Continuing Education Physical Therapy 2017 12 30 17
PLoS One. 2022; 17(4): e0267157.
The clinical impact of pain neuroscience continuing education on physical therapy outcomes for patients with low back and neck pain
Adriaan Louw, Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft,# 1 Emilio J. Puentedura, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, 
# 2 , * Thomas R. Denninger, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, 3 , ‡ Adam D. Lutz, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, 3 , ‡ Terry Cox, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, 4 , ‡ Kory Zimney, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, 5 , ‡ and Merrill R. Landers, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing # 6
Adriaan Louw
1 Evidence in Motion, Story City, Iowa, United States of America
Emilio J. Puentedura
2 Department of Physical Therapy, Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, United States of America
Thomas R. Denninger
3 ATI Physical Therapy, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America
Adam D. Lutz
3 ATI Physical Therapy, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America
Terry Cox
4 Department of Physical Therapy, Southwest Baptist University, Bolivar, Missouri, United States of America
Kory Zimney
5 Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota, United States of America
Merrill R. Landers
6 Department of Physical Therapy, School of Integrated Health Sciences, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America
Shazlin Shaharudin, Editor
Received 2021 Nov 16; Accepted 2022 Apr 3.
Abstract
Objectives
Research suggests that attendance by physical therapists at continuing education (CE) targeting the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain does not result in positive impacts on clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if therapists attending a self-paced 3-hour online Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) program was associated with any observed changes to patient outcomes and also clinical practice.
Methods
Participants were 25 different physical therapists who treated 3,705 patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain before and after they had completed an online PNE CE course. Change in outcomes measures of pain and disability at discharge were compared for the patients treated before and after the therapist training. Clinical practice patterns of the therapists, including total treatment visits, duration of care, total units billed, average units billed per visit, percentage of 'active' billing units and percentage of 'active and manual' billing units, were also compared for the patient care episodes before and after the therapist training.
Results
There was no significant difference for change in pain scores at discharge for patients treated after therapist CE training compared to those treated before regardless of the condition (LBP or neck pain). However, patients with LBP who were treated after therapist CE training did report greater improvement in their disability scores. Also after CE training, for each episode of care, therapists tended to use less total visits, billed fewer units per visit, and billed a greater percentage of more 'active' and 'active and manual' billing units.
Discussion
Attending an online 3-hour CE course on PNE resulted in improved disability scores for patients with LBP, but not for those with neck pain. Changes in clinical behavior by the therapists included using less visits, billing fewer total units, and shifting to more active and manual therapy interventions. Further prospective studies with control groups should investigate the effect of therapist CE on patient outcomes and clinical practice.
Introduction
The ultimate aim of clinical research is to better the lives of the end-user, the patient [1]. With new discoveries, a systematic scientific process takes an initial concept through various stages of development and validation, until its clinical impact is measured. Early exploration often includes a case study, the development of case series or clinical prediction rules, with no control groups [2,3]. Once a new concept has been initially tested, it undergoes a more robust series of tests, including control groups, blinding of participants and scientists, ultimately leading to high-level randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses speaking to the efficacy of a certain therapeutic intervention or approach [4–6]. One final element, however, is often missing in clinical research and that is implementation science. Implementation science is the study of the uptake of evidence-based practice and research into clinical practice by practitioners and policymakers [7]. In this final stage, the intent is to see if this new intervention or approach is disseminated into clinical practice and impacts patients at scale, when compared to previous approaches.
Once a new intervention or approach is developed and validated, clinical researchers have to find a way to disseminate their work to front-line clinicians, with the intent to impact the patient. To do so, post-professional continuing education (CE) is often used [8]. In most professions, post-professional CE is required to maintain licensure and address issues such as competency, ethics, safety and compliance. Importantly, it is also an opportunity to impart the latest evidence from research to prevent clinical obsolescence, to convey contemporary professional trends, and to promote adherence to established clinical guidelines [8–11]. To date, however, post-professional CE has shown limited efficacy in altering treatment behaviors in healthcare providers. As an example, studies have failed to demonstrate that PT CE targeting LBP and neck pain can positively impact clinical outcomes [12–16].
In musculoskeletal care, an educational approach known as pain neuroscience education (PNE) has emerged as a means to teach people more about the underlying biology and physiology of their pain experience [17–20]. The primary goal of PNE is to increase a person's knowledge about pain—how pain works biologically and physically—as a means to improve their pain experience [20–22]. Current best-evidence shows strong support for PNE positively influencing self-reported pain ratings, pain knowledge, disability, pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance, beliefs regarding pain, physical movement and healthcare utilization and costs [18–20,23,24]. Furthermore, studies have shown that healthcare providers who have been taught PNE demonstrate increased knowledge of pain, are positively impacted in their attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic pain, and they become more empathetic and compassionate towards people with chronic pain [25–29]. In regards to clinical impact, a one-year follow-up, self-reported study showed that 270 healthcare providers who attended a single, 3.5-hour PNE lecture reported large positive impacts in daily clinical practice based on the educational course [29]. The results, however, were self-reported, so there was no validation that changes to clinical practice had actually occurred.
