OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the implementation and acceptability of a pain education programme delivered to physiotherapists in clinical practice. METHODS: A pre-test/post-test design with 10 physiotherapists was employed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for outcome measure data. Focus groups were carried out with seven physiotherapists within 1 month post-intervention. These data were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Ten musculoskeletal physiotherapists were recruited. It was possible to develop and deliver the intervention and this was found to be acceptable to physiotherapists within clinical practice. The study explored trends within outcome measures, and one was considered appropriate. The focus groups yielded three interlinked themes, which related to the impact of the programme: "providing a context for pain education", "influence on aspects of the patient-therapist encounter" and "logistics of the education programme in clinical practice". CONCLUSIONS: A pain education programme delivered to physiotherapists in clinical practice was both possible to deliver and acceptable to participants. A key strength of the programme was the applicability to real-life practice, which was valued by physiotherapists. While physiotherapists felt that pain neurophysiology education was important, they reported lacking confidence in implementing their pain neurophysiology knowledge with patients. Thus, more time is needed to focus on pain neurophysiology education, with the aim of increasing confidence with the application of this approach in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the implementation and acceptability of a pain education programme delivered to physiotherapists in clinical practice. METHODS: A pre-test/post-test design with 10 physiotherapists was employed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for outcome measure data. Focus groups were carried out with seven physiotherapists within 1 month post-intervention. These data were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Ten musculoskeletal physiotherapists were recruited. It was possible to develop and deliver the intervention and this was found to be acceptable to physiotherapists within clinical practice. The study explored trends within outcome measures, and one was considered appropriate. The focus groups yielded three interlinked themes, which related to the impact of the programme: "providing a context for pain education", "influence on aspects of the patient-therapist encounter" and "logistics of the education programme in clinical practice". CONCLUSIONS: A pain education programme delivered to physiotherapists in clinical practice was both possible to deliver and acceptable to participants. A key strength of the programme was the applicability to real-life practice, which was valued by physiotherapists. While physiotherapists felt that pain neurophysiology education was important, they reported lacking confidence in implementing their pain neurophysiology knowledge with patients. Thus, more time is needed to focus on pain neurophysiology education, with the aim of increasing confidence with the application of this approach in clinical practice.