8
Moving from evidence to practice: Models of care for the prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2014.07.001Get rights and content

Abstract

With musculoskeletal conditions now identified as the second highest cause of the morbidity-related global burden of disease, models of care for the prevention and management of disability related to musculoskeletal conditions are an imperative. Musculoskeletal models of care aim to describe how to operationalise evidence-based guidelines for musculoskeletal conditions and thus support implementation by clinical teams and their health systems. This review of models of care for musculoskeletal pain conditions, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis and musculoskeletal injuries and trauma outlines health system and local implementation strategies to improve consumer outcomes, including supporting access to multidisciplinary teams, improving access for vulnerable populations and levering digital technologies to support access and self-management. However, the challenge remains of how to inform health system decision-makers and policy about the human and fiscal benefits for broad implementation across health services. Recommendations are made for potential solutions, as well as highlighting where further evidence is required.

Introduction

The perceived burden of disease attributed to chronic musculoskeletal conditions and the sequelae from musculoskeletal injury and trauma have been lower relative to other diseases more closely associated with mortality, such as cancer, kidney disease and ischaemic heart disease. However, the emerging evidence now unequivocally and consistently identifies the profound prevalence, socio-economic impact and burden of disease imposed by chronic musculoskeletal conditions and their associated pain burden and functional impairments. These outcomes are particularly relevant in conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoporosis (OP) and pain of musculoskeletal origin, especially low back pain *[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], *[6], [7].

In the most recent Global Burden of Disease Study, musculoskeletal conditions including RA, hip and knee OA, low back and neck pain, gout and other musculoskeletal disorders represented the second highest burden of disease globally, when expressed as years lived with disability – an index representing morbidity. At the condition level, low back pain was the leading global cause of years lived with disability across all 289 diseases and injuries examined [6]. Even when mortality was considered with morbidity (expressed as disability-adjusted life years), the burden of disease for musculoskeletal conditions was still substantial, representing the fifth highest condition group [5]. In developed nations, however, this ranking is substantially higher owing to a greater disease burden attributed to morbidity rather than mortality. Even more striking are the projections for the future burden of disease associated with musculoskeletal conditions. For example, a recent Australian socio-economic impact report based on Australian Health Survey data conservatively estimated that the prevalence of cases of musculoskeletal conditions will soar by 43% by 2032 [1]. Population modelling suggests that although the steepest trajectory will be in cases of OA (58%), the greatest absolute number of people will live with chronic back problems. More recent estimates of the projection of osteopenia and OP in Australia highlight a striking 31% increase in the number of Australians affected by these conditions by 2022 [7].

Despite the identified burden of musculoskeletal conditions, a substantial burden–service gap persists in most developed nations. Not only is the access to care variable according to geography, ethnicity and socio-economic status, thus creating care disparities [8], [9], [10], [11], but also the delivery of care from practitioners and health systems inadequately aligns with the best available evidence for what works [12], [13]. The burden–service gap is not easily solved as it is driven by a myriad of complex interdependencies at multiple levels: macro (health systems, organisations, health policy and socio-economic factors), meso (delivery systems, infrastructure and the volume and competencies and training of health practitioners) and micro (participation by consumers in co-care of their conditions). Access to, and delivery of, care is further complicated by the chronicity of musculoskeletal conditions. Health-care systems in developed nations are oriented towards acute care services and respond to mortality risk rather than long-term morbidity associated with musculoskeletal conditions and their co-morbidities, which stymies opportunities for service development. A fundamental change in the manner in which health-care systems and services are planned, implemented, delivered and evaluated is therefore needed to address disability associated with musculoskeletal ill health.

