Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Martin Underwood

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Underwood.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Persistent back pain--why do physical therapy clinicians continue treatment? A mixed methods study of chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.

AIMS: (a) To investigate how widespread is the use of long term treatment without improvement amongst clinicians treating individuals with low back pain. (b) To study the beliefs behind the reasons why chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists continue to treat people whose low back pain appears not to be improving. METHODS: A mixed methods study, including a questionnaire survey and qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. Questionnaire survey; 354/600 (59%) clinicians equally distributed between chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions. Interview study; a purposive sample of fourteen clinicians from each profession identified from the survey responses. Methodological techniques ranged from grounded theory analysis to sorting of categories by both the research team and the subjects themselves. RESULTS: At least 10% of each of the professions reported that they continued to treat patients with low back pain who showed almost no improvement for over three months. There is some indication that this is an underestimate. reasons for continuing unsuccessful management of low back pain were not found to be primarily monetary in nature; rather it appears to have much more to do with the scope of care that extends beyond issues addressed in the current physical therapy guidelines. The interview data showed that clinicians viewed their role as including health education and counselling rather than a 'cure or refer' approach. Additionally, participants raised concerns that discharging patients from their care meant sending them to into a therapeutic void. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment of patients with low back pain without objective signs of improvement is an established practice in a minority of clinicians studied. This approach contrasts with clinical guidelines that encourage self-management, reassurance, re-activation, and involvement of multidisciplinary teams for patients who do not recover. Some of the rationale provided makes a strong case for ongoing contact. However, the practice is also maintained through poor communication with other professions and mistrust of the healthcare system.

Allied Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

TOIB Study. Are topical or oral ibuprofen equally effective for the treatment of chronic knee pain presenting in primary care: a randomised controlled trial with patient preference study. [ISRCTN79353052].

BACKGROUND: Many older people have chronic knee pain. Both topical and oral non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat this. Oral NSAIDS are effective, at least in the short term, but can have severe adverse effects. Topical NSAIDs also appear to be effective, at least in the short term. One might expect topical NSAIDs both to be less effective and to have fewer adverse effects than oral NSAIDs. If topical NSAIDs have fewer adverse effects this may outweigh both the reduction in effectiveness and the higher cost of topical compared to oral treatment. Patient preferences may influence the comparative effectiveness of drugs delivered via different routes. METHODS: TOIB is a randomised trial comparing topical and oral ibuprofen, with a parallel patient preference study. We are recruiting people aged 50 or over with chronic knee pain, from 27 MRC General Practice Research Framework practices across the UK. We are seeking to recruit 283 participants to the RCT and 379 to the PPS. Participants will be followed up for up to two years (with the majority reaching one year). Outcomes will be assessed by postal questionnaire, nurse examination, laboratory tests and medical record searches at one and two years or the end of the study. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new evidence on the overall costs and benefits of treating chronic knee pain with either oral or topical ibuprofen. The use of a patient preference design is unusual, but will allow us to explore how preference influences response to a medication. In addition, it will provide more information on adverse events. This study will provide evidence to inform primary care practitioners, and possibly influence practice.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

"It struck me that they didn't understand pain": the specialist pain clinic experience of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of diagnosis and management among patients who attended a specialist musculoskeletal pain clinic and the factors influencing their interpretation of these experiences. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to potential participants 6-20 months after their first clinic attendance. Data were collected on pain presence, severity, and location; health-related quality of life; psychological distress; and care-seeking behavior. Questionnaire data were used to inform combined purposive and theoretical sampling. In-depth interviews were conducted that probed participants' understanding of their chronic musculoskeletal pain and its management in a specialist musculoskeletal pain clinic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were interviewed. Four main themes were identified: spoiled identity (pain limited patients' activities so extensively that it affected their sense of self); diminishing faith in medicine (patients were disappointed with aspects of their care-seeking experience); making sense of pain (patients made sense of their pain by locating their pain within the context of their lives); and learning to live with the pain (an issue for all patients was whether or not their pain would stop or whether they had to learn to live with it). CONCLUSION: Developing, implementing, and evaluating approaches to address patients' spoiled identities might allow us to improve patient-centered outcomes in chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2005

Testing the effectiveness of an innovative information package on practitioner reported behaviour and beliefs: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low back pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) trial [ISRCTN77245761].