The aims of this study were two-fold. First, to determine if therapists attending a self-paced 3-hour online PNE program was associated with any observed changes to their clinical practice. To achieve this, we compared their clinical outcomes for patients with LBP and neck pain prior to the PNE with their clinical outcomes for patients with LBP and neck pain after completing the PNE program. Our second aim was to determine if those therapists exhibited more efficient treatment, employed more active treatment approaches, and displayed more cost-effective billing/care patterns after completing the 3-hour online PNE program.
Methods
Study design
This study was a retrospective cohort study using de-identified episodic patient data provided by a large national outpatient PT provider (BLINDED). All data (patient and therapist) was fully anonymized prior to access and therefore, the Institutional Review Board obtained from (BLINDED) University and ethics committee from (BLINDED) PT waived the requirement for informed consent. Only patient episodes for whom the primary treating physical therapist completed a 3-hour online PNE course were examined. Patient reported outcomes and other data derived from these patient episodes were compared prior to- and post- the 3-hour online PNE continuing education course.
Participants
A convenience sample yielded 3,705 completed patient cases of LBP and neck pain (Table 1) who were treated by 25 different physical therapists who had completed the online PNE course (Table 2). There were 2,216 completed patient care episodes treated within the 6-month period prior to the therapist starting their PNE course. A 2-week washout period was instituted for patient care cases after each therapist's PNE training, and then 1,489 completed care episodes treated within the 6-month period after the PNE training. To examine for differences in pre- and post- PNE course outcomes, patient cases were included if the patients were discharged prior to the therapist starting the course or evaluated after the course was completed. Patient cases where the episode of care spanned the beginning and/or completion of the PNE course were excluded.
Table 1
Patient descriptive data of the 3,705 completed cases broken up into back or neck pain represented in means with standard deviations and proportions for categorical variables.
| Back (n = 2464) | Before (n = 1457) | After (n = 1007) | Neck (n = 1241) | Before (n = 759) | After (n = 482) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | Sex | Females | n = 1436 (58.3%) | n = 847 (58.1%) | n = 589 (58.5%) | n = 776 (62.5%) | n = 479 (63.1%) | n = 297 (61.6%) |
| Males | n = 1028 (41.7%) | n = 610 (41.9%) | n = 418 (41.5%) | n = 465 (37.5%) | n = 280 (36.9%) | n = 185 (38.4%) | ||
| Age | 53.7 ± 17.8 | 52.8 ± 17.6 | 54.9 ± 17.9 | 51.1 ± 16.2 | 51.0 ± 16.0 | 51.3 ± 16.6 | ||
| Body Mass Index | 29.7 ± 6.6 | 29.8 ± 6.6 | 29.5 ± 6.5 | 28.3 ± 6.2 | 28.4 ± 6.2 | 28.1 ± 6.3 | ||
| Payor status | Commercial | n = 1067 (43.3%) | n = 596 (40.9%) | n = 471 (46.8%) | n = 463 (37.3%) | n = 275 (36.2%) | n = 188 (39.0%) | |
| Medicare | n = 550 (22.3%) | n = 320 (22.0%) | n = 230 (22.8%) | n = 169 (13.6%) | n = 100 (13.2%) | n = 69 (14.3%) | ||
| Medicaid | n = 397 (16.1%) | n = 277 (19.0%) | n = 120 (11.9%) | n = 187 (15.1%) | n = 124 (16.3%) | n = 63 (13.1%) | ||
| Workers' comp | n = 237 (9.6%) | n = 137 (9.4%) | n = 100 (9.9%) | n = 95 (7.7%) | n = 57 (7.5%) | n = 38 (7.9%) | ||
| Auto/Personal injury | n = 191 (7.8%) | n = 116 (8.0%) | n = 75 (7.4%) | n = 312 (25.1%) | n = 195 (25.7%) | n = 117 (24.3%) | ||
| Duration of symptoms | < 6 months | n = 1775 (72.0%) | n = 1021 (70.1%) | n = 754 (74.9%) | n = 952 (76.7%) | n = 566 (74.6%) | n = 386 (80.1%) | |
| > 6 months | n = 689 (28.0%) | n = 436 (29.9%) | n = 253 (25.1%) | n = 289 (23.3%) | n = 193 (25.4%) | n = 96 (19.9%) | ||
| Total comorbidities | 3.2 ± 2.9 | 3.1 ± 2.7 | 3.2 ± 3.1 | 3.0 ± 2.8 | 3.1 ± 2.8 | 2.9 ± 2.7 | ||
| Initial presentation | Disability | 38.3 ± 18.2 | 38.9 ± 18.5 | 37.4 ± 17.7 | 38.9 ± 18.7 | 39.8 ± 18.7 | 37.4 ± 18.4 | |
