Implementing integrated psychological and physical care for Australians after road traffic injury

Vision and Aim

Our VISION for this project is that all physiotherapists, nationwide, deliver effective early biopsychosocial care to improve health outcomes for people with non-catastrophic road traffic injury.

Funded by a Medical Research Future Fund grant awarded to Professor Michele Sterling and team, this project aims to compare the effectiveness of in-person training versus an online program delivered by physiotherapists providing early biopsychosocial care to individuals suffering from non-catastrophic road traffic injury (RTI).

Purpose

Each year >100,000 Australians experience a road traffic injury - the majority (75%) are considered non‑catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries. Up to 50% of cases do not recover, but develop chronic pain (pain that persists ≥3 months). This represents a significant health burden for Australia. A biopsychosocial approach to care is recommended and our previous clinical trial showed that when physiotherapists include psychological strategies as part of their treatment (StressModex clinical trial), recovery improves. However, this approach is not in routine use in Australia, with a major barrier being limited training and lack confidence of physiotherapists to deliver psychological care.

Under clinical trial conditions, we showed that 2-days in-person training improved patient outcomes. In‑person training is difficult to scale, limiting widespread implementation and sustainable change in clinical practice. To address this barrier, together with our partners, we have developed a novel online implementation strategy (PICOT: Physiotherapists bIopsyChosocial On-line Training) to implement the StressModex intervention.

The aim of this project is to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to:

(1) Compare the effectiveness of the two implementation strategies (in-person training versus PICOT) on the delivery of StressModex in routine physiotherapy practice;

(2) Compare the effectiveness of the two implementation strategies on patient outcomes; and

(3) Compare the cost-effectiveness of the two implementation strategies. 

Consumers and end-users (clinicians, policymakers) have been involved in the development and piloting of PICOT and they will continue to play a central role in this trial.