Models of Care (MoCs) can help to address the burden–service gap in musculoskeletal health [14]. A MoC is an evidence-informed strategy, framework or pathway that outlines the optimal manner in which care for specific types or groups of conditions should be made available and delivered to consumers. A MoC aims to include contemporary evidence with a framework to meet the current and projected community need, in the context of local operational requirements [182]. Importantly, a MoC is not a clinical practice guideline. While a high level of evidence, such as that contained in clinical practice guidelines, should underpin a MoC, the fundamental purpose of a MoC is to operationalise ‘what works’ into practice, rather than to appraise and to grade evidence and develop specific clinical practice recommendations [14]. MoCs may address service planning, implementation, delivery and evaluation at multiple levels, according to the contextual factors associated with the condition and with the intended implementation environment. While MoCs are increasingly accepted as a contemporary vehicle to drive evidence into practice; for example, in Australia *[14], *[182], a review of MoCs for musculoskeletal health conditions and injury and trauma has not been undertaken at an international level. Therefore, the aim of this chapter was to convene a multidisciplinary, international team to analyse this knowledge gap for specific musculoskeletal conditions including chronic pain of musculoskeletal origin, OA, RA, OP and musculoskeletal injury and trauma. We sought to provide an overview of current MoCs for these specific conditions across care settings and to offer recommendations for future policy and practice initiatives that reduce the burden–service gap for consumers with, or at risk of, musculoskeletal conditions.

Section snippets

Methods

A narrative review was undertaken of peer-reviewed published literature and relevant grey literature relating to MoCs for the suite of relevant musculoskeletal conditions and injuries. Search terms relevant to each of the specific conditions (chronic pain of musculoskeletal origin, OA, RA and OP) and musculoskeletal injury and trauma were developed and used in scholarly databases to identify published literature. Relevant grey literature was identified through Internet searches and knowledge of

Epidemiology and impact

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is one of the most common reasons that people seek medical help, is costly, and yet still goes under-recognised and under-treated. The health and economic burdens associated with CMP are substantial for health consumers and for society *[1], [15]. The scale of chronic pain is enormous, affecting the lives of one in five people globally including children and adolescents, with CMP contributing a significant proportion of this burden [15], [16], [17]. People

Summary

The socio-economic and personal burden attributed to chronic musculoskeletal conditions and the sequelae of musculoskeletal injury and trauma are profound. Despite the burden of these conditions, the right care is not consistently delivered at the right time, in the right place or by the right team. Contemporary MoCs provide one solution to this burden–service gap [182]. Consistent features are observed across the various MoCs reviewed, including the importance of primary and secondary

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Winthrop Professor Fiona Wood and Dr Sudhakar Rao are acknowledged for providing comments in the Musculoskeletal Injury and Trauma sub-section.

References (182)

  • W. Zhang et al.

    OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: part iii: changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009

    Osteoarthr Cartil

    (2010)
  • L. March et al.

    Developing a minimum standard of care for treating people with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee

    Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol

    (2010)
  • M. Crotty et al.

    Self-management and peer support among people with arthritis on a hospital joint replacement waiting list: a randomised controlled trial

    Osteoarthr Cartil

    (2009)
  • C.A. Brand et al.

    Chronic disease management: a review of current performance across quality of care domains and opportunities for improving osteoarthritis care

    Rheum Dis Clin N Am

    (2013)
  • S.E. Gabriel

    The epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis

    Rheum Dis Clin N Am

    (2001)
  • T.P. Vliet Vlieland et al.

    Efficacy of multidisciplinary team care programs in rheumatoid arthritis

    Semin Arthritis Rheum

    (1997)
  • Arthritis and Osteoporosis Victoria

    A problem worth solving. The rising cost of musculoskeletal conditions in Australia

    (2013)
  • Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists

    National pain strategy

    (2010)
  • T.M. Dall et al.

    Modeling the indirect economic implications of musculoskeletal disorders and treatment

    Cost Eff Resour Alloc

    (2013)
  • J.V. Henderson et al.

    Prevalence, causes, severity, impact, and management of chronic pain in Australian general practice patients

    Pain Med

    (2013)
  • J.W. Watts et al.

    Osteoporosis costing all Australians. A new burden of disease analysis – 2012–2022

    (2013)
  • A.M. Briggs et al.

    Consumers' experiences of back pain in rural Western Australia: access to information and services, and self-management behaviours

    BMC Health Serv Res

    (2012)
  • C.E. Jacobi et al.

    Impact of socioeconomic status on the course of rheumatoid arthritis and on related use of health care services

    Arthritis Rheum

    (2003)
  • S.H. Meghani et al.

