Abstract
Background Implementing new knowledge into clinical practice is a challenge, but nonetheless crucial to improve our healthcare system related to the management of musculoskeletal pain. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of implementation interventions within musculoskeletal healthcare.
Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Any type of randomised controlled trials investigating implementation strategies or interventions in relation to musculoskeletal pain conditions were included. Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data analysis was done using frameworks from Powell et al. 2015, and Waltz et al. 2015 and outcomes were identified by Thompson et al. 2022 or self-made outcome domains were established.
Results The literature search yielded 14,265 original studies, of which 38 studies from 31 trials, with 13,203 participating healthcare professionals and 30,320 participating patients were included in the final synthesis. Nineteen studies had a high risk of bias, sixteen had a moderate risk of bias, and three had a low risk of bias. Twenty distinct implementation interventions were identified. A significant heterogeneity in the utilised outcome measurements was observed, thereby rendering a meta-analysis infeasible; consequently, all outcomes were classified into six outcome domains for healthcare professionals, seven for patients and one for cost-effectiveness.
Conclusions Our findings suggest that some implementation interventions may have a tendency towards a statistically significant positive effect in favour of the intervention group on the outcome domain “Adherence to the implemented interventions” for healthcare professionals in the included studies. The remaining outcome domains yielded varying results; therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Future high-quality trials with clear reporting and rationale of implementation strategies and interventions utilising standardised nomenclature are needed to further advance our understanding of this area.
Trial registration Open Science Framework, DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SRMP2
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
No large language models have been used to write this manuscript.
Email: gp1v{at}kk.dk, Email: mikkeleb{at}hotmail.com, Email: Msn{at}RygCenterViborg.dk, jfj{at}rn.dk, misr{at}hst.aau.dk, klyng{at}dcm.aau.dk
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