| Pain at rest | 3.5 ± 2.1 | 3.7 ± 2.1 | 3.3 ± 2.0 | 4.0 ± 2.5 | 4.1 ± 2.5 | 3.8 ± 2.6 | ||
| Pain during activity | 7.4 ± 2.1 | 7.5 ± 2.1 | 7.3 ± 2.1 | 7.3 ± 2.1 | 7.3 ± 2.1 | 7.2 ± 2.1 | ||
| Mental component score | 39.3 ± 7.4 | 39.3 ± 7.4 | 39.4 ± 7.3 | 39.4 ± 7.4 | 39.2 ± 7.6 | 39.7 ± 7.1 | ||
| Physical component score | 37.5 ± 6.4 | 37.4 ± 6.3 | 37.5 ± 6.6 | 37.6 ± 6.4 | 37.4 ± 6.4 | 37.8 ± 6.4 | ||
| Data from episode of care | Number of patient visits | 14.1 ± 7.5 | 14.3 ± 7.3 | 13.9 ± 7.8 | 14.9 ± 8.3 | 15.3 ± 8.2 | 14.2 ± 8.5 | |
| Duration of care (days) | 54.9 ± 37.2 | 58.2 ± 39.8 | 52.3 ± 35.0 | 55.9 ± 38.6 | 58.3 ± 42.0 | 53.6 ± 34.7 | ||
| Disability change (pre–post) | 9.5 ± 15.7 | 8.8 ± 15.7 | 8.8 ± 15.7 | 11.0 ± 15.7 | 11.6 ± 16.1 | 10.1 ± 14.9 | ||
| Residual disability change (pre–post) | -.064 ± 14.0 | -.727 ± 14.0 | .896 ± 13.9 | -.471 ± 13.8 | .013 ± 14.0 | -1.23 ± 13.6 | ||
Table 2
Physical therapy descriptive data represented in means with standard deviations and proportions for categorical variables.
| n = 25 | |
|---|---|
| Gender | Females = 14 (56.0%) Males = 11 (44.0%) |
| Year of experience | 9.2 ± 9.0 (range: 2, 39) |
| American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties–clinical specialist | No = 19 Yes = 6 |
| American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education residency-trained | No = 20 Yes = 5 |
PNE program
Therapists working for the national PT group had been given access to online, self-directed CE content, including PNE. The content of PNE is well-documented and consistent with other studies [30–32]. A 3-hour presentation focusing on peripheral sensitization, central sensitization, biopsychosocial factors associated with pain, threat appraisal of the brain, nociception, stress and endocrine responses to pain, and various therapeutic endogenous strategies to ease pain were used [30,31,33]. Images, metaphors and examples were used along with the educational content [34,35].
Patient outcome measures
For Aim 1, the following 4 outcomes were analyzed for each of the completed patient cases before and after the PNE training program: 1) change in pain at rest; 2) change in pain with activity; 3) change in disability; and, 4) residual disability.
Change in pain at rest and with activity were analyzed using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). The NPRS is an 11-point numeric scale anchored with '0' representing one pain extreme (no pain) and '10' respecting the other pain extreme (worst pain imaginable) [36]. Change in pain at rest and with activity was calculated by subtracting the NPRS score at discharge from the score at initial evaluation for each patient case. The minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the NPRS for LBP and neck pain have been reported to range between 1.5 and 2.2 points respectively [36–38], and it is generally accepted that a 2-point change on the NPRS represents clinically meaningful change [39]. For this study, a change of ≥ 2 points was chosen as meeting the MCID for the NPRS.
Disability was ascertained using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) [40] for cases with neck pain cases and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for cases with LBP [41]. Both the NDI and the ODI are condition-specific outcome measures comprising 10-item questionnaires which are scored from 0 to 5, leading to a disability score with a maximum of 50. In this study, the patient-reported score was calculated as a percentage of the total possible points. The MCID for the ODI has been reported to be approximately 6 points (12% change) [42], whereas for the NDI it can range from 3.5 to 8.5 points (7–19% change) depending upon the neck condition [43–46].
Change in disability was calculated by subtracting the percentage disability at discharge from the percentage disability at initial evaluation for each patient case. For this study, a change of ≥ 12% was chosen as meeting the MCID for the ODI [42], and a change of ≥ 15% for the NDI [43,44].
