To evaluate patient engagement with, and the feasibility of, a novel, culturally adapted physiotherapy pain management approach.
A participant-blinded and assessor-blinded pilot randomised controlled trial.
Outpatient physiotherapy departments at two public hospitals and one district pain clinic.
Adults (n=48) with chronic musculoskeletal pain (daily pain >3 months), who self-identified as Mandaean, Assyrian or Vietnamese, were randomised to one of two physiotherapy treatment conditions.
24 participants underwent combined group and individualised treatment described as 'culturally adapted physiotherapy', while 24 underwent evidence-informed 'usual physiotherapy care'. Both treatment arms consisted of up to 10 sessions over a 3-month period.
Patient engagement was measured via participant attendance, adherence and satisfaction data. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures of pain severity, interference and suffering, physical function and negative emotional state.
96% of participants undergoing culturally adapted physiotherapy completed treatment, compared with 58% of the usual physiotherapy group. For the culturally adapted group attendance (87%±18%) and adherence (68%±32%) were higher relative to usual care (68%±32% and 55%±43%). Satisfaction was similar for the culturally adapted (82.7%±13.4%) and usual care (79.3±17.3) groups. For secondary outcomes, a significant between-group effect for pain-related suffering in favour of the culturally adapted group was observed with a medium effect size (partial η2 0.086, mean 3.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 7), while results for pain severity, interference, physical function and negative emotional state were similar.
Aligning treatment with the beliefs and values of culturally and linguistically diverse communities enhances patient engagement with physiotherapy. These results support the feasibility of a larger, multisite trial to determine if improved engagement with culturally adapted physiotherapy translates to improved clinical outcomes.
ACTRN12616000857404; Pre-results.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 October 2019.
All research outputs
#8,418,004
of 29,684,055 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#12,115
of 28,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,328
of 349,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#249
of 573 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,684,055 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 349,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 573 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