    Advancing a national agenda to eliminate disparities in pain care: directions for health policy, education, practice, and research

    Pain Med

    (2012)
  • W.B. Runciman et al.

    Caretrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia

    Med J Aust

    (2012)
  • A.M. Briggs et al.

    Applying a health network approach to translate evidence-informed policy into practice: a review and case study on musculoskeletal health

    BMC Health Serv Res

    (2012)
  • MBF Foundation

    The high price of pain: the economic impact of persistent pain in Australia

    (2007)
  • R.K. Portenoy et al.

    A call to revolutionize chronic pain care in America: an opportunity in health care reform

    (2009)
  • The Pain Proposal Steering Committee

    The pain proposal: improving the current and future management of chronic pain

    (2010)
  • Societal Impact of Pain Group

    Societal impact of pain focus group report

    (2013)
  • H. Merskey et al.

    Classification of chronic pain, part iii: pain terms, a current list with definitions and notes on usage

    (1994)
  • G. Sowden et al.

    Targeted treatment in primary care for low back pain: the treatment system and clinical training programmes used in the IMPaCT Back Study (ISRCTN 55174281)

    Fam Pract

    (2012)
  • H. Slater et al.

    Engaging consumers living in remote areas of Western Australia in the self-management of back pain: a prospective cohort study

    BMC Musculoskelet Disord

    (2012)
  • J.L. Henry

    The need for knowledge translation in chronic pain

    Pain Res Manag

    (2008)
  • S. Davies et al.

    Preclinic group education sessions reduce waiting times and costs at public pain medicine units

    Pain Med

    (2011)
  • C.W. Lin et al.

    Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

    Eur Spine J

    (2011)
  • H. Slater et al.

    A policy-into-practice intervention to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of low back pain in primary care: a prospective cohort study

    PloS One

    (2012)
  • H. Slater et al.

    Implementing evidence-informed policy into practice for health care professionals managing people with low back pain in Australian rural settings: a preliminary prospective single-cohort study

    Pain Med

    (2014)
  • J.C. Hill et al.

    A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment

    Arthritis Rheum

    (2008)
  • C. Price

    Managing pain management. Setting up an effective pain service in Southampton

    R Coll Anaesth Bull

    (2006)
  • G.K. Mitchell

    Improving coordination of care between specialist and general practice for people with chronic pain

    Med J Aust

    (2013)
  • M. Gurden et al.

    Evaluation of a general practitioner referral service for manual treatment of back and neck pain

    Prim Health Care Res Dev

    (2012)
  • M.N. Hogg et al.

    Waiting in pain: a systematic investigation into the provision of persistent pain services in Australia

    Med J Aust

    (2012)
  • A.M. Briggs et al.

    Low back pain-related beliefs and likely practice behaviours among final-year cross-discipline health students

    Eur J Pain

    (2013)
  • H. Slater et al.

    Translating evidence for low back pain management into a consumer-focussed resource for use in community pharmacies: a cluster-randomised controlled trial

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • D.J. Hunter et al.

    Quality of osteoarthritis management and the need for reform in the US

    Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)

    (2011)
  • R.C. Lawrence et al.

    Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part ii

    Arthritis Rheum

    (2008)
  • E. Losina et al.

    Lifetime risk and age at diagnosis of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the US

    Arthritis Care Res

    (2013)
  • S.M. Kurtz et al.

    Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (2009)
  • I.N. Ackerman et al.

    Severely compromised quality of life in women and those of lower socioeconomic status waiting for joint replacement surgery

    Arthritis Rheum

    (2005)
  • Cited by (85)

    • Trends in management of hip and knee osteoarthritis in general practice in Australia over an 11-year window: a nationwide cross-sectional survey

      2021, The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
      Citation Excerpt :

      Adjunctive pharmacological management (judicious use of simple analgesia and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) is largely symptomatic, while total joint replacement surgery is reserved for advanced disease. In order to deliver timely and appropriate OA care, service models are being re-designed to support integrated multidisciplinary care and patient self management.5 In Australia, the main funding mechanism for primary health care is the Medicare Benefits Scheme (MBS), a publicly-funded universal health insurance scheme.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text