患者对针对肌肉骨骼疼痛不良后果高危人群的新型护理路径的接受程度:混合方法研究

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
{"title":"患者对针对肌肉骨骼疼痛不良后果高危人群的新型护理路径的接受程度:混合方法研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Investigate people's acceptance of specialist musculoskeletal care within a new care pathway for common musculoskeletal conditions (low back pain, neck pain/whiplash, knee osteoarthritis).</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Convergent parallel mixed methods design referencing the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. The study included a subset of participants (n = 29) at-risk of poor outcomes from the intervention arm of the PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal conditions (PACE-MSK) trial. In the PACE-MSK arm, participants received specialist physiotherapist care as an adjunct to the care provided by their primary healthcare professional(s). One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted around 3-months after commencing in the trial. Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (health-related quality of life, pain self-efficacy, global perceived change, satisfaction).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five themes were identified (Expectations and beliefs shaped patient experience; Clinical expertise and competence influence acceptance; Person-centred care; Mechanisms facilitating beneficial responses to care; Gaps in care pathway implementation). There were positive individual changes in physical quality of life for 17/29 (59%) participants, mental health quality of life for 12/29 (41%), pain self-efficacy for 8/29 (28%) and global perceived change for 19/29 (66%). Management met expectations with the majority reporting high levels of satisfaction. Integrating the qualitative and quantitative data with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, there were complementary meta-inferences in the constructs of ‘ethicality’, ‘intervention coherence’, ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘affective attitude’. Divergence was identified in ‘perceived effectiveness’.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>In general, there was positive acceptance of the care pathway by participants. Specialist physiotherapists’ care was perceived as a positive addition to usual care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56036,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246878122400273X/pdfft?md5=3b47a0364e59468e6a1d9565e9904831&pid=1-s2.0-S246878122400273X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient acceptance of care of a novel care pathway for those at risk of poor outcomes from musculoskeletal pain: A mixed methods study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Investigate people's acceptance of specialist musculoskeletal care within a new care pathway for common musculoskeletal conditions (low back pain, neck pain/whiplash, knee osteoarthritis).</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Convergent parallel mixed methods design referencing the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. The study included a subset of participants (n = 29) at-risk of poor outcomes from the intervention arm of the PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal conditions (PACE-MSK) trial. In the PACE-MSK arm, participants received specialist physiotherapist care as an adjunct to the care provided by their primary healthcare professional(s). One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted around 3-months after commencing in the trial. Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (health-related quality of life, pain self-efficacy, global perceived change, satisfaction).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five themes were identified (Expectations and beliefs shaped patient experience; Clinical expertise and competence influence acceptance; Person-centred care; Mechanisms facilitating beneficial responses to care; Gaps in care pathway implementation). There were positive individual changes in physical quality of life for 17/29 (59%) participants, mental health quality of life for 12/29 (41%), pain self-efficacy for 8/29 (28%) and global perceived change for 19/29 (66%). Management met expectations with the majority reporting high levels of satisfaction. Integrating the qualitative and quantitative data with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, there were complementary meta-inferences in the constructs of ‘ethicality’, ‘intervention coherence’, ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘affective attitude’. Divergence was identified in ‘perceived effectiveness’.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>In general, there was positive acceptance of the care pathway by participants. Specialist physiotherapists’ care was perceived as a positive addition to usual care.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246878122400273X/pdfft?md5=3b47a0364e59468e6a1d9565e9904831&pid=1-s2.0-S246878122400273X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246878122400273X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246878122400273X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:调查人们对常见肌肉骨骼疾病(腰背痛、颈部疼痛/颈椎病、膝关节骨性关节炎)新护理路径中肌肉骨骼专科护理的接受程度。设计:参照可接受性理论框架,采用收敛平行混合方法设计。该研究纳入了常见肌肉骨骼疾病的PACE-MSK(PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal conditions)试验干预组中有不良后果风险的参与者子集(n = 29)。在PACE-MSK干预组中,参与者接受专业物理治疗师的护理,作为其初级医疗保健专业人员提供的护理的补充。试验开始 3 个月后,我们对参与者进行了一对一的半结构化访谈。结果确定了五个主题(期望和信念影响患者体验;临床专业知识和能力影响接受程度;以人为本的护理;促进对护理产生有益反应的机制;护理路径实施中的不足)。17/29(59%)名参与者的身体生活质量、12/29(41%)名参与者的心理健康生活质量、8/29(28%)名参与者的疼痛自我效能以及 19/29(66%)名参与者的整体感知变化均出现了积极的个人变化。管理达到了预期目标,大多数人表示非常满意。将定性和定量数据与 "可接受性理论框架 "相结合,在 "道德性"、"干预一致性"、"自我效能 "和 "情感态度 "等方面形成了互补的元推论。讨论 总体而言,参与者对护理路径的接受度较高。专业物理治疗师的护理被认为是对常规护理的积极补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient acceptance of care of a novel care pathway for those at risk of poor outcomes from musculoskeletal pain: A mixed methods study

Objective

Investigate people's acceptance of specialist musculoskeletal care within a new care pathway for common musculoskeletal conditions (low back pain, neck pain/whiplash, knee osteoarthritis).

Design

Convergent parallel mixed methods design referencing the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. The study included a subset of participants (n = 29) at-risk of poor outcomes from the intervention arm of the PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal conditions (PACE-MSK) trial. In the PACE-MSK arm, participants received specialist physiotherapist care as an adjunct to the care provided by their primary healthcare professional(s). One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted around 3-months after commencing in the trial. Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (health-related quality of life, pain self-efficacy, global perceived change, satisfaction).

Results

Five themes were identified (Expectations and beliefs shaped patient experience; Clinical expertise and competence influence acceptance; Person-centred care; Mechanisms facilitating beneficial responses to care; Gaps in care pathway implementation). There were positive individual changes in physical quality of life for 17/29 (59%) participants, mental health quality of life for 12/29 (41%), pain self-efficacy for 8/29 (28%) and global perceived change for 19/29 (66%). Management met expectations with the majority reporting high levels of satisfaction. Integrating the qualitative and quantitative data with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, there were complementary meta-inferences in the constructs of ‘ethicality’, ‘intervention coherence’, ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘affective attitude’. Divergence was identified in ‘perceived effectiveness’.

Discussion

In general, there was positive acceptance of the care pathway by participants. Specialist physiotherapists’ care was perceived as a positive addition to usual care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
152
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, international journal of musculoskeletal physiotherapy, is a peer-reviewed international journal (previously Manual Therapy), publishing high quality original research, review and Masterclass articles that contribute to improving the clinical understanding of appropriate care processes for musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes articles that influence or add to the body of evidence on diagnostic and therapeutic processes, patient centered care, guidelines for musculoskeletal therapeutics and theoretical models that support developments in assessment, diagnosis, clinical reasoning and interventions.
×
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