Evidence mapPaperPMID 34266436Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2021

Barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain - a mixed methods systematic review.

Kesava Kovanur Sampath, Ben Darlow, Steve Tumilty, Warwick Shillito, Melissa Hanses, Hemakumar Devan, Oliver P Thomson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Incorporating Physical Activity Assessments and Behavior Change Techniques Into Geriatrics.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kesava Kovanur SampathCentre for Health and Social Practice, Waikato Institute of Technology, 51, Akoranga Road, Hamilton, New Zealand. kesava.sampath@wintec.ac.nz.
Ben DarlowDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Steve TumiltyCentre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research (CHARR), School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Warwick ShillitoDepartment of Applied Sciences and Social Practice, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Melissa HansesDepartment of Health Practice, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Hemakumar DevanCentre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research (CHARR), School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Oliver P ThomsonUniversity College of Osteopathy, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines commonly recommend adopting a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework by practitioners managing musculoskeletal pain. However, it remains unclear how osteopaths implement a BPS framework in the management of musculoskeletal pain. Hence, the objective of this review was to systematically appraise the literature on the current practices, barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a BPS framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain.

methodsThe following electronic databases from January 2005 to August 2020 were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct, Google Scholar, ProQuest Central and SCOPUS. Two independent reviewers reviewed the articles retrieved from the databases to assess for eligibility. Any studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) that investigated the use or application of the BPS approach in osteopathic practice were included in the review. The critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklist was used to appraise the qualitative studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise quantitative or mixed methods studies. Advanced convergent meta-integration was used to synthesise data from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies.

resultsA total of 6 studies (two quantitative, three qualitative and one mixed methods) were included in the final review. While two key concepts (current practice and embracing a BPS approach) were generated using advanced meta-integration synthesis, two concepts (barriers and enablers) were informed from qualitative only data. DISCUSSION: Our review finding showed that current osteopathic practice occurs within in the biomedical model of care. Although, osteopaths are aware of the theoretical underpinnings of the BPS model and identified the need to embrace it, various barriers exist that may prevent osteopaths from implementing the BPS model in clinical practice. Ongoing education and/or workshops may be necessary to enable osteopaths to implement a BPS approach.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal PainOsteopathic PhysiciansAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchBarriers and facilitatorsBiopsychosocial approachClinical practice guidelinesMusculoskeletal painOsteopathy

Identifiers

PMID34266436
PMCPMC8281672

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.