Residual disability was based off recent research which defined it as actual patient reported outcome change (minus) risk adjusted predicted patient reported outcome change [47]. A positive residual value indicated change in disability was greater than prediction, while a negative residual value indicated change in disability was less than prediction [48].
For Aim 2, the following 6 outcomes were analyzed for each of the completed patient cases before and after the PNE training program: 1) number of total treatment visits; 2) total duration of care in days; 3) number of total units billed for the entire case; 4) average number of units billed per visit; 5) percentage of "active" billing units relative to total units billed and 6) percentage of "active and manual" billing units relative to total billing units. "Active" billing units were considered therapeutic exercise (CPT code 97110), therapeutic activity (CPT code 97530), neuromuscular reeducation (CPT code 97112), and gait training (CPT code 97116). "Active and Manual" billing units were considered any active billing units as above plus manual therapy (CPT code 97140).
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, New York, USA: IBM Corp) at α = 0.05. Cases with missing data were removed from the analysis. For Aim 1, a 2 (time: before and after PNE) X 2 (region: back and neck) ANCOVA was conducted for each of the four outcomes: pain at rest, pain with activity, disability, and residual disability. The following physical therapist characteristics were included as covariates in the analysis: years of experience, gender, training (yes or no on American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties (ABPTS) certification and/or residency). The following patient characteristics were included as covariates in the analysis: gender, body mass index, median income determined by zip code, payor status (yes or no for each of the following: Workers' compensation, personal injury, Medicare, Medicaid, and Commercial), age, number of total visits, number of total comorbidities. Because collinearity was found among training groups (certification and residency), those separate categories were combined into one variable. Gender concordance of the therapist and patient was not statistically correlated with any outcome and was, subsequently, omitted from the ANCOVA. Likewise, initial mental and physical component scores were not correlated with any outcome, so both were removed. Collinearity was observed between duration of care and total number of PT visits, so only total number of visits was retained.
For Aim 2, a 2 (time: before and after PNE) X 2 (region: back and neck) ANCOVA was conducted for each of the 6 outcomes: number of total treatment visits, total duration of care in days, number of total units billed for the whole case, average number of units billed per visit, percentage of "active" billing units relative to total units, and percentage of "active and manual" billing units relative to total billing units. The covariates entered in the Aim 2 analyses were the same as Aim 1.
Results
Pain change at rest and with activity
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,2366) = .003, p = .958 at rest and F(1,2629) = 2.169, p = .140 with activity (Table 3). Likewise, there was not a statistically significant main effect for either region (p = .060) or time (p = .709) at rest (p = .250) or with activity (p = .800).
Table 3
Pain change (NPRS initial–NPRS discharge) for before and after PNE and by body region.
| Pain at rest | Mean | SD | n | Pain with activity | Mean | SD | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before PNE | Back | 1.72 | 2.24 | 978 | Back | 2.72 | 2.76 | 1050 |
| Neck | 2.10 | 2.20 | 498 | Neck | 3.12 | 2.70 | 549 | |
| Total | 1.84 | 2.23 | 1476 | Total | 2.86 | 2.75 | 1599 | |
| After PNE | Back | 1.77 | 2.21 | 602 | Back | 2.97 | 2.87 | 689 |
| Neck | 2.12 | 2.30 | 289 | Neck | 3.00 | 2.77 | 342 | |
| Total | 1.88 | 2.25 | 891 | Total | 2.98 | 2.84 | 1031 | |
| Total | Back | 1.74 | 2.23 | 1580 | Back | 2.82 | 2.81 | 1739 |
| Neck | 2.11 | 2.24 | 787 | Neck | 3.07 | 2.72 | 891 | |
| Total | 1.86 | 2.24 | 2367 | Total | 2.90 | 2.78 | 2630 |
Disability (NDI/ODI)
With covariates added, there was a statistically significant interaction between time and region, F(1,3308) = 9.672, p = .002 (Table 4). Post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correct alpha of .025 (comparison of pre- and post- for both regions) revealed that patients with LBP had greater improvement in disability scores with therapists after the PNE course than those treated by the same therapists before the PNE course (p = .004). There was no statistically significant change in patients with neck pain (p = .080).
