Clinical assessment and treatment of patients presenting with longstanding hip and groin pain in primary care: a survey study among physical therapists and general practitioners in Sweden.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
August Estberger, Kristian Thorborg, Harald Talts, Eva Ageberg
{"title":"Clinical assessment and treatment of patients presenting with longstanding hip and groin pain in primary care: a survey study among physical therapists and general practitioners in Sweden.","authors":"August Estberger, Kristian Thorborg, Harald Talts, Eva Ageberg","doi":"10.1186/s12891-025-08466-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods of assessment, treatment and referral rates of patients presenting with longstanding hip and groin pain (LHGP) are not well documented. The aim of this study was to investigate assessment and treatment of patients with LHGP among general practitioners (GPs) and physical therapists (PTs) in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous web-based survey was developed specifically for this study and distributed to GPs and PTs at primary care centers in the southern part of Sweden. The survey covered the use of different methods of assessment and treatment for LHGP, the perceived importance these methods, and referral rates to orthopedic care. Responses from clinicians were reported in frequencies and percentages, and differences in assessment methodology between professions were examined with chi-square tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PTs (n = 104) and GPs (n = 62) referred less than 25% of patients with LHGP to orthopedic care. Both professions used clinical assessments as range of motion tests, but PTs were more likely to use specific clinical tests (PTs 76% vs. GPs 19%, p = < 0.001), GPs used more imaging (GPs 98% vs. PTs 58%, p = < 0.001) and neither profession used validated patient-reported outcome measures (GPs 2% vs. PTs 11%, p = 0.134). GPs and PTs ranked patient history and range of motion as the most important factors for diagnosis. GPs and PTs both reported providing patient education and advice on physical activity as part of the treatment. GPs commonly prescribed pain medication, including NSAIDs (97%), paracetamol (100%), and opioids (69%). 77% of PTs reported treatment duration less than 3 months, with treatment consisting of combinations of exercise therapy and manual therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPs and PTs in primary care referred 25% or less of patients with LHGP to orthopedic care. Both professions generally used assessment for LHGP in line with clinical recommendations. However, some assessment methods differed between GPs and PTs, and neither used validated patient-reported outcome measures. Treatment strategies mainly included pain medication (GPs), exercise and manual therapy (PTs), and education (both professions). Inconsistent with clinical recommendations, GPs commonly prescribed opioids as part of pain management, and PTs report treatment duration of less than 3 months.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>NA.</p>","PeriodicalId":9189,"journal":{"name":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"26 1","pages":"218"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08466-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Methods of assessment, treatment and referral rates of patients presenting with longstanding hip and groin pain (LHGP) are not well documented. The aim of this study was to investigate assessment and treatment of patients with LHGP among general practitioners (GPs) and physical therapists (PTs) in primary care.

Methods: An anonymous web-based survey was developed specifically for this study and distributed to GPs and PTs at primary care centers in the southern part of Sweden. The survey covered the use of different methods of assessment and treatment for LHGP, the perceived importance these methods, and referral rates to orthopedic care. Responses from clinicians were reported in frequencies and percentages, and differences in assessment methodology between professions were examined with chi-square tests.

Results: PTs (n = 104) and GPs (n = 62) referred less than 25% of patients with LHGP to orthopedic care. Both professions used clinical assessments as range of motion tests, but PTs were more likely to use specific clinical tests (PTs 76% vs. GPs 19%, p = < 0.001), GPs used more imaging (GPs 98% vs. PTs 58%, p = < 0.001) and neither profession used validated patient-reported outcome measures (GPs 2% vs. PTs 11%, p = 0.134). GPs and PTs ranked patient history and range of motion as the most important factors for diagnosis. GPs and PTs both reported providing patient education and advice on physical activity as part of the treatment. GPs commonly prescribed pain medication, including NSAIDs (97%), paracetamol (100%), and opioids (69%). 77% of PTs reported treatment duration less than 3 months, with treatment consisting of combinations of exercise therapy and manual therapy.

Conclusions: GPs and PTs in primary care referred 25% or less of patients with LHGP to orthopedic care. Both professions generally used assessment for LHGP in line with clinical recommendations. However, some assessment methods differed between GPs and PTs, and neither used validated patient-reported outcome measures. Treatment strategies mainly included pain medication (GPs), exercise and manual therapy (PTs), and education (both professions). Inconsistent with clinical recommendations, GPs commonly prescribed opioids as part of pain management, and PTs report treatment duration of less than 3 months.

Clinical trial number: NA.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.70%
发文量
1017
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. The scope of the Journal covers research into rheumatic diseases where the primary focus relates specifically to a component(s) of the musculoskeletal system.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信