Assessment and Monitoring of Achilles Tendinopathy in Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Exploration of the Barrier’s Clinicians Face.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1205009/v1

Background: A plethora of different assessment tools exist to diagnose and monitor Achilles tendinopathy, however there is little consensus within the literature and what is performed in clinical practice is unknown. The aims of this study were: 1) Describe the assessments employed by clinicians in their own practice to aid with a) diagnosis and b) monitoring progress in Achilles tendinopathy, 2) explore which ICON health domains clinicians believe to be the most, and least important when managing patients with Achilles tendinopathy, and 3) explore the barriers preventing clinicians from implementing what they think is ideal practice as it relates to utilising tools to aid diagnosis and monitor progress in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy.

Methods: We employed a Qualitative Descriptive study design to capture the clinical assessments and ICON health domains participants deemed important when assessing and monitoring mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy over time. Thirteen participants (eight female, five male) from across Australia, consisting of two junior physiotherapists, five senior physiotherapists working in private practice, four senior physiotherapists working within elite sports organizations and two Sport and Exercise Medicine Doctors were included and one-on-one interviews were performed. Audio was transcribed then entered into NVIVO for coding and analysis.

Results: Assessments related to Function, Pain On Loading, Pain Over A Specified Timeframe And Palpation are commonly used to assist diagnosis. Assessments related to Disability, Pain On Loading, Pain Over A Specified Timeframe and Physical Function Capacity are used to monitor progress over time. Furthermore, Pain On Loading and Pain Over A Specified Timeframe were considered the most important core health domains for assisting diagnosis whereas Pain On Loading, Patient Rating Of The Condition and Physical Function Capacity were the most important health domains for monitoring progress. Finally, four main themes were perceived as barriers to implementing ideal practice of assessment and monitoring in people with Achilles tendinopathy: Financial Constraints, Time Constraints, Access To Equipment and Patient Symptom Severity.

Conclusions: A number of barriers exist that prevent clinicians from implementing what they view as ideal assessment and monitoring for Achilles tendinopathy. These barriers should be considered when developing new assessments and in clinical practice recommendations.

Orthopedics

Sports Medicine and Kinesiology

Physical Medicine & Rehab

Tendon

interview

clinical practice

validity

utility

Pain On Loading and Pain Over A Specified Timeframe were considered the most important core health domains for assisting diagnosis
Pain On Loading, Patient Rating Of The Condition and Physical Function Capacity were the most important health domains for monitoring progress.
Four main themes were perceived as barriers to implementing ideal practice of assessment and monitoring in people with Achilles tendinopathy: Financial Constraints, Time Constraints, Access To Equipment and Patient Symptom Severity.

Achilles tendinopathy is characterised by pain, stiffness and a loss of function in both athletic and sedentary populations^{1 2} with exercise rehabilitation recommended as best management for this condition.^3–6 Various assessment tools exist for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy and have been used for diagnosis, as study inclusion criteria, and as outcome measures to monitor progress.^{5 7–11} Examples include a patients self-reported pain with functional tasks, validated patient-reported outcome measures or an objective assessment of functional capacity.^{12 13} However, not all tools have been validated¹⁴ thus it is valuable to find out what is being used (and how) in clinical practice regarding the assessment and monitoring of Achilles tendinopathy.

There is little consistency between published studies in the assessments used to quantify demographic information, diagnose the condition or assess improvements in different systems (e.g., tendon structure or muscle force production) relevant to rehabilitation.^{12 13 15} For instance, across exercise rehabilitation trials to treat mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy we identified numerous assessment tools utilised to assess different aspects of pain and function^{12 13} yet few reported data related to their reliability and validity.^{12 13} The lack of data on the identified assessments reliability is an issue as it undermines any analysis to determine if change has truly occurred¹⁶ and likely makes the diagnosis and monitoring of mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy even more challenging for clinicians, because if research studies are not using consistent assessments how can we expect that from clinicians.

