UNASSIGNED: Telehealth direct access physical therapy is becoming more prevalent in the management of outpatient musculoskeletal pain. This innovative model affords more opportunity to reach potential patients who otherwise would not be able to access services due to geographical isolation, travel barriers, and timely access to quality care.
UNASSIGNED: The purpose of the study was to investigate if pain, function, and ability to perform jobs improved after direct access telehealth physical therapy in patients with musculoskeletal pain.
UNASSIGNED: A single cohort retrospective design was implemented to offer telehealth physical therapy to patients with musculoskeletal pain from March to November 2021. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, located in California, and had a history of peripartum pelvic dysfunction, muscle pain, joint pain, or neural symptoms. Paired-samples t-tests and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to analyze normally distributed and non-parametric data (α = 0.05), respectively, to compare pretest and post scores.
UNASSIGNED: Based on 89 participants, paired-samples t-tests showed statistically significant differences in function [t(87) = 20.71, p < .0001] and pain [t(82) = -8.15, p < .0001]. Wilcoxon\'s signed-rank test showed statistically significant differences in ability to perform job (Z = -7.345, p < .0001).
UNASSIGNED: This study demonstrated that in a cohort of individuals with multiregional musculoskeletal pain, there was a decrease in pain and improvements in function and ability to perform job after direct access telehealth physical therapy.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy (PT) are advocated for musculoskeletal pain. Early access to PT through self-referral has been shown to decrease costs and improve outcomes. Although self-referral is permitted in most U.S. states and supported by some health insurance plans, patients\' utilization of self-referral remains low.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, beyond legislative policies and health insurance, associated with patients\' decisions to access physical therapy through self-referral or provider-referral.
METHODS: We recruited 26 females and 6 males whose employer-sponsored insurance benefits included financial incentives for self-referral to physical therapy. Between August 2017 and March 2018, participants completed semi-structured interviews about their beliefs about physical therapy and reasons for choosing self-referral (15 participants) or provider referral (17 participants) for accessing physical therapy. Grounded theory approach was employed to identify themes in the data.
RESULTS: Patients selecting self-referral reported major thematic differences compared to the provider-referral patients including knowledge of the direct access program, attitudes and beliefs about physical therapy and pharmacologic treatment, and prior experiences with physical therapy. Self-referral patients were aware that their plan benefits included reduced cost for self-referral and felt confident in selecting that pathway. They also had negative beliefs about the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and surgery, and previously had positive direct or indirect experiences with physical therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the ability to self-refer, attitudes and beliefs about treatment, and prior experience with physical therapy were associated with self-referral to physical therapy. Interventions aimed at improving knowledge and changing attitudes toward self-referral to physical therapy to increase utilization appear warranted.

BACKGROUND: Over the next decade, the number of osteoarthritis consultations in health care is expected to increase. Physiotherapists may be considered equally qualified as primary assessors as physicians for patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, economic evaluations of this model of care have not yet been described. To determine whether physiotherapists as primary assessors for patients with suspected knee osteoarthritis in primary care are a cost-effective alternative compared with traditional physician-led care, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled pragmatic trial.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to be assessed and treated by either a physiotherapist or physician first in primary care. A cost-effectiveness analysis compared costs and effects in quality adjusted life years (QALY) for the different care models. Analyses were applied with intention to treat, using complete case dataset, and missing data approaches included last observation carried forward and multiple imputation. Non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to assess sampling uncertainty, presented with a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.
RESULTS: 69 patients were randomized to a physiotherapist (n = 35) or physician first (n = 34). There were significantly higher costs for physician visits and radiography in the physician group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01). Both groups improved their health-related quality of life 1 year after assessment compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in QALYs or total costs between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for physiotherapist versus physician was savings of 24,266 €/lost QALY (societal perspective) and 15,533 €/lost QALY (health care perspective). There is a 72-80% probability that physiotherapist first for patients with suspected knee osteoarthritis is less costly and differs less than ±0.1 in QALY compared to traditional physician-led care.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that physiotherapist-led care model might reduce health care costs and lead to marginally less QALYs, but confidence intervals were wide and overlapped no difference at all. Health consequences depending on the profession of the first assessor for knee osteoarthritis seem to be comparable for physiotherapists and physicians. Direct access to physiotherapist in primary care seems to lead to fewer physician consultations and radiography. However, larger clinical trials and qualitative studies to evaluate patients\' perception of this model of care are needed.
BACKGROUND: The study was retrospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov, ID: NCT03822533.

