Susana Tinoco Duarte, Alexandre Moniz, Daniela Costa, Helena Donato, Bruno Heleno, Pedro Aguiar, Eduardo B Cruz
{"title":"A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare.","authors":"Susana Tinoco Duarte, Alexandre Moniz, Daniela Costa, Helena Donato, Bruno Heleno, Pedro Aguiar, Eduardo B Cruz","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11764-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11764-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: To address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.
Methods: MEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Results: Eleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.
Conclusions: The implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare.
Registration: Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).
期刊介绍:
BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.