In 2019, three international consensus statements (ICON 2019) were developed by expert clinicians and researchers with a special interest in tendons as well as patients with tendinopathy, to consolidate our understanding of tendinopathy, including tendon terminology,¹⁷ reporting of participant characteristics¹⁸ and core health domains.¹⁹ In the absence of ‘gold-standard’ diagnostic criteria for tendinopathy and a lack of consensus by the expert researchers and clinicians around diagnosis, and inclusion criteria for tendinopathy research, one of the ICON 2019 consensus papers reported standards for reporting participant characteristics to provide greater detail of who is included within research studies to facilitate clinical translation.¹⁸ Another ICON 2019 consensus statement provided a list of nine core health domains that should be considered in tendinopathy research: 1) Patient Rating of the Condition; 2) Participation in Life Activities; 3) Pain on Activity/ Loading; 4) Function; 5) Psychological Factors; 6) Physical Function Capacity; 7) Disability; 8) Quality of Life; 9) Pain over a Specified Time.¹⁹ Furthermore, a number of other domains identified within the ICON 2019 statement of core health domains were considered of little importance in monitoring,¹⁹ however some did feature within the ICON 2019 consensus statement of reporting participant characteristics and are important to consider when investigating the diagnosis and monitoring of tendinopathy in clinical practice: 1) Tendon Structure; 2) Palpation; 3) Range of Motion.¹⁸

The irony is that clinicians have it drilled into them to be evidence-based, but when it comes to assessment tools for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy the research studies they read do not use uniform diagnostic criteria or assessment tools, and the experts cannot reach consensus on exactly what is needed to diagnose the condition. Therefore, can we really expect clinicians to select the most valid and reliable assessment tools?

To address the confusion within the research the Achilles Tendinopathy International Consensus Sub-Group has worked to identify all assessments used within clinical studies of Achilles tendinopathy and allocate them under the ICON Core health domain of ‘best fit.’¹⁴ This project involves further reviews and a Delphi study to determine which outcome measures are most valid and reliable and make recommendations regarding which assessments best represent each health domain. However, this body of work does not definitively indicate what current practice ‘at the coalface’ is for clinicians when diagnosing and monitoring Achilles tendinopathy. Specifically, there is merit in knowing what assessments clinicians use and what assessments clinicians consider ideal practice when diagnosing and monitoring Achilles tendinopathy. Further to this, if discrepancy exists between what clinicians do and what they consider ideal practice, it is vital we understand what the barriers to ideal practice are so that strategies can be implemented to address the barriers.

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to explore clinicians’ own practice regarding the diagnosis and monitoring of Achilles tendinopathy. Specifically, we intended to:

Describe the assessments (assigned to the ICON health domain they represent) employed by clinicians in their own practice to aid with a) diagnosis and b) monitoring progress in Achilles tendinopathy.

Explore which ICON health domains clinicians believe to be the most, and least important when managing patients with Achilles tendinopathy.

Explore the barriers preventing clinicians from implementing what they think is ideal practice as it relates to utilising tools to aid diagnosis and monitor progress in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy.

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured one-to-one interviews. This study has been reported using the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ)²⁰ to identify the descriptions and experiences of clinicians who treat mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy related to specific concepts of interest.

Concepts of interest

To address the objectives of our study, we developed a series of interview questions that were presented to clinicians (Appendix A). Each of the ten questions relate specifically to our concepts of interest. Questions explored which assessments were performed in a ‘real world’ setting as well as any additional assessments clinicians would use in an ideal world to assist diagnosis and to monitor patient progress over time. Additionally, the ICON health domains interviewed clinicians’ thought were the most/ least important were also explored. Finally, clinicians were asked which health domains they believed indicated meaningful progress for patients and what barriers they perceived in implementing ideal practice for assessment and monitoring of patients with mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy.

Research team and reflexivity

Personal characteristics

Four members of the research teams conducted all interviews (JD, WG, MM and MT) with personal characteristics described in Appendix B.

Relationship with participants

All participants were clinicians, identified by the research team through professional networks. To minimise relationship bias, we allocated interviewers (JD, WG, MM or MT) based on having no relationship with the participant. There was no foreseeable bias within the characteristics of the interviewers.

