Effects of an e-learning programme on osteopaths' back pain attitudes: a mixed methods feasibility study.
Biopsychosocial
Continuing professional development
Feasibility
Manual therapy
Non-specific low back pain
Osteopathy
Randomised controlled trial
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Sep 2021
13 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
27
03
2020
accepted:
10
08
2021
entrez:
14
9
2021
pubmed:
15
9
2021
medline:
15
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The biopsychosocial model is recommended in the management of non-specific low back pain but musculoskeletal practitioners can lack skills in assessing and managing patients using a biopsychosocial framework. Educational interventions have produced equivocal results. There is a need for an alternative educational tool to support practitioners' development in the application of biopsychosocial model to manage low back pain. A mixed methods study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an e-learning programme on the biopsychosocial management of non-specific low back pain for osteopaths with more than 15 years' experience. A sequential explanatory design was conducted, with a feasibility randomised controlled trial and semi-structured interviews explored with thematic analysis. A total of 45 participants participated in the RCT of which 9 also participated in the interview study. The a-priori sample size was not met (45 instead of 50). The recruitment strategies, randomisation, retention, data collection and outcome measures worked well and were found to be feasible for a main trial. The retention, satisfaction and participants' views of the programme demonstrated a good acceptability of the programme. Data from the semi-structured interviews were organised in three themes, the first two were related to the feasibility and acceptability of the e-learning programme (practical experience of following the course and engagement with the content) and the third relates to the impact of the intervention (perception of the BPS model). A main RCT is feasible and the intervention was received well by the participants. A main RCT is required to assess the effectiveness of the e-learning programme. This work also provided data on aspects so far unreported, including osteopaths' views on continuing professional development, on e-learning as a form of continuing professional development and osteopaths' perceptions and challenges concerning the implementation of the biopsychosocial model in practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The biopsychosocial model is recommended in the management of non-specific low back pain but musculoskeletal practitioners can lack skills in assessing and managing patients using a biopsychosocial framework. Educational interventions have produced equivocal results. There is a need for an alternative educational tool to support practitioners' development in the application of biopsychosocial model to manage low back pain.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed methods study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an e-learning programme on the biopsychosocial management of non-specific low back pain for osteopaths with more than 15 years' experience. A sequential explanatory design was conducted, with a feasibility randomised controlled trial and semi-structured interviews explored with thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 45 participants participated in the RCT of which 9 also participated in the interview study. The a-priori sample size was not met (45 instead of 50). The recruitment strategies, randomisation, retention, data collection and outcome measures worked well and were found to be feasible for a main trial. The retention, satisfaction and participants' views of the programme demonstrated a good acceptability of the programme. Data from the semi-structured interviews were organised in three themes, the first two were related to the feasibility and acceptability of the e-learning programme (practical experience of following the course and engagement with the content) and the third relates to the impact of the intervention (perception of the BPS model).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A main RCT is feasible and the intervention was received well by the participants. A main RCT is required to assess the effectiveness of the e-learning programme. This work also provided data on aspects so far unreported, including osteopaths' views on continuing professional development, on e-learning as a form of continuing professional development and osteopaths' perceptions and challenges concerning the implementation of the biopsychosocial model in practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34517916
doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00901-4
pii: 10.1186/s40814-021-00901-4
pmc: PMC8436454
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
174Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Eur Spine J. 2006 Mar;15 Suppl 2:S136-68
pubmed: 16550446
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67
pubmed: 20637084
Clin J Pain. 2010 Feb;26(2):144-52
pubmed: 20090442
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019 Jun;49(6):477-481
pubmed: 31092125
Eur J Pain. 2005 Apr;9(2):173-83
pubmed: 15737810
Trials. 2014 Jul 03;15:264
pubmed: 24993581
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jan 08;13:6
pubmed: 23294526
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987 Sep;12(7):632-44
pubmed: 2961080
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 May;57:70-81
pubmed: 27045566
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Jan;54(2):79-86
pubmed: 30826805
Man Ther. 2015 Apr;20(2):328-34
pubmed: 25454686
Clin J Pain. 2006 May;22(4):378-86
pubmed: 16691092
Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Oct;4(5):332-7
pubmed: 22029804
Eur J Pain. 2009 Nov;13(10):1080-8
pubmed: 19268614
Pain Pract. 2019 Feb;19(2):224-241
pubmed: 30290052
Physiother Can. 2010 Summer;62(3):180-9
pubmed: 21629595
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Lancet. 2005 Jun 11-17;365(9476):2024-30
pubmed: 15950716
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 May 15;34(11):1218-26; discussion 1227
pubmed: 19407674
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):508-23
pubmed: 24722814
Implement Sci. 2011 Feb 07;6:10
pubmed: 21299860
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 06;10:1
pubmed: 20053272
Pain. 2007 Nov;132(1-2):91-101
pubmed: 17346889
Pain. 2005 Dec 5;118(3):350-359
pubmed: 16289797
J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Jun;12(3):365-75
pubmed: 16722923
J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Aug;15(4):724-32
pubmed: 19674225
Man Ther. 2013 Apr;18(2):136-42
pubmed: 23047043
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 May;63(5):484-9
pubmed: 16651505
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015;1(1):1
pubmed: 29611687
Chiropr Man Therap. 2015 May 11;23:17
pubmed: 26085924
Eur J Pain. 2018 Jul;22(6):1057-1070
pubmed: 29356210
J Pain. 2003 May;4(4):184-9
pubmed: 14622702
Fam Pract. 2011 Feb;28(1):12-21
pubmed: 20833704
Med Teach. 2012;34(1):20-4
pubmed: 21777127
Lancet. 2011 Oct 29;378(9802):1560-71
pubmed: 21963002
J Physiother. 2015 Apr;61(2):68-76
pubmed: 25812929
Nurse Res. 2013 Mar;20(4):12-7
pubmed: 23520707
Pain. 2005 Apr;114(3):491-498
pubmed: 15777874
J Psychiatr Res. 2011 May;45(5):626-9
pubmed: 21035130
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12
pubmed: 15189396
J Med Syst. 2018 Sep 12;42(10):194
pubmed: 30209627
BMJ Open. 2013 Feb 07;3(2):
pubmed: 23396504
Eur J Pain. 2013 Jul;17(6):916-28
pubmed: 23208945
Pain. 2008 Mar;135(1-2):187-95
pubmed: 18206309
J Physiother. 2010;56(4):279
pubmed: 21213945
Man Ther. 2003 Nov;8(4):214-22
pubmed: 14559044
Eur J Pain. 2019 Sep;23(8):1416-1424
pubmed: 30974479
Scand J Pain. 2017 Dec 29;4(1):25-30
pubmed: 29913889
Clin J Pain. 2011 Jul-Aug;27(6):542-9
pubmed: 21505323
Man Ther. 2014 Oct;19(5):367-71
pubmed: 24924515
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jun 18;16:163
pubmed: 27316705
Man Ther. 2012 Jun;17(3):213-8
pubmed: 22277324
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Feb;27:71-77
pubmed: 28637605
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):301-8
pubmed: 22169081
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):197-201
pubmed: 23195919
Phys Ther. 2011 May;91(5):804-19
pubmed: 21451098
Appl Nurs Res. 2006 Feb;19(1):38-42
pubmed: 16455440
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
pubmed: 22228729
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):e1-37
pubmed: 20346624
Phys Ther. 2015 Aug;95(8):1120-34
pubmed: 25858972