Table 4
Change in disability and residual disability for before and after PNE and by body region.
| Disability | Mean | SD | n | Residual Disability | Mean | SD | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before PNE | Back | 8.7* | 15.83 | 1307 | Back | -0.72* | 14.06 | 1307 |
| Neck | 11.5 | 16.15 | 698 | Neck | -0.05 | 14.13 | 698 | |
| Total | 9.6 | 16.00 | 2005 | Total | -0.48 | 14.08 | 2005 | |
| After PNE | Back | 11.0* | 15.55 | 878 | Back | 1.29* | 13.71 | 878 |
| Neck | 10.0 | 14.53 | 426 | Neck | -1.09 | 12.91 | 426 | |
| Total | 10.7 | 15.23 | 1304 | Total | 0.51 | 13.50 | 1304 | |
| Total | Back | 9.6 | 15.76 | 2185 | Back | 0.09 | 13.95 | 2185 |
| Neck | 10.9 | 15.57 | 1124 | Neck | -0.44 | 13.68 | 1124 | |
| Total | 10.0 | 15.70 | 3309 | Total | -0.09 | 13.86 | 3309 |
Residual disability
Results for residual disability paralleled disability. There was a statistically significant interaction between time and region, F(1,3308) = 8.718, p = .003 (Table 4). Post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correct alpha of .025 (comparison of pre- and post- for both regions) revealed that patients with LBP had greater residual disability improvement with therapists after the PNE course than those treated by the same therapists before the PNE course (p = .005). There was no statistically significant change in patients with neck pain (p = .122).
Number of visits
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,3308) = 1.297, p = .255 (Table 5). There was not a statistically significant main effect for region (p = .656) but there was for time (p = .017) with fewer visits reported after PNE than before PNE, regardless of body region.
Table 5
Change in number of visits and duration of care (in days) for before and after PNE and by body region.
| Number of visits | Mean | SD | n | Duration of care | Mean | SD | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before PNE | Back | 14.1 | 7.08 | 1307 | Back | 57.9 | 39.59 | 708 |
| Neck | 15.2 | 8.25 | 698 | Neck | 57.4 | 36.32 | 403 | |
| Total | 14.5* | 7.52 | 2005 | Total | 57.7 | 38.42 | 1111 | |
| After PNE | Back | 13.8 | 7.89 | 878 | Back | 51.9 | 35.44 | 862 |
| Neck | 14.2 | 8.62 | 426 | Neck | 53.2 | 35.68 | 417 | |
| Total | 13.9* | 8.14 | 1304 | Total | 52.3 | 35.51 | 1279 | |
| Total | Back | 14.0 | 7.42 | 2185 | Back | 54.6 | 37.47 | 1570 |
| Neck | 14.8 | 8.40 | 1124 | Neck | 55.3 | 36.03 | 820 | |
| Total | 14.3 | 7.77 | 3309 | Total | 57.9 | 39.59 | 708 |
Duration of care
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,2388) = .203, p = .652 (Table 5). Likewise, there was not a statistically significant main effect for either region (p = .263) or time (p = .069).
Number of total units billed for the whole case
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,2387) = 1.310, p = .252 (Table 6). There was not a statistically significant main effect for region (p = .893) but there was for time (p = .011) which indicates fewer billing codes used after PNE regardless of body region.
Table 6
Change in total units billed for whole case, and average number of billing units per visit for before and after PNE and by body region.
| Total units billed | Mean | SD | n | Average number of billing units per visit | Mean | SD | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before PNE | Back | 64.5 | 45.56 | 708 | Back | 4.3 | 1.48 | 708 |
| Neck | 71.7 | 51.80 | 403 | Neck | 4.5 | 1.24 | 403 | |
| Total | 67.1* | 48.02 | 1111 | Total | 4.4 | 1.40 | 1111 | |
| After PNE | Back | 61.3 | 47.17 | 860 | Back | 4.5 | 3.19 | 860 |
| Neck | 65.2 | 51.74 | 417 | Neck | 4.7 | 3.20 | 417 | |
| Total | 62.6* | 48.72 | 1277 | Total | 4.5 | 3.20 | 1277 | |
| Total | Back | 62.7 | 46.46 | 1568 | Back | 4.4 | 2.56 | 1568 |
| Neck | 68.4 | 51.84 | 820 | Neck | 4.6 | 2.45 | 820 | |
| Total | 64.7 | 48.44 | 2388 | Total | 4.5 | 2.53 | 2388 |
Average number of billing units per visi
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,2387) = .162, p = .687 (Table 6). Likewise, there was not a statistically significant main effect for either region (p = .954) or time (p = .146).
Percentage active billing units
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,2387) = 2.169, p = .140 (Table 7). However, there was a statistically significant main effect for region (p < .001), indicating that patients with LBP received a higher percentage of active treatment than patients with neck pain regardless of time. Additionally, there was a statistically significant main effect for time (p < .001), indicating that patients received a higher percentage of active treatment after PNE regardless of body region.