Study design

Methodology

We employed a Qualitative Descriptive (QD) study design to capture the clinical assessments and ICON health domains participants deemed important when assessing and monitoring mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy over time.²¹ Qualitative Descriptive methodology is suitable in healthcare research as it helps to focus research questions directly on the experiences of participants rather than through researcher interpretation or a theoretical lens.²²

Participant selection

We used purposive sampling²³ to recruit Australian participants from four clinical subgroups; 1) Junior physiotherapists, 2) Senior physiotherapists working in private practice, 3) Senior physiotherapists working in elite sport, and 4) Sport and Exercise Medicine Doctors (inclusion criteria for each group are listed within Appendix C). Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique which selects participants who possess the maximum amount of information about a particular topic.²⁴ We sampled continuously until thematic saturation^{21 25} was achieved, as determined by the principal investigator (MM).

We invited 28 participants into this study who were contacted by email and provided the participant information sheet, consent form, interview script (Appendix C) and instructions on how to enrol into the study. Of these, fifteen participants either declined to be involved or failed to respond (five junior physiotherapists, two senior physiotherapists working in private practice, three senior physiotherapists working in elite sport and five Sport and Exercise Medicine Doctors). Overall, thirteen participants (eight female, five male) from across Australia (Appendix D) consented to participate in this study. At the point of data saturation, two junior physiotherapists, five senior physiotherapists working in private practice, four senior physiotherapists working within elite sports organizations and two Sport and Exercise Medicine Doctors were enrolled.

Setting

All interviews were conducted between May 2020 and May 2021 using an online platform (Zoom Cloud Meetings²⁶) with only the participant and the interviewer present.

Data collection

The duration of interviews ranged from 20 to 55 minutes and were audio recorded. We employed a cognitive interviewing technique following the conclusion of each of the first three interviews to ensure questions were understandable and facilitated discussion that addressed the concept topic. These participants were asked 1) if there were any questions they did not understand and 2) whether they felt the questions addressed the concept topics appropriately. Thereafter, we made minor amendments to the interview schedule to better explain the health domains with examples being provided for participants upon request. The principal investigator (MM) generated transcripts, using Descript 20.1.4²⁷ and subsequently cross checked them with the audio recording. Final transcripts were not provided to participants for member checking.

Analysis

Data analysis

A single researcher (MM) coded all data using QSR NVIVO (Version 12.6.1.970)²⁸ under the guidance of a member of the research team (CB) who has substantial experience with QSR NVIVO for qualitative research analysis. We sought significant statements that captured individual perspectives of participants. A template thematic analysis approach was used whereby the coding structure was guided by an initial skeleton code frame based upon the concept of interest, and subsequently built upon during the coding phase (coding structure presented in Appendix E).²⁹ The clinical assessments mentioned by participants within script questions 1,2 6 and 7 were coded to one of the previously mentioned health domains. Where an assessment did not fit within one of the health domains it was included as ‘other.’ For all questions related to participants selecting the most/ least important health domains for assessment of monitoring, all responses were coded as the health domain directly indicated by the clinician. Themes were derived from the data related to the barriers for the implementation of ideal clinical assessment and monitoring.

Reporting

Results of the template thematic analysis are presented as figures or tables inclusive of the key themes and separated into the key topics of interest. Quotations were included as supporting statements to the key themes outlined within the results.

Assessments used to assist diagnosis

Assessments performed by clinicians in a ‘real world’ setting

Clinicians identified assessments representing four key health domains they used most to assist diagnosis: Function (85%, 11/13), Pain on Loading (92%, 12/13), Pain over a Specified Timeframe (77%, 10/13) and Palpation (85%, 11/13)(Figure 1A). Footwear was mentioned by 46% of clinicians as being assessed in routine practice and was coded under a separate health domain of ‘Other.’

Additional assessments clinicians would perform in an ‘ideal world’ setting

Clinicians identified three health domains of interest for assessments they would use in an ideal world: Physical Function Capacity (54%, 7/13), Disability (31%, 4/13) and Tendon structure (31%, 4/13) (Appendix F). One clinician reported they would ideally assess calf circumference, and this was coded under a separate health domain ‘Other.’ Clinicians felt in an ‘ideal’ world assessing Physical Function Capacity using a force plate (e.g., ground reaction force for jumping and landing), Disability using self-reported outcome measures (e.g., Lower Extremity Function Scale) or Tendon Structure using imaging (e.g., Ultrasound) would be valuable to assist diagnosis.

