Can a professional development workshop with follow-up alter practitioner behaviour and outcomes for neck pain patients? A randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Background

The effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the uptake of clinical practice guidelines and best practices among musculoskeletal professionals: a systematic review

“…After screening of titles and abstracts, 172 studies were assigned for full-text reading; of which only 13 met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 2 references were multiple publications; thus, analysis was conducted on 11 unique studies (six individual RCTs [ 46 – 51 ] and five cluster RCTs [ 52 – 56 ]) reported in 13 publications (see Fig. 1 for the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram).…”

“…The distribution of the included studies by country of origin was as follows: the Netherlands ( n = 4) [ 49 , 50 , 52 , 55 ], UK ( n = 2) [ 48 , 53 ], Australia (n = 2) [ 51 , 54 ], USA ( n = 1) [ 46 ], Switzerland (n = 1) [ 47 ], and Ireland ( n = 1) [ 56 ]. Targeted MSK disorders included five studies on LBP [ 48 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 ], two studies on hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) [ 49 , 50 ], one on whiplash [ 54 ], two on neck pain [ 46 , 51 ], and one on spinal disorders [ 47 ].…”

“…The distribution of the included studies by country of origin was as follows: the Netherlands ( n = 4) [ 49 , 50 , 52 , 55 ], UK ( n = 2) [ 48 , 53 ], Australia (n = 2) [ 51 , 54 ], USA ( n = 1) [ 46 ], Switzerland (n = 1) [ 47 ], and Ireland ( n = 1) [ 56 ]. Targeted MSK disorders included five studies on LBP [ 48 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 ], two studies on hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) [ 49 , 50 ], one on whiplash [ 54 ], two on neck pain [ 46 , 51 ], and one on spinal disorders [ 47 ]. Two of the included studies tested KT interventions delivered in primary care settings [ 52 , 53 ], two in private clinics [ 46 , 54 ], two in both primary and secondary settings [ 49 , 50 ], one in a conference for chiropractors [ 47 ]; one in primary care and occupational settings [ 48 ], one in communities of practice of physical therapists [ 55 ], and one in hospital outpatient physiotherapy clinics [ 56 ].…”

“…Two of the included studies tested KT interventions delivered in primary care settings [ 52 , 53 ], two in private clinics [ 46 , 54 ], two in both primary and secondary settings [ 49 , 50 ], one in a conference for chiropractors [ 47 ]; one in primary care and occupational settings [ 48 ], one in communities of practice of physical therapists [ 55 ], and one in hospital outpatient physiotherapy clinics [ 56 ]. One study did not report their setting [ 51 ].…”

“…Over 75% of the included studies addressed random sequence generation (selection bias) and allocation concealment (selection bias); almost half of them carried out blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias). One study was deemed to have a low risk of bias [ 46 ], six a moderate risk of bias [ 47 – 49 , 52 , 54 – 56 ], and four a high risk of bias [ 50 , 51 , 53 ]. Table 2 outlines the assessment of methodological quality (low, moderate, or high) of the included studies based on the EPOC standard criteria for reviews for RCTs.…”