Table 7
Change in percentage of active billing units, and percentage of active and manual billing units per visit for before and after PNE and by body region.
| Percentage active billing units | Mean | SD | n | Percentage active and manual billing units | Mean | SD | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before PNE | Back | .526 | .267 | 708 | Back | .679 | .283 | 708 |
| Neck | .419 | .248 | 403 | Neck | .624 | .284 | 403 | |
| Total | .487* | .265 | 1111 | Total | .659* | .285 | 1111 | |
| After PNE | Back | .592 | .247 | 860 | Back | .758 | .268 | 860 |
| Neck | .481 | .232 | 417 | Neck | .693 | .257 | 417 | |
| Total | .556* | .248 | 1277 | Total | .737* | .266 | 1277 | |
| Total | Back | .562* | .258 | 1568 | Back | .722* | .278 | 1568 |
| Neck | .451* | .241 | 820 | Neck | .659* | .273 | 820 | |
| Total | .524 | .258 | 2388 | Total | .701 | .278 | 2388 |
Percentage active and manual billing units
With covariates added, there was no interaction between time and region, F(1,2387) = .014, p = .905 (Table 7). However, there was a statistically significant main effect for region (p = .001), indicating that patients with LBP received a higher percentage of active and manual treatment than patients with neck pain regardless of time. Additionally, there was a statistically significant main effect for time (p < .001), indicating that patients received a higher percentage of active and manual treatment after PNE regardless of body region.
Discussion
Results from this study show that there was no significant change in pain scores for patients with LBP or neck pain when they were treated by physical therapists after they had attended an online, self-directed CE course on PNE. The total mean change in pain at rest was 1.9 points and the total mean change in pain with activity was 2.9, indicating that patients reported decreased pain regardless of region (LBP and neck pain). While there was a statistically significant change in disability scores and residual disability for patients with LBP pre- and post-CE, the mean change scores did not meet our 12% threshold to be considered clinically meaningful. The PNE course utilized in this retrospective study was online, self-directed, and only 3 hours in duration. It may not have been of sufficient rigor and duration to make any difference in outcomes, however; these findings are similar to several studies that examined the effect of clinicians attending CE on patient reported outcomes for LBP and neck pain. Brennan et al. [12] examined NDI change scores for 1,365 patients with neck pain pre- and post-attendance by 34 physical therapists at a 2-day CE course and found no improvement. Chipchase et al. [14] compared NDI change scores for patients with neck pain who were treated by physical therapists who attended a 2-day CE course versus a 2-day CE course with a 5-hour follow-up session one month after training. They found no significant differences between the groups for patient outcomes [14]. In a more recent cluster randomized controlled trial, 12 groups of Finnish physical therapists and physicians were given 3–7 days of training focusing on the biopsychosocial management of LBP and compared with 15 control groups that did not receive training [49]. They found no significant difference in ODI between the groups [49].
This study did find that fewer number of visits were used by therapists after PNE than before PNE, regardless of body region treated. However, the mean difference was 0.6 visits and there was no difference in the total duration of care in days. Perhaps associated with this, was the finding that the total number of units billed for each case was less after PNE regardless of body region treated. The mean difference was 4.5 units, and this was also the average number of billing codes per visit, which did not show any change. As the cost of the average billing unit charged by the national outpatient PT provider was $30, this represents a cost savings of $135 per patient. There were 1,277 patients seen by the therapists after PNE training, which would indicate a total of $172,395 saved.
Finally, the data showed that while therapists billed a greater percentage of active billing units for cases of LBP regardless of time (56.2% vs 45.1%), they also billed a greater percentage of active billing units after the PNE training regardless of body region treated (55.6% vs 48.7%). A shift from passive interventions (billing codes) to more active treatments suggests a greater focus on patients' health locus of control and self-efficacy which have been shown to moderate rehabilitation outcomes in people with LBP [50,51]. This was information covered in the PNE program and it is also in line with current clinical practice guidelines for LBP [6] and neck pain [52]. Similar results were found for the percentage of active and manual billing units. Therapists billed a greater percentage of active and manual billing units for cases of LBP regardless of time (72.2% vs 65.9%), and they also billed a greater percentage of active and manual billing units after the PNE training regardless of body region treated (73.7% vs 65.9%). The increased provision of active and manual treatments indicates that therapists were providing more 'hands-on' treatments with the active interventions following their PNE training, and this may be seen as a greater emphasis on high-value interventions and meeting the patients' needs. The most recent clinical practice guidelines for interventions for the management of LBP gave a grade of A (strong evidence) for manual therapy (thrust and non-thrust joint mobilization) in the management of both acute and chronic LBP [53].
Limitations
The study contains various limitations. First, there was no control group to compare the PNE group to, which limits the causal inference of this study. Secondly, this study was limited to the use of a 3-hour self-paced online PNE CE course, and there was no opportunity to explore of the optimal dosage of PNE CE. Future studies should explore non-PNE interventions and possibly varying durations and delivery messages for optimal PNE CE training. Finally, the data made available to us for this sample of therapists and treatments was from one large PT group which may well reflect the organization's philosophy, in part, to treating LBP and neck pain and care should be taken to extrapolate these to all PTs treating LBP and neck pain. Future studies should explore therapists that are representative of various clinical settings, organizations, regions, and backgrounds.
