Physiotherapists as first-contact practitioners for patients with low back pain in French primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new model of care enables French physiotherapists (PT) working in collaboration with family physicians (FP) to expand their usual scope of practice for patients with acute low back pain (LBP). The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of this new first-contact physiotherapy (FCP) advanced practice model compared to usual FP care. METHODS: A multicentre pragmatic non-inferiority cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted in six multidisciplinary primary healthcare centres in France. Patients from 20 to 55 years old with acute LBP consulted either the PT or the FP. PT independently assessed and managed patients including medication prescription. The primary outcome measure was disability at six weeks (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, range 0-24). Secondary outcomes include pain, risk disability prognosis, satisfaction with care, healthcare resources use and wait times. Data were collected at baseline, six and twelve weeks. Outcomes across arms were compared using mixed models regression analysis. Except for non-inferiority analysis of the primary outcome measure, other analyses were performed with a two-sided significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Sixty patients were recruited (PT: 32, FP: 28). The adjusted mean difference between groups for disability at 6 weeks was 0.39 in favour of the FP group (95%CI: -2.03; 2.81, p = 0.753). Considering a 5 points minimal clinically important difference, the FCP-led model of care was not inferior to usual FP care for the primary outcome. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in disability at 3 months and pain at 6 weeks and 3 months. PTs prescribed significantly less medications than FPs (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found for other healthcare resource use outcomes, patients' satisfaction and wait times. CONCLUSION: This is the first RCT to evaluate the impact of a FCP advanced practice model of care including medical delegated acts in a primary care setting. Our results suggest that the FCP-led model of care is not inferior to usual FP care regarding disability at 6 weeks. The FCP model could result in possible benefits in terms of healthcare resources use. Further adequate powered studies with larger sample size are needed to draw stronger conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05200533) on the 20th of January 2022.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".