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem. Initiatives designed to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for LBP include printed evidence-based clinical guidelines. The three professional groups of chiropractic, osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy in the UK share common ground with their approaches to managing LBP and are amongst those targeted by LBP guidelines. Even so, many seem unaware that such guidelines exist. Furthermore, the behaviour of at least some of these practitioners differs from that recommended in these guidelines. Few randomised controlled trials evaluating printed information as an intervention to change practitioner behaviour have utilised a no-intervention control. All these trials have used a cluster design and most have methodological flaws. None specifically focus upon practitioner behaviour towards LBP patients. Studies that have investigated other strategies to change practitioner behaviour with LBP patients have produced conflicting results. Although numerous LBP guidelines have been developed worldwide, there is a paucity of data on whether their dissemination actually changes practitioner behaviour. Primarily because of its low unit cost, sending printed information to large numbers of practitioners is an attractive dissemination and implementation strategy. The effect size of such a strategy, at an individual practitioner level, is likely to be small. However, if large numbers of practitioners are targeted, this strategy might achieve meaningful changes at a population level. METHODS: The primary aim of this prospective, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is to test the short-term effectiveness (six-months following intervention) of a directly-posted information package on the reported clinical behaviour (primary outcome), attitudes and beliefs of UK chiropractors, osteopaths and musculoskeletal physiotherapists. We sought to randomly allocate a combined sample of 1,800 consenting practitioners to receive either the information package (intervention arm) or no information above that gained during normal practice (control arm). We collected questionnaire data at baseline and six-months post-intervention. The analysis of the primary outcome will assess between-arm differences of proportions of responses to questions on recommendations about activity, work and bed-rest, that fall within categories previously defined by an expert consensus exercise as either 'guideline-consistent' and 'guideline-inconsistent'.

Chiropractic↗
PubMed2005

Differential recruitment in a cluster randomized trial in primary care: the experience of the UK back pain, exercise, active management and manipulation (UK BEAM) feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials, which randomize groups of patients rather than individuals, are commonly used to evaluate healthcare interventions such as training programmes targeted at health professionals. This article reports the dangers of randomizing entire primary care practices when participants cannot be identified before randomization, as shown by a UK national trial. METHOD: The UK BEAM trial, a national cluster randomized 3 x 2 x 2 factorial trial, was designed to evaluate three treatments for back pain in primary care: "active management"; randomized by practice; and spinal manipulation and exercise classes, both randomized by individual. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-one participants were recruited in the feasibility study, 165 (141% of expected recruitment) from active (management) practices but only 66 (54% of expected recruitment) from traditional (management) practices. The participants in active practices were significantly different from those in traditional practices, notably in suffering from milder back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility study highlighted the dangers of randomizing clusters when individuals cannot be identified beforehand. Different numbers and types of participants were recruited in the two types of cluster. This differential recruitment led us to change the main trial design by abandoning practice level randomization. Instead all practices were trained in active management to maximize recruitment. Ideally cluster randomized trials should identify patients beforehand, to minimize the chance of selection bias. If this is not possible, patient recruitment should be independent in both intervention and control clusters. Pilot studies are especially important for cluster randomized trials, to identify unforeseen problems.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Why modelling a complex intervention is an important precursor to trial design: lessons from studying an intervention to reduce falls-related injuries in older people.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cost-effectiveness model of a complex intervention from pilot study data in order to inform the viability and design of a subsequent falls prevention trial. METHODS: We used two models; the first estimated the probability of falling over a 12-month period based on a probability tree; the second used Markov simulation to assess the impact of the programme over time. RESULTS: The first model indicated that our intervention would reduce the proportion falling by only 2.8% over a 12-month period. The major reason for this small effect was that less than a quarter of older people at risk of falling were assessed using our screening tool. Even if policy-makers were willing to spend 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year gained, there is only a 40% chance that the intervention would be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the only scenarios that produced a substantial increase in the effect of the intervention were those in which all older people are assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The model-building approach described in this paper is vital when designing complex trials and where a trial is not possible. Information from the modelling can be used to re-design the intervention. The effectiveness of our proposed intervention appears very small due to its inability to reach those at risk of falling. It is most likely not to be cost-effective. If inability to reach the target group is a weakness common to other similar interventions, this suggests an area for further research.

Accidental Falls↗
PubMed2005

Gout.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2004

Development and preliminary examination of the predictive validity of the Falls Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) for use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is no validated assessment of an older person's risk of falling that is easily applied in primary care. We aimed to develop a two-part tool for use in primary care or the community. Part 1 includes a rapid assessment of the individual's risk of falling for administration by clinical or non-clinical staff. Part 2 (for clinical staff) includes guidance on further assessment, referral and interventions. We assessed the predictive validity of part 1. METHODS: The tool was developed by an expert panel following the updating of an existing systematic review of community-based prospective studies identifying risk factors for falling and modified in accordance with the feedback from extensive piloting. We assessed predictive validity by a questionnaire survey sent at baseline and 6 months to a random sample of 1000 people aged over 65 in one Primary Care Group area. RESULTS: Five items were included in part 1: history of any fall in the previous year, four or more prescribed medications, diagnosis of stroke or Parkinson's disease, reported problems with balance, inability to rise from a chair without using arms. The presence of three or more risk factors had a positive predictive value for a fall in the next 6 months of 0.57 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.43-0.69). Less than three risk factors had a negative predictive value of 0.86 (0.82-0.89), and a specificity of 0.92 (0.88-0.94). CONCLUSION: The tool may be useful for identifying people who would benefit from further assessment of their risk of falling and appropriate intervention.