Conclusion
While attending an online 3-hour CE course on PNE was not associated with improved patient reported pain and disability outcomes for cases of neck pain, it was associated with improved disability outcomes for cases of LBP. For both LBP and neck pain, it did appear to result in some changes in the clinical behavior of the therapists. Therapists used less PT visits, billed fewer total units, and shifted their billing to more active and manual therapy interventions following their training. We recommend prospective studies with control groups to further explore the effect of CE on patient outcomes and clinical practice.
Supporting information
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
References
1. Avins A.L. and Goldberg H., Creating a culture of research. Contemp Clin Trials, 2007. 28(4): p. 557–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.02.004 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Flynn T., et al., A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine, 2002. 27(24): p. 2835–43. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200212150-00021 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Puentedura E.J., et al., Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from thrust joint manipulation to the cervical spine. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 2012. 42(7): p. 577–92. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2012.4243 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Childs J.D., et al., A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med, 2004. 141(12): p. 920–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Shraim M.A., et al., Systematic Review and Synthesis of Mechanism-based Classification Systems for Pain Experienced in the Musculoskeletal System. Clin J Pain, 2020. 36(10): p. 793–812. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000860 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Oliveira C.B., et al., Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J, 2018. 27(11): p. 2791–2803. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Glasgow R.E., Eckstein E.T., and ElZarrad M.K., Implementation Science Perspectives and Opportunities for HIV/AIDS Research: Integrating Science, Practice, and Policy. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2013. 63: p. S26–S31. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182920286 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Kleinsinger F., Changing Continuing Medical Education. JAMA, 2015. 314(10): p. 1073–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10220 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. McMahon G.T. and Skochelak S.E., Evolution of Continuing Medical Education: Promoting Innovation Through Regulatory Alignment. JAMA, 2018. 319(6): p. 545–546. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19954 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Nissen S.E., Reforming the continuing medical education system. JAMA, 2015. 313(18): p. 1813–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.4138 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Schwartz L.M. and Woloshin S., Medical communication companies and continuing medical education: clouding the sunshine? JAMA, 2013. 310(23): p. 2507–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281640 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Brennan G.P., Fritz J.M., and Hunter S.J., Impact of continuing education interventions on clinical outcomes of patients with neck pain who received physical therapy. Phys Ther, 2006. 86(9): p. 1251–62. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20050382 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Leahy E., et al., Which Learning Activities Enhance Physical Therapist Practice? Part 1: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Quantitative Studies. Phys Ther, 2020. 100(9): p. 1469–1483. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa107 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Chipchase L.S., Cavaleri R., and Jull G., Can a professional development workshop with follow-up alter practitioner behaviour and outcomes for neck pain patients? A randomised controlled trial. Man Ther, 2016. 25: p. 87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2016.06.010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Stevenson K., Lewis M., and Hay E., Does physiotherapy management of low back pain change as a result of an evidence-based educational programme? J Eval Clin Pract, 2006. 12(3): p. 365–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00565.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Cleland J.A., et al., Does continuing education improve physical therapists' effectiveness in treating neck pain? A randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther, 2009. 89(1): p. 38–47. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080033 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Gifford L., Pain, the tissues and the nervous system: a conceptual model. Physiotherapy, 1998. 84(1): p. 27–36. [Google Scholar]
18. Louw A., et al., The Efficacy of Therapeutic Neuroscience Education on Musculoskeletal Pain–A Systematic Review of the Literature. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2016. 32(5): p. 332–355. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2016.1194646 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Malfliet A., et al., Effect of Pain Neuroscience Education Combined With Cognition-Targeted Motor Control Training on Chronic Spinal Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol, 2018. 75(7): p. 808–817. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0492 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Louw A., et al., The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2011. 92(12): p. 2041–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Moseley G.L., Reconceptualising pain acording to modern pain sciences. Physical Therapy Reviews, 2007. 12: p. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
22. Louw A., et al., The clinical application of teaching people about pain. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2016. 32(5): p. 385–95. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2016.1194652 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Wood L. and Hendrick P.A., A systematic review and meta-analysis of pain neuroscience education for chronic low back pain: Short-and long-term outcomes of pain and disability. Eur J Pain, 2019. 23(2): p. 234–249. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1314 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Watson J.A., et al., Pain Neuroscience Education for Adults With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pain, 2019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Cox T., Puentedura E., and Louw A., An Abbreviated Therapeutic Neuroscience Education Session Improves Pain Knowledge in First Year Physical Therapy Students But Does Not Change Attitudes or Beliefs Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 2017. 25(1): p. 11–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Louw A., et al., Can a Pain Neuroscience Edcuation Lecture Alter Treatment Choices for Chronic Pain in Physician Assistant Students? Psychological Disorders and Research, 2020. 3(2): p. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
