IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0162679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing Capacity for the Treatment of Common Musculoskeletal Problems: A Non-Inferiority RCT and Economic Analysis of Corticosteroid Injection for Shoulder Pain Comparing a Physiotherapist and Orthopaedic Surgeon

Author

Listed:
  • Darryn Marks
  • Leanne Bisset
  • Tracy Comans
  • Michael Thomas
  • Shu Kay Ng
  • Shaun O’Leary
  • Philip G Conaghan
  • Paul A Scuffham

Abstract

Background: Role substitution is a strategy employed to assist health services manage the growing demand for musculoskeletal care. Corticosteroid injection is a common treatment in this population but the efficacy of its prescription and delivery by physiotherapists has not been established against orthopaedic standards. This paper investigates whether corticosteroid injection given by a physiotherapist for shoulder pain is as clinically and cost effective as that from an orthopaedic surgeon. Methods: A double blind non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted in an Australian public hospital orthopaedic outpatient service, from January 2013 to June 2014. Adults with a General Practitioner referral to Orthopaedics for shoulder pain received subacromial corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection prescribed and delivered independently by a physiotherapist or a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. The main outcome measure was total Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score at baseline, six and 12 weeks, applying a non-inferiority margin of 15 points. Secondary outcomes tested for superiority included pain, shoulder movement, perceived improvement, adverse events, satisfaction, quality of life and costs. Results: 278 participants were independently assessed by the physiotherapist and the orthopaedic surgeon, with 64 randomised (physiotherapist 33, orthopaedic surgeon 31). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Non-inferiority of injection by the physiotherapist was declared from total SPADI scores at 6 and 12 weeks (upper limit of the 95% one-sided confidence interval 13.34 and 7.17 at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between groups on any outcome measures at 6 or 12 weeks. From the perspective of the health funder, the physiotherapist was less expensive. Conclusions: Corticosteroid injection for shoulder pain, provided by a suitably qualified physiotherapist is at least as clinically effective, and less expensive, compared with similar care delivered by an orthopaedic surgeon. Policy makers and service providers should consider implementing this model of care. Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12612000532808

Suggested Citation

  • Darryn Marks & Leanne Bisset & Tracy Comans & Michael Thomas & Shu Kay Ng & Shaun O’Leary & Philip G Conaghan & Paul A Scuffham, 2016. "Increasing Capacity for the Treatment of Common Musculoskeletal Problems: A Non-Inferiority RCT and Economic Analysis of Corticosteroid Injection for Shoulder Pain Comparing a Physiotherapist and Orth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162679
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162679
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162679&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0162679?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162679. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.