N Middlebrook1, N R Heneghan2, D Falla2, L Silvester3, A B Rushton2,4, A A Soundy5. 1. Centre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. n.middlebrook@bham.ac.uk. 2. Centre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. 3. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, University Hospital, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK. 4. Western University, School of Physical Therapy, London, Ontario, N6G 1H1, Canada. 5. School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Annually in the UK, 40,000-90,000 people are involved in a traumatic incident. Severity of injury and how well people recover from their injuries varies, with physiotherapy playing a key role in the rehabilitation process. Recovery is evaluated using multiple outcome measures for perceived levels of pain severity and quality of life. It is unclear however, what constitutes a successful recovery from injury throughout the course of recovery from the patient perspective, and whether this aligns with physiotherapists' perspectives. METHODS: A qualitative study using two approaches: Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis following the Kreuger framework for focus groups. A purposive sample of 20 patients who have experienced musculoskeletal trauma within the past 4 weeks and 12 physiotherapists who manage this patient population will be recruited from a single trauma centre in the UK. Semi-structured interviews with patients at 4 weeks, 6 and 12 months following injury, and 2 focus groups with physiotherapists will be undertaken at one time point. Views and perceptions on the definition of recovery and what constitutes a successful recovery will be explored using both methods, with a focus on the lived experience and patient journey following musculoskeletal trauma, and how this changes through the process of recovery. Data from both the semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be analysed separately and then integrated and synthesised into key themes ensuring similarities and differences are identified. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness e.g., reflexivity will be employed. DISCUSSION: Recovery following musculoskeletal trauma is complex and understanding of the concept of successful recovery and how this changes over time following an injury is largely unknown. It is imperative to understand the patient perspective and whether these perceptions align with current views of physiotherapists. A greater understanding of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma has potential to change clinical care, optimise patient centred care and improve efficiency and clinical decision making during rehabilitation. This in turn can contribute to improved clinical effectiveness, patient outcome and patient satisfaction with potential service and economic cost savings. This study has ethical approval (IRAS 287781/REC 20/PR/0712).
BACKGROUND: Annually in the UK, 40,000-90,000 people are involved in a traumatic incident. Severity of injury and how well people recover from their injuries varies, with physiotherapy playing a key role in the rehabilitation process. Recovery is evaluated using multiple outcome measures for perceived levels of pain severity and quality of life. It is unclear however, what constitutes a successful recovery from injury throughout the course of recovery from the patient perspective, and whether this aligns with physiotherapists' perspectives. METHODS: A qualitative study using two approaches: Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis following the Kreuger framework for focus groups. A purposive sample of 20 patients who have experienced musculoskeletal trauma within the past 4 weeks and 12 physiotherapists who manage this patient population will be recruited from a single trauma centre in the UK. Semi-structured interviews with patients at 4 weeks, 6 and 12 months following injury, and 2 focus groups with physiotherapists will be undertaken at one time point. Views and perceptions on the definition of recovery and what constitutes a successful recovery will be explored using both methods, with a focus on the lived experience and patient journey following musculoskeletal trauma, and how this changes through the process of recovery. Data from both the semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be analysed separately and then integrated and synthesised into key themes ensuring similarities and differences are identified. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness e.g., reflexivity will be employed. DISCUSSION: Recovery following musculoskeletal trauma is complex and understanding of the concept of successful recovery and how this changes over time following an injury is largely unknown. It is imperative to understand the patient perspective and whether these perceptions align with current views of physiotherapists. A greater understanding of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma has potential to change clinical care, optimise patient centred care and improve efficiency and clinical decision making during rehabilitation. This in turn can contribute to improved clinical effectiveness, patient outcome and patient satisfaction with potential service and economic cost savings. This study has ethical approval (IRAS 287781/REC 20/PR/0712).
Authors: Juanita A Haagsma; Nicholas Graetz; Ian Bolliger; Mohsen Naghavi; Hideki Higashi; Erin C Mullany; Semaw Ferede Abera; Jerry Puthenpurakal Abraham; Koranteng Adofo; Ubai Alsharif; Emmanuel A Ameh; Walid Ammar; Carl Abelardo T Antonio; Lope H Barrero; Tolesa Bekele; Dipan Bose; Alexandra Brazinova; Ferrán Catalá-López; Lalit Dandona; Rakhi Dandona; Paul I Dargan; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Sarah Derrett; Samath D Dharmaratne; Tim R Driscoll; Leilei Duan; Sergey Petrovich Ermakov; Farshad Farzadfar; Valery L Feigin; Richard C Franklin; Belinda Gabbe; Richard A Gosselin; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Randah Ribhi Hamadeh; Martha Hijar; Guoqing Hu; Sudha P Jayaraman; Guohong Jiang; Yousef Saleh Khader; Ejaz Ahmad Khan; Sanjay Krishnaswami; Chanda Kulkarni; Fiona E Lecky; Ricky Leung; Raimundas Lunevicius; Ronan Anthony Lyons; Marek Majdan; Amanda J Mason-Jones; Richard Matzopoulos; Peter A Meaney; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Ted R Miller; Charles N Mock; Rosana E Norman; Ricardo Orozco; Suzanne Polinder; Farshad Pourmalek; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Amany Refaat; David Rojas-Rueda; Nobhojit Roy; David C Schwebel; Amira Shaheen; Saeid Shahraz; Vegard Skirbekk; Kjetil Søreide; Sergey Soshnikov; Dan J Stein; Bryan L Sykes; Karen M Tabb; Awoke Misganaw Temesgen; Eric Yeboah Tenkorang; Alice M Theadom; Bach Xuan Tran; Tommi J Vasankari; Monica S Vavilala; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Solomon Meseret Woldeyohannes; Paul Yip; Naohiro Yonemoto; Mustafa Z Younis; Chuanhua Yu; Christopher J L Murray; Theo Vos Journal: Inj Prev Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 2.399