ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploring the feasibility and acceptance of an optimised physiotherapy approach for lateral elbow tendinopathy: a qualitative investigation within the OPTimisE trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimising physiotherapy for people with lateral elbow tendinopathy - Results of a mixed-methods pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial (OPTimisE).Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the acceptability of an optimised physiotherapy (OPTimisE) intervention for people with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) and feasibility of comparing it to usual care in a randomised controlled trial.
designSemistructured interviews, analysed using thematic analysis and mapped onto the COM-B model of behaviour change.
settingConducted as part of the OPTimisE Pilot & Feasibility randomised controlled trial within physiotherapy departments in the United Kingdom National Health Service.
participants17 patients with LET (purposively sampled to provide representativeness based on age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation index and treatment allocation) and all 8 physiotherapists involved as treating clinicians or site principal investigators.
resultsFour themes were identified. First, participants reported the OPTimisE intervention as acceptable. Second, differences between the OPTimisE intervention and usual care were identified, including the use of an orthosis, holistic advice/education including modifiable risk factors, forearm stretches, general upper body strengthening and a more prescriptive exercise-dosing regimen. Third, participants provided feedback related to the trial resources, which were viewed positively, but identified language translation as a need. Fourth, feedback related to trial processes identified the need for changes to outcome collection and reduction of administrative burden. From the perspective of adopting the OPTimisE intervention, we found evidence that participants were able to change their behaviour. Considering the findings through the lens of the COM-B model, the intervention is likely to be deliverable in practice and the trial can be delivered at scale with some additional support for physiotherapists.
conclusionsOverall, the OPTimisE intervention was found to be different to usual care and acceptable to patients and physiotherapists. The study highlighted the need to refine trial processes and resources prior to a full-scale trial, to reduce administrative burden, increase support for physiotherapists, improve return rate of outcome questionnaires and provide language translation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN database 19 July 2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN64444585.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.