↓ Skip to main content

Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1112-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin S. Samsson, Susanne Bernhardsson, Maria E. H. Larsson

Abstract

Physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage, where physiotherapists diagnose and determine management plans, aims to enhance effectiveness and provide the best care. However, scientific evidence for the effectiveness of this model of care remains limited, and there are few studies reporting on patients' perceptions of the care provided. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceived quality of care in a physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage in primary care, compared with standard practice. In a randomised controlled trial, patients of working age referred for orthopaedic consultation at a primary healthcare clinic in Sweden received either physiotherapist-led triage (n = 102) or standard practice (orthopaedic surgeon assessment) (n = 101). Neither subjects nor clinicians were blinded. The questionnaire Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) was used to evaluate perceived quality of care focusing on the caregivers' medical-technical competence and identity-orientated approach. Also, to what extent patients' expectations were met, and their intention to follow advice was evaluated. For this study, 163 patients (80 %) were analysed (physiotherapist-led triage (n = 83), standard practice (n = 80)). Participants perceived significantly higher quality of care with the triage than with the standard practice in regards to receiving best possible examination and treatment (medical-technical competence) (p < 0.001). This was also found in regards to receiving information about examination and treatment (p < 0.001), results (p < 0.001), and self-care (p < 0.001), the caregiver's understanding (p < 0.001), respect (p < 0.001) and commitment (p < 0.001) as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making (p = 0.01) (identity-orientated approach). Participants in the physiotherapist-led triage group reported to a significantly higher extent that their expectations of the treatment were met (p < 0.001), as well as the intent to follow the advice and instructions received (p = 0.019). This paper reports on patients' perceptions of quality of care in a physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice. Patients in both groups reported that they perceived good quality of care, with the patients in the physiotherapist-led triage reporting significantly higher perceived quality of care than those in the standard practice group. This model of care seems to meet patients' expectations and result in a greater intention to follow advice and instructions for self-management. Our findings are in line with existing literature that this model of care provides an opportunity to shape patient-centered care that can improve access and offer care on the most appropriate level, with maintained good quality of care. Clinical Trials NCT02265172 . Registered 10 June 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 196 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 18%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 12 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 74 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 20%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 82 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,292,581
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,383
of 4,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,726
of 347,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#58
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.