In the Danish healthcare system, direct access to physiotherapy is an option, but public subsidy for treatment requires referral from a general practitioner. To relieve general practice of unnecessary consultations and provide patients with easier access to relevant treatment, direct access to publicly subsidized physiotherapy has been suggested.
Direct access to subsidized physiotherapy will be evaluated in a controlled design and has a duration of one year. Physiotherapy clinics invite eligible patients to participate in the evaluation. Participants complete questionnaires at baseline and six weeks and six months after baseline. Physical health status (ShortForm-12v2) is the primary outcome. In addition, the evaluation will assess the use of services in general practice, physiotherapy, specialists in private practice and hospitals and referrals to diagnostic imaging. A process evaluation will assess the attitude to and implementation of direct access to subsidized physiotherapy through the experiences and attitudes of local general practitioners, secretaries and physiotherapists in participating clinics.
This intervention may affect the point of entry to health care services. For the intervention group the physiotherapists assume responsibility in symptom assessment. During recruitment registration of red flags in physiotherapy is closely monitored. The results of the study may be used to assess if direct access to subsidized physiotherapy is a way to relieve the workload in general practice while maintaining or improving patient level outcomes.
The project was reported to The Committee on Health Research Ethics of the Capital Region of Denmark with protocol number J.nr.: H-19074802. The Committee assessed the project as not registrable and therefore can be implemented without further permission. This trial has been registered at the Danish Data Protection Agency (J.nr.: P-2019-672). The trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifiers: NCT04900480).

The objective was to evaluate the effects of direct-access physiotherapy on patients presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder (MSKD) to the emergency department (ED) on clinical outcomes and use of health care resources.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial in an academic ED in Québec City, Canada. We included patients aged 18 to 80 years with minor MSKD. The intervention group had direct access to a physiotherapist (PT) in the ED immediately after triage and prior to physician assessment, and the control group received usual care by the emergency physician without PT intervention. The key variables included clinical outcomes (pain, interference of pain on function) and resources use (ED return visit, medications, diagnostic tests, additional consultations). They were analyzed using descriptive statistics and compared between groups using two-way analyses of variance, log-linear analysis, and chi-square tests.
Seventy-eight patients suffering from MSKDs were included (40.2 ± 17.6 years old; 44% women). For the primary clinical outcome, participants in the PT group (n = 40) had statistically lower levels of pain and pain interference at 1 and 3 months. In terms of resource use, participants in the PT group returned significantly less often to the ED. At baseline and 1 month, less prescription medication was used, including opioids, but there were no differences at 3 months. Although over-the-counter medication was recommended more at baseline in the PT group, there were no differences in use at 1 month, and the PT group had used them less at 3 months. There were no differences between groups at follow-up for imaging tests, other professionals consulted, and hospitalization rates.
Patients presenting with a MSKD to the ED with direct access to a PT had better clinical outcomes and used less services and resources than those in the usual care group after ED discharge and up to 3 months after discharge.

