Dataset Information

'Down to the person, the individual patient themselves': A qualitative study of treatment decision-making for shoulder pain.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Many inconsistencies have been identified in the translation of evidence-based treatment recommendations for musculoskeletal shoulder pain into healthcare services, with little known about factors influencing decision-making. The objective of this study was to explore the views and experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and people living with shoulder pain on treatment decision-making.

Methods

Adopting a qualitative design, purposeful sampling was employed to recruit 13 individuals with nonspecific musculoskeletal shoulder pain and 30 HCPs. Data were collected through 1:1 semi-structured interviews and analysed using an approach informed by Constructivist Grounded Theory. To facilitate analysis, two patient and public involvement (PPI) meetings were conducted.

Results

Most participants (69%) had shoulder pain of ≥1-year duration. Biomechanical beliefs about shoulder pain predominated and were heavily influential in decision-making for both patients and HCPs. Despite a consensus that therapeutic alliance facilitated decision-making, the extent of collaboration between HCPs and patients in treatment decision-making was rather limited. In addition to condition-specific factors, Individual patient characteristics and resources also influenced treatment decisions.

Conclusion

Findings revealed the complexity of the decision-making process for both patients and HCPs, exposing substantial gaps between the reported views and experiences of participants and the principles of client-centred and evidence-based practice. There is a pressing need to enhance the translation of evidence-based knowledge into practice in this clinical area.

Patient or public contribution

In line with a consultative approach to collaborative data analysis, a subgroup of participants attended two PPI meetings to provide commentary and feedback on preliminary findings.

SUBMITTER: Maxwell C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9122451 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

'Down to the person, the individual patient themselves': A qualitative study of treatment decision-making for shoulder pain.

Maxwell Christina C McCreesh Karen K Salsberg Jon J Robinson Katie K

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20220315 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Many inconsistencies have been identified in the translation of evidence-based treatment recommendations for musculoskeletal shoulder pain into healthcare services, with little known about factors influencing decision-making. The objective of this study was to explore the views and experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and people living with shoulder pain on treatment decision-making.<h4>Methods</h4>Adopting a qualitative design, purposeful sampling was employed to recr ...[more]

PMID: 35290703

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectivesPerson-centered obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) care is a collaborative approach that is respectful of an individual's health priorities. Informed decision-making is essential to person-centered care, especially as patients age. In a feasibility study, we evaluated the effects of a new decision aid (Decide2Rest) on OSA treatment decision-making in older adults.MethodsPatients (aged ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed OSA were recruited from two health care systems and randomized either to Decide2Rest or to a control program. Postintervention outcomes included 1) Decisional Conflict Scale (0-100, where 0 = low and 100 = high conflict), which measures perceptions of uncertainty, whether decisions reflect what matters most to patients, and whether patients feel supported in decision-making; 2) Preparation for Decision-Making scale (0-100, where 0 = least and 100 most prepared); and 3) OSA knowledge (0-100, where 0 = poor and 100 = outstanding). Multivariable linear regression models examined relationships between Decide2Rest and outcomes (Decisional Conflict Scale, Preparation for Decision-Making, OSA knowledge).ResultsSeventy-three patients were randomized to Decide2Rest (n = 36; mean age, 69 years; 72% male) vs control (n = 37; mean age, 69 years; 70% male). Results from the regressions, controlling for study site, indicate that the Decide2Rest program resulted in less decisional conflict (20.5 vs 32.7 on the Decisional Conflict Scale; P = .014), more preparedness for decision-making (87.8 vs 66.2 on the Preparation for Decision-Making scale; P < .001), and greater OSA knowledge (75.1 vs 65.3 OSA knowledge score; P = .04) scores than in the control group.ConclusionsThe Decide2Rest program promotes person-centered OSA decision-making for older patients with newly diagnosed OSA. Future studies are needed to optimize implementation of the program.Clinical trial registrationRegistry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Name: Improving Older Adults' Decision-Making for OSAT (eDecide2Rest); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03138993; Identifier: NCT03138993.

Project description:BackgroundPain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP.DesignQualitative study with in-depth interviews.SettingAustralian primary care.ParticipantsWe interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes.Data analysisWe summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making.ResultsGPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process.ConclusionsWe identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are at increased risk for adverse outcomes of COVID-19 illness compared to healthy controls, they also have lower rates of willingness to be vaccinated. Previous research has identified reasons for vaccine hesitancy among patients with RMDs (such as concerns about side effects and flares), but little is known about what these reasons mean in the context of patients' lives, or how vaccine decision making is experienced from a patient perspective. Our objective was to describe decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination among RMD patients.MethodsParticipants in a RMD registry were invited to complete monthly online surveys regarding COVID-19 vaccination from March-June 2021. We qualitatively analyzed comments from two open-ended survey questions reporting general experiences with vaccination and side effects. Comments were coded for attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine access, rheumatologic medication management around vaccination, and vaccine side effects. Themes were identified for the process and context of COVID-19 vaccine decisions, patient motivations for receiving or avoiding vaccination, and consistency of peri-vaccine medication management with current ACR guidelines.ResultsWe analyzed 710 comments from 537 respondents. Commenting respondents had a mean age of 64 years, were 87% female, 94% white, and 93% received/intended to receive ≥ 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Desire for protection and a return to normal routines motivated some commenters to get vaccinated, while concerns about vaccine side effects motivated others to delay or avoid vaccination. Several commenters reported disease flares following vaccination. Some commenters did not consult their providers about vaccination and failed to withhold immunomodulatory medications during vaccination, while others withheld medications more conservatively than recommended by current ACR guidelines, either on their own or directed by their provider.ConclusionsWhile most commenters were vaccine-accepting, challenges to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the RMD population may include fears of side effects, including worsened RMD symptoms, and perceptions that vaccination is unnecessary. Addressing these concerns and beliefs may be critical for promoting vaccination in this population.

Project description:BackgroundShoulder pain is a highly prevalent condition and a significant cause of morbidity and functional disability. Current data suggests that many patients presenting with shoulder pain at the primary care level are not receiving high quality care. Primary care decision-making is complex and has the potential to influence the quality of care provided and patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical decision-making tool that standardizes care and minimizes uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management.MethodsFirst a rapid review was conducted to identify existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive clinical decision-making tool for shoulder pain. Secondly, provincial consensus was established for the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with shoulder pain in Alberta, Canada using a three-step modified Delphi approach. This project was a highly collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJH SCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI).ResultsA clinical decision-making tool for shoulder pain was developed and reached consensus by a province-wide expert panel representing various health disciplines and geographical regions. This tool consists of a clinical examination algorithm for assessing, diagnosis, and managing shoulder pain; recommendations for history-taking and identification of red flags or additional concerns; recommendations for physical examination and neurological screening; recommendations for the differential diagnosis; and care pathways for managing patients presenting with rotator cuff disease, biceps pathology, superior labral tear, adhesive capsulitis, osteoarthritis, and instability.ConclusionsThis clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of shoulder pain, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

Dataset Information

'Down to the person, the individual patient themselves': A qualitative study of treatment decision-making for shoulder pain.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Patient or public contribution

Publications

'Down to the person, the individual patient themselves': A qualitative study of treatment decision-making for shoulder pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets