Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33316866›Full record

ArticlePhysiotherapy2021

Implementing patient direct access to musculoskeletal physiotherapy in primary care: views of patients, general practitioners, physiotherapists and clinical commissioners in England.

Chinonso N Igwesi-Chidobe, Annette Bishop, Katrina Humphreys, Emily Hughes, Joanne Protheroe, John Maddison, Bernadette Bartlam

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiotherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chinonso N Igwesi-ChidobePrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Faulty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Nigeria.
Annette BishopPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Faulty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Katrina HumphreysCentral Cheshire Integrated Care Partnership, Leighton Hospital, Middlewich Road, Crewe, Cheshire, United Kingdom; The North West Coast Clinical Research Network, United Kingdom.
Emily HughesPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Faulty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Joanne ProtheroePrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Faulty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
John MaddisonPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Faulty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Bernadette BartlamPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Faulty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: b.bartlam@keele.ac.uk.

Funding

Versus Arthritis 21406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMusculoskeletal problems are the leading cause of chronic disability. Most patients in the UK seek initial care from general practitioners (GPs), who are struggling to meet demand. Patient direct access to National Health Service physiotherapy is one possible solution. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of patients, GPs, physiotherapists and clinical commissioners on direct access in a region in England with it commissioned.

methodsThe study was informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NTP). Data collection was via semi-structured individual face-to-face and telephone interviews with 22 patients and 20 health care professionals (HCPs). Data were analysed thematically using NPT.

resultsThree themes emerged: understanding physiotherapy and the direct access pathway; negotiating the pathway; making the pathway viable. HCPs saw direct access as acceptable. Whilst patients found the concept of direct access, those with complex conditions continued to see their GP as first point of contact. Some GPs and patients reported a lack of clarity around the pathway, reflected in ambiguous paperwork and inconsistent promotion. Operational challenges emerged in cross-disciplinary communication and between HCPs and patients, and lack of adequate resources.

conclusionDirect access to NHS musculoskeletal physiotherapy is acceptable to patients and HCPs. There is need to ensure: effective communication between HCPs and with patients, clarity on the scope of physiotherapy and the direct access pathway, and sufficient resources to meet demand. Patient direct access can free GPs to focus on those patients with more complex health conditions who are most in need of their care.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMusculoskeletal DiseasesPhysical TherapistsEnglandHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPrimary Health CareState MedicineHealth services deliveryNormalisation process theoryPatient direct accessPhysiotherapyPrimary careSelf-referral

Identifiers

PMID33316866
PMCPMC8120843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.