Accident Prevention↗
PubMed2004

Did local enhancement of a national campaign to reduce high antibiotic prescribing affect public attitudes and prescribing rates?

OBJECTIVES: Due to concerns about both costs and drug resistance, reducing antibiotic prescribing is a strategic aim for the UK National Health Service. A nationwide public education campaign launched in October 1999 (CATNAP) addressed this. The objectives were 1) to assess public attitudes to antibiotic use in a district with high antibiotic prescribing where a nationwide public education campaign was locally enhanced; 2) to assess the impact of the campaign on prescribing of antibiotics locally. DESIGN: 1) Questionnaire survey to test the hypothesis that public attitudes would be equivalent before and after local enhancement of the national campaign. 2) Prescribing data analysis to assess the impact of the campaign on prescribing of antibiotics. SETTING: London borough of Barking and Dagenham. OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) Differences in public attitudes to antibiotic prescribing pre and post the locally enhanced campaign. 2) Changes in prescribing rates pre and post the locally enhanced campaign. RESULTS: 1) Response rates in questionnaire study: 45% (442/982) initially, 42% (815/1941) at follow-up. Responses to all general questions were equivalent in both surveys. There was considerable misunderstanding amongst the population about the effectiveness of antibiotics, particularly in relation to viral infections, colds, sore throats and coughs. The proportion of responders who believed that children should be prescribed antibiotics for a fever was not equivalent in the two surveys, it decreased from 56% to 49%, the limit of the one-sided confidence interval was 13.5%. 2) The rate of change in prescriptions dispensed between 1998/9 and 1999/2000 was not significantly different from that expected, based on the previous years, in either England and Wales or Barking and Dagenham. CONCLUSION: Using this study design and this method of locally enhancing a public education campaign, the locally enhanced campaign did not appear to influence the public's attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing in an area of high prescribing. Assessment of the attitudes of those who had definitely been exposed to the campaign and its messages to, and by, GPs might be more likely to produce a demonstrable change in attitudes.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2004

Gout.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2003

Treatment and the process of care in musculoskeletal conditions. A multidisciplinary perspective and integration.

Chronic musculoskeletal pain for which there is not an obvious underlying physical cause is one of the most common reasons for long-term disability. There is a need to develop better ways of managing these problems. Improving the understanding of the basis for decision making, the processes of care, and the beliefs and expectations of patients and health care professionals seems as fundamental as basic laboratory science is to understanding inflammatory arthopathies. Little is known about the beliefs and expectations of patients and health care professionals, nor the multitude of factors such as traditions within professional groups, education, and language that professionals use in decision making. When better understanding of these factors and the mismatch between professionals and patients is achieved, then theoretical frameworks, treatment approaches, and the education of professionals in appropriate management will be improved.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

Acute gout.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2002

The acceptability to primary care staff of a multidisciplinary training package on acute back pain guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Implementing clinical guidelines is more likely to be successful when the whole practice team is committed to the process. Practices from the MRC General Practice Research Framework in two distinct geographical centres in the UK (West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester) participated in the feasibility study for the UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial. Practice teams were randomized to continue with their usual care for back pain patients, or to be trained in managing back pain in line with national guidelines. Those randomized to the intervention arm of the trial were invited to attend training, delivered by either a generic trainer or a back pain expert. OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to assess the general acceptability of the training package to staff, to assess the acceptability of the multidisciplinary approach and to determine if a generic primary care educator could deliver the training as effectively as a clinical back pain expert. METHODS: All staff (clinical and non-clinical) from intervention practices were invited to attend multidisciplinary training sessions on the active management of back pain. Practice staff in West Yorkshire were trained by a generic primary care educator and practice staff in Greater Manchester were trained by a clinical back pain expert. The content of sessions was standardized for both trainers and included didactic and interactive components and small group, case study discussions. Detailed notes were taken of observations made of participants during sessions, and evaluation forms were completed by all those who attended. RESULTS: The majority of participants found the training useful and said that the session had lived up to their expectations. Most found that the session was well planned and that they had sufficient opportunity to participate in learning. The training package was well received by clinical staff, but was less acceptable to non-clinical staff. GPs dominated the small group work discussions. No differences were found between the preferences of participants for the two different trainers. CONCLUSION: The training package was appropriate for clinical staff, but did not always meet the needs of non-clinical staff and may require modification for this group. A generic educator can successfully lead multidisciplinary educational sessions addressing clinical issues.

Acute Disease↗