Background: Previous systematic reviews revealed poor reliability and validity for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mobility tests. However, these reviews were published nearly 20 years ago and recent evidence has not yet been summarised. Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date systematic review to verify whether recommendations regarding the clinical use of SIJ mobility tests should be revised. Study design: Systematic review. Method: The literature was searched for relevant articles via 5 electronic databases. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality. Studies were included if they had at least fair methodology and reported clinimetric properties of SIJ mobility tests performed in adult patients with non-specific low back pain, pelvic (girdle) pain and/or SIJ pain. Only tests that can be performed in a clinical setting were considered. Results: Twelve relevant articles were identified, of which three were of sufficient methodological quality. These three studies evaluated the reliability of eight SIJ mobility tests and one test cluster. For the majority of individual tests, the intertester reliability showed slight to fair agreement. Although some tests and one test cluster had higher reliability, the confidence intervals around most reliability estimates were large. Furthermore, there were no validity studies of sufficient methodological quality. Conclusion: Considering the low and/or imprecise reliability estimates, the absence of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies, and the uncertainty regarding the construct these tests aim to measure, this review supports the previous recommendations that the use of SIJ mobility tests in clinical practice is problematic.
LINK
Background: Patient participation in goal setting is important to deliver client-centered care. In daily practice, however, patient involvement in goal setting is not optimal. Patient-specific instruments, such as the Patient Specific Complaints (PSC) instrument, can support the goal-setting process because patients can identify and rate their own problems. The aim of this study is to explore patients’ experiences with the feasibility of the PSC, in the physiotherapy goal setting. Method: We performed a qualitative study. Data were collected by observations of physiotherapy sessions (n=23) and through interviews with patients (n=23) with chronic conditions in physiotherapy practices. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Results: The PSC was used at different moments and in different ways. Two feasibility themes were analyzed. First was the perceived ambiguity with the process of administration: patients perceived a broad range of experiences, such as emotional and supportive, as well as feeling a type of uncomfortableness. The second was the perceived usefulness: patients found the PSC useful for themselves – to increase awareness and motivation and to inform the physiotherapist – as well as being useful for the physiotherapist – to determine appropriate treatment for their personal needs. Some patients did not perceive any usefulness and were not aware of any relation with their treatment. Patients with a more positive attitude toward questionnaires, patients with an active role, and health-literate patients appreciated the PSC and felt facilitated by it. Patients who lacked these attributes did not fully understand the PSC’s process or purpose and let the physiotherapist take the lead. Conclusion: The PSC is a feasible tool to support patient participation in the physiotherapy goal setting. However, in the daily use of the PSC, patients are not always fully involved and informed. Patients reported varied experiences related to their personal attributes and modes of administration. This means that the PSC cannot be used in the same way in every patient. It is perfectly suited to use in a dialogue manner, which makes it very suitable to improve goal setting within client-centered care.
DOCUMENT
Background: In recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct. Results: Overall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (–) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: “digital health characteristics” (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [–], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), “outer setting” (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [–], and external financial incentives [–]), “inner setting” (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and –], information incongruence (–), and support from colleagues [+]), “characteristics of the healthcare professionals” (ie, health care professionals’ acceptance [+ and –] and job satisfaction [+ and –]), and the “implementation process” (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [–]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers. Conclusions: Barriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context
DOCUMENT
