Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39558330›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Physiotherapists as first-contact practitioners for patients with low back pain in French primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Amélie Kechichian, François Desmeules, Pauline Girard, Hugo Terrisse, Céline Vermorel, Nicolas Pinsault

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05200533 (Task-sharing and Shifting Model Between Family Physicians and Physiotherapists for Acute Low Back Pain Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05200533 naunknown statusnot on this map

Task-sharing and Shifting Model Between Family Physicians and Physiotherapists for Acute Low Back Pain Patients: a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2022 to 2024Enrolled195ConditionsLow Back PainArmsTask-sharing and shifting model between family physicians and physiotherapists, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors.

Amélie KechichianTHEMAS Team, TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, UMR CNRS-UGA, Grenoble, 5525, France. amelie.kechichian@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr.
François DesmeulesMaisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital Research Center, University of Montreal Affiliated Research Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Pauline GirardTHEMAS Team, TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, UMR CNRS-UGA, Grenoble, 5525, France.
Hugo TerrisseTHEMAS Team, TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, UMR CNRS-UGA, Grenoble, 5525, France.
Céline VermorelTHEMAS Team, TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, UMR CNRS-UGA, Grenoble, 5525, France.
Nicolas PinsaultTHEMAS Team, TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, UMR CNRS-UGA, Grenoble, 5525, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA new model of care enables French physiotherapists (PT) working in collaboration with family physicians (FP) to expand their usual scope of practice for patients with acute low back pain (LBP). The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of this new first-contact physiotherapy (FCP) advanced practice model compared to usual FP care.

methodsA multicentre pragmatic non-inferiority cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted in six multidisciplinary primary healthcare centres in France. Patients from 20 to 55 years old with acute LBP consulted either the PT or the FP. PT independently assessed and managed patients including medication prescription. The primary outcome measure was disability at six weeks (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, range 0-24). Secondary outcomes include pain, risk disability prognosis, satisfaction with care, healthcare resources use and wait times. Data were collected at baseline, six and twelve weeks. Outcomes across arms were compared using mixed models regression analysis. Except for non-inferiority analysis of the primary outcome measure, other analyses were performed with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.

resultsSixty patients were recruited (PT: 32, FP: 28). The adjusted mean difference between groups for disability at 6 weeks was 0.39 in favour of the FP group (95%CI: -2.03; 2.81, p = 0.753). Considering a 5 points minimal clinically important difference, the FCP-led model of care was not inferior to usual FP care for the primary outcome. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in disability at 3 months and pain at 6 weeks and 3 months. PTs prescribed significantly less medications than FPs (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found for other healthcare resource use outcomes, patients' satisfaction and wait times.

conclusionThis is the first RCT to evaluate the impact of a FCP advanced practice model of care including medical delegated acts in a primary care setting. Our results suggest that the FCP-led model of care is not inferior to usual FP care regarding disability at 6 weeks. The FCP model could result in possible benefits in terms of healthcare resources use. Further adequate powered studies with larger sample size are needed to draw stronger conclusions.

trial registrationThe study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05200533) on the 20th of January 2022.

Indexed as

Low Back PainPhysical TherapistsPrimary Health CareAdultFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysical Therapy ModalitiesAdvanced practice physiotherapyFirst-contact physiotherapyLow back painMedical delegated actsPrimary careRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID39558330
PMCPMC11572111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.