To evaluate the cost, accessibility and patient satisfaction implications of two clinical pathways used in the management of chronic headache.
Management of chronic headache following referral from Primary Care that differed in the first appointment, either a Neurology appointment or an MRI brain scan.
A pragmatic, non-randomised, prospective, single-centre study at a Central Hospital in London.
Adult patients with chronic headache referred from primary to secondary care.
Participants\' use of healthcare services and costs were estimated using primary and secondary care databases and questionnaires quarterly up to 12 months postrecruitment. Cost analyses were compared using generalised linear models. Secondary outcomes assessed: access to care, patient satisfaction, headache burden and self-perceived quality of life using headache-specific (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test) and a generic questionnaire (5-level EQ-5D).
Mean (SD) cost up to 6 months postrecruitment per participant was £578 (£420) for the Neurology group (n=128) and £245 (£172) for the MRI group (n=95), leading to an estimated mean cost difference of £333 (95% CI £253 to £413, p<0.001). The mean cost difference at 12 months increased to £518 (95% CI £401 to £637, p<0.001). When adjusted for baseline and follow-up imbalances between groups, this remained statistically significant. The utilisation of brain MRI improved access to care compared with the Neurology group (p<0.001). Participants in the Neurology group reported higher levels of satisfaction associated with the pathway and led to greater change in care management.
Direct referral to brain MRI from Primary Care led to cost-savings and quicker access to care but lower satisfaction levels when compared with referral to Neurology services. Further research into the use of brain MRI for a subset of patient population more likely to be reassured by a negative brain scan should be considered.
NCT02753933.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal problems are common, accounting for up to 30 % of general practitioner (GP) consultations and are a major cause of chronic disability worldwide. Demand for health care for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to continue to rise given the ageing population and the increasing impact of these common painful conditions. Physiotherapists are well equipped to deliver evidence-based management for these conditions. Direct access allows patients to access physiotherapy without seeing their GP or another referring practitioner first; however, for most patients in the UK, access to National Health Service physiotherapy is controlled through GP referral.
METHODS: The aim of this pilot, pragmatic, cluster trial is to assess the feasibility of a future large trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the additional offer of direct access to physiotherapy versus continuing with usual GP-led primary care alone for adults with common musculoskeletal problems. The pilot will focus on process outcomes to assess feasibility, although performance of the likely outcomes of a main trial will also be assessed. This is a two-arm parallel, cluster RCT where GP practices are the units of randomisation (the clusters), yet data are collected from individual patients with musculoskeletal problems (the participants). A direct access service will be set up in the participating physiotherapy service to provide the option of direct access to patients of the intervention arm practices. Inclusion criteria are broad to reflect the \'real-world\' operation of an NHS physiotherapy direct access service for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Data collection will be through patient self-reported questionnaires at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months and medical record review.
CONCLUSIONS: No previous trials have been conducted into direct access to physiotherapy for patients with musculoskeletal problems. The strengths of the STEMS pilot trial are its size, the length of follow-up, and collection of process, clinical and cost outcomes to fully inform a future main trial to meet calls to provide robust trial evidence of the impact on clinical outcomes, work loss and costs to provide clinicians and service funders with the high quality trial data they need to guide decisions on the best models of care.
BACKGROUND: The STEMS pilot trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN23378642.

BACKGROUND: Military physical therapists have been shown to have the necessary knowledge in musculoskeletal medicine in order to practice as a direct access provider. However, research about musculoskeletal knowledge in the civilian physical therapist (non-military) population is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to compare the knowledge in managing musculoskeletal conditions between civilian and military physical therapists using a validated and standardized musculoskeletal competency examination. Furthermore, this study aims to investigate the potential factors that may lead to increased musculoskeletal competency.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, electronic survey.
METHODS: This study involved a cross-sectional, electronic survey completed in August and September of 2014 in order to assess licensed physical therapists\' knowledge in identifying and managing musculoskeletal conditions. Only physical therapists practicing in orthopedics were permitted to be involved in the study. Descriptive statistics of the participants, and logistic regressions analyzing variables correlated with passing the musculoskeletal exam were calculated using SPSS 22.0. Frequencies were produced for multiple variables. Binary logistic regressions were used to correlate the frequency variables with performing at competency level on the musculoskeletal exam.
RESULTS: A total of 22,750 surveys were sent to physical therapists in Arizona, Ohio, Texas, Maine and Wyoming. Two thousand sixty-five surveys were returned for a response rate of 10.6%. Of the 2,065 surveys completed, 408 responses were included for analysis. The average score for the respondents on the exam was 65.08% and only 28.2% of all respondents met the competency cutoff score (previously established to be 73.1%). Respondents who were orthopedic certified specialists (OCS) or sports certified specialists (SCS) were 3.091 times more likely to perform at the competency level on the examination with a p-value of < 0.001 and a confidence interval >95%.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study utilized the results from a previous study for a comparison between the civilian and military physical therapist populations. The results indicate that civilian physical therapists in the current study (65.08%) scored lower than their military counterparts in the previous study (75.9%) on the musculoskeletal exam. Potential reasons for this include less autonomous practice responsibilities and a disparity in educational experiences. Board certifications may enhance civilian physical therapists ability to practice with greater autonomy as primary care clinicians when managing musculoskeletal conditions.
METHODS: Level 4.