral schemes.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesReferral and ConsultationHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesPhysical TherapistsPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomimplementationmusculoskeletal complaintsphysiotherapy self-referralprimary care

Identifiers

PMID28893343
PMCPMC6452956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.