Background: Conservative, first-line treatments (exercise, education and weight-loss if appropriate) for hip and knee joint osteoarthritis are underused despite the known benefits. Clinicians’ beliefs can affect the advice and education given to patients, in turn, this can influence the uptake of treatment. In New Zealand, most conservative OA management is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs; primary care physicians) and physiotherapists. Few questionnaires have been designed to measure GPs’ and physiotherapists’ osteoarthritis-related health, illness and treatment beliefs. This study aimed to identify if a questionnaire about low back pain beliefs, the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), can be adapted to assess GP and physiotherapists’ beliefs about osteoarthritis. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional observational design. Data were collected anonymously from GPs and physiotherapists using an online survey. The survey included a study-specific demographic and occupational characteristics questionnaire and the PABS-PT questionnaire adapted for osteoarthritis. All data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the PABS-PT data underwent principal factor analysis. Results: In total, 295 clinicians (87 GPs, 208 physiotherapists) participated in this study. The principal factor analysis identified two factors or subscales (categorised as biomedical and behavioural), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and 0.44, respectively. Conclusions: The biomedical subscale of the PABS-PT appears appropriate for adaptation for use in the context of osteoarthritis, but the low internal consistency of the behavioural subscale suggests this subscale is not currently suitable. Future research should consider the inclusion of additional items to the behavioural subscale to improve internal consistency or look to develop a new, osteoarthritis-specific questionnaire.

Literature suggests community integration should be the primary rehabilitation goal for older people following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, little is known about older people’s lived experience of community integration following TBI. This mixed method study explores community integration from the perspective of four older adults following mild TBI, and compares findings with results from two community integration outcome measures: the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) and the Community Integration Measure (CIM). Findings showed that TBI caused major disruption in life planning, with participants discussing a battle to maintain their pre-TBI independence and having to deal with the consequences of losing some independence following their injury. Setting up or maintaining good support networks were identified as vital to reintegration into the community following TBI, including with physiotherapists whose ability to engage and listen to their patients’ experiences can play an important role in their recovery. Physiotherapists must take care when using the CIQ or CIM to measure the experiences of older adults’ community integration following TBI as this study suggests that the measures do not wholly reflect people’s lived experiences. Findings from this study may be referred to by the providers of community-based services for older adults with TBI to develop strategies for supporting older adults’ community integration following TBI.

Background: Conservative, first-line treatments (exercise, education and weight-loss if appropriate) for hip and knee joint osteoarthritis are underused despite the known benefits. Clinicians’ beliefs can affect the advice and education given to patients, in turn, this can influence the uptake of treatment. In New Zealand, most conservative OA management is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs; primary care physicians) and physiotherapists. Few questionnaires have been designed to measure GPs’ and physiotherapists’ osteoarthritis-related health, illness and treatment beliefs. This study aimed to identify if a questionnaire about low back pain beliefs, the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), can be adapted to assess GP and physiotherapists’ beliefs about osteoarthritis.Methods: This study used a cross-sectional observational design. Data were collected anonymously from GPs and physiotherapists using an online survey. The survey included a study-specific demographic and occupational characteristics questionnaire and the PABS-PT questionnaire adapted for osteoarthritis. All data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the PABS-PT data underwent principal factor analysis. Results: In total, 295 clinicians (87 GPs, 208 physiotherapists) participated in this study. The principal factor analysis identified two factors or subscales (categorised as biomedical and behavioural), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and 0.44, respectively. Conclusions: The biomedical subscale of the PABS-PT appears appropriate for adaptation for use in the context of osteoarthritis, but the low internal consistency of the behavioural subscale suggests this subscale is not currently suitable. Future research should consider the inclusion of additional items to the behavioural subscale to improve internal consistency or look to develop a new, osteoarthritis-specific questionnaire.

Background Conservative treatments for hip and knee joint osteoarthritis are underused despite the known benefits. Adherence to conservative treatments is poor and affected by people’s health, illness and treatment beliefs. Clinicians’ beliefs can also affect the advice and education given to patients. Few studies have explored general practitioners’ (GPs; primary care physicians) and physiotherapists’ osteoarthritis-related health, illness and treatment beliefs. In addition, limited questionnaires are available to explore this phenomenon. This study aimed to identify if GPs and physiotherapists had beliefs about osteoarthritis that fit better with biomedical or biopsychosocial models, and explore the utility of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT) adapted for osteoarthritis. Methods This study used a cross-sectional observational design. Data were collected anonymously from GPs and physiotherapists using an online survey. The survey included a study-specific demographic and occupational characteristics questionnaire and the PABS-PT questionnaire adapted for osteoarthritis. All data were analysed using descriptive statistics. PABS-PT data also underwent principal factor analysis. Results In total, 295 clinicians (87 GPs, 208 physiotherapists) participated in this study. The principal factor analysis identified two factors or subscales (biomedical and behavioural), with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.84 and 0.44, respectively. Participants scored higher on the behavioural (3.85) than the biomedical (2.78) beliefs subscale. Conclusions The results suggest clinicians’ osteoarthritis beliefs are broadly more behavioural (biopsychosocial) than biomedical in orientation. However, the poor internal consistency of the behavioural subscale suggests the PABS-PT is not suitable for adaptation for osteoarthritis.