ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2026
Rapid adaptation of first contact physiotherapy services for musculoskeletal patients in the UK and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multiple case study.
Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThe disruption of health services by the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the WHO to advocate for rapid adaptation of healthcare. Little is known about the specific rapid adaptation strategies deployed in first contact physiotherapy services (FCPS) and how they were experienced by providers and patients.Study AimTo explore views and experiences of physiotherapists and key stakeholders on the rapid adaptation of FCPS during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and Australia.MethodsA multiple case study design was employed across four case sites; UK (n = 2), Australia (n = 2), involving online semi-structured interviews with 22 participants in 2024 and document review. A case-based approach using framework analysis was applied, drawing on the public health emergency framework of readiness, responsiveness, and sustainability, alongside the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).ResultsGaps in readiness for adaptation, particularly in terms of planning and resources, were evident across FCPS in both countries. However, the findings highlight FCPS as an adaptable service, with strategies implemented within the first three to six months following the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic. The most notable adaptation variation was in telehealth, where alignment with service contexts influenced implementation and ongoing sustainability. New challenges not fully captured within CFIR constructs emerged, including the initial lack of acceptability, particularly related to telehealth, and the unpredictable nature of the pandemic.ConclusionTo strengthen FCPS preparedness for the future, policies should proactively equip services with the resources and capabilities required to manage emergencies and associated contingencies, while accounting for contextual variations. Such forward planning would support an effective response and the long-term integration of beneficial adaptations, thereby strengthening service resilience.
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.