| Title |
Keele Aches and Pains Study protocol: validity, acceptability, and feasibility of the Keele STarT MSK tool for subgrouping musculoskeletal patients in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s116614 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Campbell, Jonathan C Hill, Joanne Protheroe, Ebenezer K Afolabi, Martyn Lewis, Ruth Beardmore, Elaine M Hay, Christian D Mallen, Bernadette Bartlam, Benjamin Saunders, Danielle A van der Windt, Sue Jowett, Nadine E Foster, Kate M Dunn |
| Abstract |
Musculoskeletal conditions represent a considerable burden worldwide, and are predominantly managed in primary care. Evidence suggests that many musculoskeletal conditions share similar prognostic factors. Systematically assessing patient's prognosis and matching treatments based on prognostic subgroups (stratified care) has been shown to be both clinically effective and cost-effective. This study (Keele Aches and Pains Study) aims to refine and examine the validity of a brief questionnaire (Keele STarT MSK tool) designed to enable risk stratification of primary care patients with the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations. We also describe the subgroups of patients, and explore the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool and how the tool is best implemented in clinical practice. The study design is mixed methods: a prospective, quantitative observational cohort study with a linked qualitative focus group and interview study. Patients who have consulted their GP or health care practitioner about a relevant musculoskeletal condition will be recruited from general practice. Participating patients will complete a baseline questionnaire (shortly after consultation), plus questionnaires 2 and 6 months later. A subsample of patients, along with participating GPs and health care practitioners, will be invited to take part in qualitative focus groups and interviews. The Keele STarT MSK tool will be refined based on face, discriminant, construct, and predictive validity at baseline and 2 months, and validated using data from 6-month follow-up. Patient and clinician perspectives about using the tool will be explored. This study will provide a validated prognostic tool (Keele STarT MSK) with established cutoff points to stratify patients with the five most common musculoskeletal presentations into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups. The qualitative analysis of patient and health care perspectives will inform practitioners on how to embed the tool into clinical practice using established general practice IT systems and clinician-support packages. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 22% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,247,635
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#884
of 1,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,655
of 324,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#26
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 324,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.