27. Zimney K., et al., Effects of Pain Science Education on Physician Assistant Students Understanding of Pain and Attitudes and Beliefs about Pain. South Dakota Medical Journal, 2018(November): p. 506–511. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Louw A., et al., Pain Neuroscience Education for Physiotherapy Receptionists. Pain and Rehabilitation, 2019. 46(Winter 2019): p. 24–31. [Google Scholar]
29. Louw A., et al., Interdisciplinary Pain Neuroscience Continuing Education in the Veterans Affairs. Clin J Pain, 2019. 35(11). doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000756 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Moseley L., Unraveling the barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain: the actual and perceived ability of patients and health professionals to understand the neurophysiology. J Pain, 2003. 4(4): p. 184–9. doi: 10.1016/s1526-5900(03)00488-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Louw A., et al., Development of a preoperative neuroscience educational program for patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2013. 92(5): p. 446–52. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3182876aa4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Zimney K., Louw A., and Puentedura E.J., Use of Therapeutic Neuroscience Education to address psychosocial factors associated with acute low back pain: a case report. Physiother Theory Pract, 2014. 30(3): p. 202–9. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2013.856508 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Louw A., Therapeutic neuroscience education via e-mail: a case report. Physiother Theory Pract, 2014. 30(8): p. 588–96. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2014.912255 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Louw A., Why Do I Hurt? A Neuroscience Approach to Pain. 2013, Minneapolis: OPTP. [Google Scholar]
35. Louw A., et al., Pain Neuroscience Education: Teaching People About Pain. 2nd ed. 2018, Minneapolis, MN: OPTP. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001198 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Hjermstad M.J., et al., Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2011. 41(6): p. 1073–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Bahreini M., et al., How much change in pain score does really matter to patients? The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2020. 38(8): p. 1641–1646. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158489 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Kovacs F.M., et al., Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2008. 9(1): p. 43. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-43 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Childs J.D., Piva S.R., and Fritz J.M., Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2005. 30(11): p. 1331–4. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Takasaki H., et al., The Neck Pain Driving Index (NPDI) for chronic whiplash-associated disorders: development, reliability, and validity assessment. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2012. 12(10): p. 912–20 e1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Frost H., Lamb S.E., and Stewart-Brown S., Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008. 33(22): p. 2450–7; discussion 2458. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916fd [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Fritz J.M. and Irrgang J.J., A Comparison of a Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Physical Therapy, 2001. 81(2): p. 776–788. doi: 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Young Ia Pt D., et al., Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with mechanical neck pain without upper extremity symptoms. Physiother Theory Pract, 2019. 35(12): p. 1328–1335. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2018.1471763 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Jorritsma W., et al., Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of Neck Pain and Disability Scale and Neck Disability Index. Eur Spine J, 2012. 21(12): p. 2550–7. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2407-8 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Cleland J.A., Childs J.D., and Whitman J.M., Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2008. 89(1): p. 69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.126 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Young B.A., et al., Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. Spine J, 2009. 9(10): p. 802–8. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.06.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Lutz A.D., et al., Risk Adjustment of the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index to Benchmark Physical Therapist Performance: Analysis From an Outcomes Registry. Phys Ther, 2020. 100(4): p. 609–620. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa019 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Brooks JM, Lutz A, and C. C., Evaluation of Legacy Patient Reported Outcome Measures as Performance Measures in Rehabilitation [White Paper]. 2021: Alliance for Physical Therapy Quality & Innovation. [Google Scholar]
49. Ryynanen K., et al., Effectiveness of training in guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management of low-back pain in occupational health services—a cluster randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health, 2021. 47(5): p. 367–376. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3959 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Campbell P., Hope K., and Dunn K.M., The pain, depression, disability pathway in those with low back pain: a moderation analysis of health locus of control. J Pain Res, 2017. 10: p. 2331–2339. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S139445 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Keedy N.H., et al., Health locus of control and self-efficacy predict back pain rehabilitation outcomes. Iowa Orthop J, 2014. 34: p. 158–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Blanpied P.R., et al., Neck Pain: Revision 2017. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2017. 47(7): p. A1–A83. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.0302 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. George S.Z., et al., Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 2021. 51(11): p. CPG1–CPG60. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2021.0304 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9049561/
0 Response to "Continuing Education Physical Therapy 2017 12 30 17"
Publicar un comentario