The MOCAM study is a major prospective questionnaire-based study investigating the relationship between low back pain (LBP) patient outcomes and non-specific treatment components, i.e., therapeutic relationship, healthcare environment, incidental treatment characteristics, patients' beliefs and practitioners' beliefs. Participating acupuncturists, osteopaths, and physiotherapists from the NHS and private sector have been asked to recruit at least 10 patients into the study. This paper aims to analyse current recruitment rates from MOCAM and identify barriers and facilitators to effective recruitment. Recruitment has taken place over 15 months. Invitation letters or emails were sent to individual practitioners identified using online search tools and professional networks. Recruitment rates were analysed descriptively. Within the private sector, response rates (number participating/number invited) are: acupuncturists 3% (49/1561), osteopaths 6% (53/912), physiotherapists 4% (40/1048). Private sector practitioners have each recruited on average 1, 4, and 2 patients into the study respectively. Within the NHS, the response rates are: acupuncturists 100% (2/2), osteopaths 8% (1/13), physiotherapists 63% (44/70). NHS practitioners have each recruited on average 4, 3, and 2 patients respectively.Purpose and Background
Methods and Results
Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments.A statement of the purposes of the study and background:
A summary of the methods used and the results:
