liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Where is the patient in the records? Evaluating physiotherapists' first visit in occupational health primary care pathway for low back pain
Linköping University, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Research Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7489-9245
Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community Medicine.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8612-583X
Research Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; Wellbeing Services County of South Karelia, Lappeenranta, Finland.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2158-6042
Research Unit of Population Health, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; The Wellbeing Services County of North Ostrobothnia Pohde, Oulu, Finland.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4531-8306
Show others and affiliations
2026 (English)In: BMJ Open Quality, E-ISSN 2399-6641, Vol. 15, no 1, article id e003900Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Clinical guidelines recommend a biopsychosocial approach to low back pain (LBP) management, with physiotherapists playing a key role in occupational health primary care (OHPC). However, little is known about how their clinical behaviours at the first visit align with guideline-oriented biopsychosocial principles. Therefore, we evaluated LBP management quality in OHPC by applying predefined criteria to physiotherapists' documentation. Methods Based on a cluster-randomised implementation study data (ISRCTN11875357) we analysed 98 electronic patient records (EPRs) documented by 28 physiotherapists across diverse OHPC units. The intervention arm had received 3-7 days of biopsychosocial training. A stratified random sample of EPRs from individuals with LBP was reviewed using a structured researcher's evaluation tool. Each item was scored dichotomously (yes/no) and evaluated against predefined quality criteria with stepwise thresholds for different work disability risk groups. Results Step I, multidimensional biopsychosocial assessment of LBP, was documented in fewer than half of the records (36.5% in the intervention vs 16.7% in the control arm, p=0.081). The biological dimension was well documented in both arms (100% vs 95.8%, p=0.245), while psychological (58.1% vs 25%, p=0.009) and social (54.1% vs 29.2%, p=0.038) dimensions were more frequently documented in the intervention arm. Step II quality criteria (low-risk patients) were met in 58.1% of intervention versus 4.2% of control records (p<0.001), and step III (medium-risk) in 55.4% versus 4.2% (p<0.001). No EPRs met step IV (high-risk) quality criteria. The intervention arm more often documented psychosocial assessments, risk stratification, behavioural strategies and advice to stay active. Person-centredness (ie, goals, values, resources, expectations) was rarely documented (36.5% vs 0%, p<0.001).Results Step I, multidimensional biopsychosocial assessment of LBP, was documented in fewer than half of the records (36.5% in the intervention vs 16.7% in the control arm, p=0.081). The biological dimension was well documented in both arms (100% vs 95.8%, p=0.245), while psychological (58.1% vs 25%, p=0.009) and social (54.1% vs 29.2%, p=0.038) dimensions were more frequently documented in the intervention arm. Step II quality criteria (low-risk patients) were met in 58.1% of intervention versus 4.2% of control records (p<0.001), and step III (medium-risk) in 55.4% versus 4.2% (p<0.001). No EPRs met step IV (high-risk) quality criteria. The intervention arm more often documented psychosocial assessments, risk stratification, behavioural strategies and advice to stay active. Person-centredness (ie, goals, values, resources, expectations) was rarely documented (36.5% vs 0%, p<0.001).Results Step I, multidimensional biopsychosocial assessment of LBP, was documented in fewer than half of the records (36.5% in the intervention vs 16.7% in the control arm, p=0.081). The biological dimension was well documented in both arms (100% vs 95.8%, p=0.245), while psychological (58.1% vs 25%, p=0.009) and social (54.1% vs 29.2%, p=0.038) dimensions were more frequently documented in the intervention arm. Step II quality criteria (low-risk patients) were met in 58.1% of intervention versus 4.2% of control records (p<0.001), and step III (medium-risk) in 55.4% versus 4.2% (p<0.001). No EPRs met step IV (high-risk) quality criteria. The intervention arm more often documented psychosocial assessments, risk stratification, behavioural strategies and advice to stay active. Person-centredness (ie, goals, values, resources, expectations) was rarely documented (36.5% vs 0%, p<0.001). Conclusion Training in guideline-oriented biopsychosocial approach was associated with more frequent documentation of behaviours aligned with high-quality LBP management. However, overall quality varied, and person-centred aspects remained underreported. Complementary implementation strategies are required to ensure consistent delivery and documentation of biopsychosocial clinical practice in OHPC.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ , 2026. Vol. 15, no 1, article id e003900
Keywords [en]
Health services research; Patient-centred care; Quality improvement; Implementation science; Occupational Health
National Category
General Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-221851DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003900ISI: 001702754300001PubMedID: 41748266Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105031759077OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-221851DiVA, id: diva2:2045263
Note

Funding: Finnish Cultural Foundation; Avohoidon Tutkimssti; Finnish Work Environment Fund; Finnish Association on the Study of Pain; Juhani Aho Foundation for Medical Research

Available from: 2026-03-12 Created: 2026-03-12 Last updated: 2026-05-20
In thesis
1. Implementation and costs of guideline-based biopsychosocial management of low back pain
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Implementation and costs of guideline-based biopsychosocial management of low back pain
2026 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Background: This mixed-methods dissertation examined the implementation and costs of guideline-based biopsychosocial (BPS) management of low back pain (LBP) in Finnish occupational health primary care (OHPC). A multifaceted implementation strategy was used, combining training and booster sessions with materials, clinical champions, and outreach visits. We aimed to 1) evaluate the quality of LBP management by applying predefined criteria to physiotherapists’ documentation; 2) analyze the effects of the intervention on OHPC resource utilization and work absenteeism compared to usual care; 3) examine how capabilities, opportunities, and motivation influence the implementation of guideline-based BPS management of LBP, as perceived by occupational healthcare professionals and 4) tailor a shortened version of The Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) to multiprofessional rehabilitation context and cross-culturally adapt a Finnish language version.

Methods: The cluster-randomized trial (ISRCTN11875357) included six national OHPC providers, with 27 units randomized into intervention and control arms. In the intervention arm, physiotherapists and physicians received targeted 3-to-7-day training in guideline-based BPS management in 2017 and 2018, while the control arm continued usual care.

Study I evaluated the quality of LBP care from physiotherapists’ first-visit documentation using predefined quality criteria applied to electronic patient records. In total, 98 records documented by 28 physiotherapists from intervention and controls arms were analyzed.

Study II analyzed healthcare utilization and LBP-related sick leave data collected from electronic patient records over a one-year follow-up for 232 patients in the intervention arm and 80 control arm patients. Costs were estimated using linear mixed models by multiplying unit costs (in euros) by each type of OHPC resource use including visits to physicians, physiotherapists, nurses, imaging and sick leave.

In Study III, focus group interviews (n=12) were conducted one year after the educational intervention. with physicians, physiotherapists and nurses (n=51) treating patients with LBP in occupational healthcare teams. The data were analyzed using deductive and inductive content analysis informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model.

In Study IV, the cross-cultural translation of English DIBQ to Finnish was followed by a two-round Delphi survey involving experts in multiprofessional rehabilitation including physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, nursing scientists, social scientists. Altogether, 25 experts participated in Round 1, and 21 in Round 2. Participants rated the importance of each DIBQ item for inclusion in the final scale on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Consensus to include an item was defined as a mean score of at least 4 by ≥75% of Delphi participants. Open-ended comments were analyzed inductively. Item- and scale-level content validities were assessed using the content validity index.

Results: Training in guideline-based BPS management was associated with more frequent documentation of behaviors aligned with high-quality LBP care at physiotherapists’ first visit in OHPC compared to usual care.

The multiprofessional training intervention shifted care from physician-led management toward a multiprofessional, physiotherapist-driven model without increasing total costs over 12 months (€-1908, 95% CI €-6734–2919).

Facilitators of implementation were mainly related to increased capability and motivation. Participants reported improved confidence on their own and the teams’ capabilities on treating more challenging patients in OHPC, enhanced communication skills, a broader understanding of the multidimensional nature of LBP, and a strengthened professional role. Barriers were related to opportunities at the organizational and system levels, including limited time and resources, unclear care pathways, inconsistent team agreements, and structural constraints.

In the cross-cultural adaptation process, consensus was reached after Round 2 on the inclusion of 21 items in the multiprofessional DIBQ (DIBQ-mp). The final version covers 11 Theoretical Domains Framework domains. Item-level content validity indices were at least 0.78, and the scale-level content validity index average was 0.93, indicating excellent content validity for multiprofessional rehabilitation context.

Conclusion: Although the BPS training intervention improved the quality of LBP assessment and management, influenced OHPC resource allocation, and strengthened professionals’ capabilities and motivation, implementation into routine practice remained incomplete at 12-month follow-up. Complementary implementation strategies for sustained organizational support and clear care pathways should be further developed to embed BPS management in occupational health practice. The DIBQ-mp appears to be a promising tool for evaluating implementation determinants in multiprofessional guideline-based rehabilitation interventions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2026. p. 152
Series
Linköping University Medical Dissertations, ISSN 0345-0082 ; 2044
Keywords
Health services research, Implementation science, Musculoskeletal, Physiotherapy, Risk stratification, Work ability
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-224157 (URN)10.3384/9789181185317 (DOI)9789181185300 (ISBN)9789181185317 (ISBN)
Public defence
2026-06-12, Hasselquistsalen, Building 511, Campus US, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2026-05-20 Created: 2026-05-20 Last updated: 2026-05-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(502 kB)3 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 502 kBChecksum SHA-512
d227d65fcb0272ac2d93baa3cb7f585d858cfdafd409cc9922d332082dd6deea468b42d40bf84a577df65339ab67dfc179f219452a504f43c8af6110d1834a0e
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Paukkunen, MaijaÖberg, BirgittaAbbott, Allan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Paukkunen, MaijaÖberg, BirgittaKarppinen, JaroAla-Mursula, LeenaAbbott, Allan
By organisation
Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Orthopaedics in Linköping
In the same journal
BMJ Open Quality
General Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 3 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf