Premium
Development and implementation of a physiotherapy intervention for use in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in primary care for shoulder pain
Author(s) -
Dziedzic Krysia,
Stevenson Kay,
Thomas Elaine,
Sim Julius,
Hay Elaine
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
musculoskeletal care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.628
H-Index - 28
eISSN - 1557-0681
pISSN - 1478-2189
DOI - 10.1002/msc.151
Subject(s) - medicine , physical therapy , randomized controlled trial , intervention (counseling) , modalities , psychological intervention , nursing , surgery , social science , sociology
Objective: To develop a package of physiotherapy treatment for a randomized controlled trial in primary care for shoulder pain and audit its use within the trial. Methods: A survey of current physiotherapy approaches to the management of shoulder pain was conducted. The most frequently reported treatments were proposed as a package of care for a physiotherapy intervention in a trial of shoulder pain. The package was refined by a subgroup of 13 physiotherapists. For patients receiving the physiotherapy intervention in the main trial ( n = 98), the frequency of use of modalities over the treatment period was calculated by percentages of modality usage per number of patient contacts. Treatment details were recorded by the physiotherapist at each patient visit. Results: The physiotherapy intervention included passive movements/mobilizations, active movement/mobilizations, a home exercise programme, education and advice, and ultrasound. The most frequently used modality at the assessment visit was the standardized education and advice leaflet for shoulder pain (85%) followed by the home exercise programme (79%), which was reinforced throughout the trial treatment course. The most frequently used modalities over the treatment period were ultrasound (42%), active mobilizations (41%) and passive mobilizations (41%). The mean number of trial treatment visits was 6.2 (SD: 2.1; range 1–8). Additional trial treatments (1–8) were delivered to 12 patients. Eighty‐five patients were given only one therapeutic diagnosis, and 13 were given two. The most common diagnoses were tendonitis (32%) and capsulitis (25%). Pain was the major problem in 78% of patients, 15% had stiffness and 7% of patients reported both pain and stiffness. Conclusions: Physiotherapists complied well with the trial protocol. Few treatments were used in isolation. This report demonstrates how physiotherapists can agree and deliver a standardized package of treatment, which reflects current practice, as part of a randomized controlled trial. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.