| Literature DB >> 27965852 |
Prakash Dhopte1, Sara Ahmed2, Nancy Mayo3, Simon French4, Jeffrey A Quon5, André Bussières6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neck pain in adults is common and a leading cause of physical disability. Recently, a guideline was developed for the management of non-specific neck pain (NSNP) with an aim to improve the quality of the delivery of chiropractic care. One key guideline recommendation is to undertake multimodal care for patients with NSNP. The aim of this pilot study is to determine the feasibility of implementing a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention by promoting the use of multimodal care by chiropractors managing patients with NSNP. METHODS/Entities:
Keywords: Brief Action Planning; Chiropractors; Clinical practice guidelines; Cluster-randomized controlled trial; Feasibility outcomes; Knowledge translation; Multimodal care; Neck pain
Year: 2016 PMID: 27965852 PMCID: PMC5154031 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-016-0076-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud ISSN: 2055-5784
Criteria to assess feasibility
| Construct | Parameter |
|---|---|
| Eligibility proportion | |
| Chiropractors | |
| Recruitment | Trial acceptance rate: |
| Target population = 40 (assuming an 80 % retention rate) | |
| Adherence to protocol | >90 % of participants will complete all 3 webinars, associated quizzes, 2 clinical vignettes, and a self-management learning module |
| Retention | 80 % of participants will complete 3 months of patient follow-up |
| Patients | |
| Recruitment | Trial acceptance rate: 5 patients within 6 weeks of recruitment notice |
| Target population = 150 | |
| Adherence to protocol | 95 % will attend regular treatment sessions twice/week |
| >80 % will comply with prescribed home exercise and physical activity | |
| Retention |
|
Outcome measures
| Outcome | Source | Description of measures | Data collection time points | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | ||||
| Recruitment | Chiropractors and patients | Measured as a proportion of chiropractors and patients potentially eligible for participating | Initial stage | |
| Eligibility rate = number of eligible chiropractors and patients divided by the number of invited chiropractors or patients | ||||
| Participation rate = number of chiropractors and patients agreeing to participate divided by number of eligible chiropractors and patients | ||||
| Adherence to protocol | Chiropractors | For those randomized to intervention arm, measured through the rates of attendance of all 3 webinars, associated quizzes, completion of 2 clinical vignettes, and the self-management learning module | Within 6 weeks of assignment | |
| Patients | Rate of adherence to follow-up visits, prescribed home exercise, and physical activity | Baseline | 3 months | |
| Adherence perception (knowledge and self-efficacy) | Chiropractors and patients | Completion of questionnaires | Baseline | 3 months |
| Retention | Chiropractors and patients | Retention rate = number of chiropractors or patients who completed follow-up of all outcome measures at 3 months divided by number of chiropractors or patients who were randomized | Baseline | 3 months |
| Chiropractors | Rate of completion of patient encounter forms and questionnaires including levels of knowledge and self-efficacy and the BAP | Baseline | 3 months | |
| Patients | Rate of completion of patient encounter forms and questionnaires including the BAP, visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and satisfaction with care | Baseline | 3 months | |
Differential retention and adherence rates across the randomized groups will also be measured
Intervention components and modes of delivery
| Key elements and topics | Delivery |
|---|---|
| (1) Three 50–60-min webinars containing didactic information on the following topics | |
| aWebinar 1. * Overview of what evidence-informed practice is and why CPGs are useful | CMCC continuing education (online) |
| Webinar 2. * Key recommendation of the new guideline on the management of non-specific neck pain | CMCC continuing education (online) |
| Webinar 3. * Introduction to self-management strategies and to the Brief Action Planning (BAP) model in particular | CMCC continuing education (online) |
| (2) Two online case scenarios each with care options to help apply recommendations as a proxy for daily practice with quizzes | Accessible on Fluid Survey after completion of the webinar 2 (neck pain guideline) at |
|
| |
| (3) A self-management video underpinned by the BAP model to demonstrate how clinicians can facilitate patient decisions about self-management strategies. The video portrays a clinician discussing active planning strategies with a chronic neck pain patient who chooses to increase his/her level of physical activity | Accessible online after completion of the webinar 3 (BAP) on the LMS of the CMCC through a link from the CCGI website at |
aBefore watching webinar 1 on EIP, clinicians will be encouraged to complete three online modules (Evidence Informed Practice, Summary Research, and Assessing Summary Research) at http://www.csh.umn.edu/evidenceinformedpracticemodules/index.htm
*All three webinars were recorded between October 29 and November 26, 2014, for future diffusion to participants in the intervention group
Statistical analysis
| Construct | Measure | Measurement scale |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility of recruitment, retention, and data completion (both chiropractors and patients) | Recruitment and retention rates, missing data | Descriptive statistics: mean and SD for continuous variables and proportions for categorical variables |
| Chiropractor process outcomes | ||
| Adherence rate | Single indicators | Continuous data (number of DCs adhering to the intervention per number of eligible participants) |
| Composite | Count of indicators reaching “success” threshold | |
| Behavioural | Level of knowledge and self-efficacy | 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree), ordinal |
| Patient health outcomes | ||
| Pain | Visual analogue scale | Self-rated level of pain on 11 points, continuous |
| Disability | Neck Disability Index | Scale range and subscales: 10 items in total; each item is scored from 0 to 5 (“0” = no disability and “5” = full disability) for a total of 50 |
| Satisfaction with care | Questionnaire | Self-rated satisfaction with care measured on the short-form questionnaire rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “very satisfied” to very “dissatisfied” |
| Potential efficacy | Post-intervention between groups | Normal approximation to the binomial |
Fig. 1CONSORT participant flow diagram