Physical therapists’ assessments, analyses and use of behavior change techniques in initial consultations on musculoskeletal pain: direct observations in primary health care

Abstract

BackgroundBehavioral medicine (BM) treatment is recommended to be implemented for pain management in physical therapy. Its implementation requires physical therapists (PTs), who are skilled at performing functional behavioral analyses based on physical, psychological and behavioral assessments. The purpose of the current study was to explore and describe PTs’ assessments, analyses and their use of behavioral change techniques (BCTs) in initial consultations with patients who seek primary health care due to musculoskeletal pain.MethodsA descriptive and explorative research design was applied, using data from video recordings of 12 primary health care PTs. A deductive analysis was performed, based on a specific protocol with definitions of PTs’ assessment of physical and psychological prognostic factors (red and yellow flags, respectively), analysis of the clinical problem, and use of BCTs. An additional inductive analysis was performed to identify and describe the variation in the PTs’ clinical practice.ResultsRed and yellow flags were assessed in a majority of the cases. Analyses were mainly based on biomedical assessments and none of the PTs performed functional behavioral analyses. All of the PTs used BCTs, mainly instruction and information, to facilitate physical activity and improved posture. The four most clinically relevant cases were selected to illustrate the variation in the PTs’ clinical practice. The results are based on 12 experienced primary health care PTs in Sweden, limiting the generalizability to similar populations and settings.ConclusionRed and yellow flags were assessed by PTs in the current study, but their interpretation and integration of the findings in analyses and treatment were incomplete, indicating a need of further strategies to implement behavioral medicine in Swedish primary health care physical therapy.

Clinical reasoning in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily physiotherapy practice, a Delphi study

“…On the other hand, the Visual analogue pain scale is used by 6 experts and the NDI by 5. This finding corresponds with other scientific research (Emilson et al, 2016;Synnott et al, 2015). Indeed, for diagnostic purposes the experts use measurement instruments for constructs representing physical functioning 4 times more than PROMs.…”

Training Physical Therapists in Person‐Centered Practice for People With Osteoarthritis: A Qualitative Case Study

“…Many physical therapists lack the understanding, skills, and confidence to incorporate psychological approaches (including goal‐setting, motivational techniques, and communication skills) into routine clinical practice , and as they do not traditionally receive comprehensive training in this area, they may be reluctant or unwilling to change their behavior to become more person‐centered . Given that it is ineffective to simply advise clinicians to change their clinical practice , specific training in person‐centered care is necessary . This fact has been recognized by the European League Against Rheumatism, which has highlighted the need for training to teach health care providers the skills needed to initiate and establish lifestyle changes in people with OA .…”

Implementation of person‐centred practice principles and behaviour change techniques after a 2‐day training workshop: A nested case study involving physiotherapists

“…As such, a person-centred approach to care is advocated by the Australian Physiotherapy Association (Australian Physiotherapy Association, 2011). However, many physiotherapists do not communicate using person-centred principles (Emilson et al, 2016;Potter, Gordon, & Hamer, 2003), and often adopt paternalistic approaches to exercise prescription (Holden, Nicholls, Young, Hay, & Foster, 2009). In addition, there is evidence that communication between patients and physiotherapists in private practice is principally "practitioner-centred", where the relationship is controlled by the practitioner's agenda (Hiller, Guillemin, & Delany, 2015).…”