Managing Idiopathic Frozen Shoulder: A Survey of Health Professionals' Current Practice and Research Priorities

Dennis et al. (2010) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

idiopathic frozen shoulder

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Europe - United Kingdom

Why was it conducted at all?

Frozen shoulder is a painful and debilitating condition. Many treatment modalities exist and have been described in the literature, although there is no consensus about how to manage patients with frozen shoulder. In view of the limited evidence, we considered it important to determine health professionals' current practice in this field and to explore their opinions towards the need for further research.

What was the objective?

to identify the treatments used by healthcare professionals in current practice for the management of patients with idiopathic frozen shoulder and the need for further research in this area, specifically a randomized trial

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 3 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

survey

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: survey: vignettes were used to describe patients presenting with frozen shoulders in the painful phase and the resolution phase, participants were then asked: What key question(s) would you like a randomized controlled trial to answer?. Step 2: data processing: thematic analysis

Which stakeholders took part?

General practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists, orthopaedic surgeons, 303 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

GPs were contacted by email via the Primary Care Rheumatology Society. Physiotherapists were contacted by email via the National Physiotherapy Research Network. Orthopaedic surgeons were contacted by email via the British Elbow and Shoulder Society.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.