Health Domains viewed as important by clinicians

Clinicians identified assessments belonging to two health domains as being most important for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy: Pain on Loading (92%, 12/13) and Pain Over a Specified Timeframe (69%, 9/13)(Figure 2A). Clinicians identified assessments belonging to one health domain as being least important for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy: Tendon Structure (62%, 8/13)(Figure 2A).

Whilst 85% of clinicians routinely assessed Palpation and 46% routinely assessed Range of Motion, these were not identified as important health domains for diagnosing tendinopathy. Only 31% of clinicians rated Palpation in their most important health domains and no clinicians rated Range of Motion within their most important health domains (Table 1). Themes representing clinically performed assessments used by clinicians for diagnosis yet not considering important health domains included palpation, which clinicians felt was expected by the patient, and range of motion which is assessed but not potentially useful for diagnosis.

Table 1. Assessments clinicians routinely use within clinical practice when diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy, yet do not consider the underlying core health domain as important.

Key theme

Description of health domain from ICON 2019¹⁹

Exemplar Quote

Palpation*

“Manual pressure elicited/evoked pain over the tendon (eg, VAS, NRS).”¹⁹

“And palpation is, you know… I'd rather go by function than anything else. So I probably…do it more as part of your examination, as part of the show, really.” (Participant 3)

Range of motion*

“Range of motion (eg, goniometer, inclinometer).”¹⁹

“I would suggest range of movement is not so important in diagnosis, even though I did mention before that I would take that into consideration, I don't think it's really up there in terms of being of utmost importance for diagnosis.” (Participant 7)

*Palpation and Range of motion was not listed as a core health domain of tendinopathy in the ICON statement.

Assessments used to monitor progress over time

Assessments performed by clinicians in a ‘real world’ setting

Most clinicians identified assessments belonging to four health domains as being used to monitor progress: Disability (62%, 8/13), Pain on Loading (69%, 9/13), Pain over a Specified Timeframe (85%, 11/13) and Physical Function Capacity (92%, 12/13)(Figure 1B).

Additional assessments performed by clinicians in an ‘ideal world’ setting

Clinicians identified assessments belonging to four health domains they would assess in an ideal world: Tendon Structure (54%, 7/13), Disability (15%, 2/13), Physical Function Capacity (15%, 2/13) and Function (8%, 1/13)(Appendix G). Clinicians felt in an ‘ideal’ world monitoring tendon structure using imaging (e.g., Ultrasound Tissue Characterisation), monitoring disability (e.g., administering a Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment- Achilles) or monitoring ground reaction force (e.g., through use of a force plate) would be valuable.

Health domains regarded as important by clinicians

Clinicians identified assessments belonging to three health domains as being the important for monitoring progress: Pain on Loading (69%, 9/13), Patient Rating of the Condition (62%, 8/13) and Physical Function Capacity (54%, 7/13)(Figure 2B). Clinicians identified assessments belonging to three health domains as least important for monitoring progress: Tendon Structure (77%, 10/13), Palpation (54%, 7/13) and Range of Motion (38%, 5/13)(Figure 2B).

Most clinicians (92%, 12/13) routinely monitor Physical Function Capacity and 85% (11/13) routinely monitor Pain over a Specified Timeframe. However, only 54% (7/13) and 31% (4/13) of clinicians felt Physical Function Capacity and Pain over a Specified Timeframe, respectively, were amongst the most important core health domains (Table 2). Alternatively, no clinicians (0%) routinely assessed Psychological factors yet 15% (2/13) reported that Psychological factors were one of the most important health domains (Table 2). Participants recognised the importance of addressing the psychological factors amongst patients in monitoring progress, yet no participating clinicians actually did this.

Table 2

Health domains regarded as important by clinicians to monitor progress.
Key theme	Description of health domain from ICON 2019¹⁹	Exemplar Quote
Psychological factors	“Psychology (eg, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophisation, kinesiophobia, anxiety or depression scales).”¹⁹	“Psychological factors, again, understanding that, we're not just treating a tendon, we're treating the whole patient. And if there are psychological factors that impact our ability to treat that patient and that tendon, then we need to address those. Otherwise, we're not necessarily going to get there.” (Participant 13) “I guess when I'm thinking about if someone's not progressing or if they're not progressing, maybe the way that there might be, social or psychological factors.” (Participant 2)
Physical function capacity	“Quantitative measures of physical tasks performed in clinic (eg, number of hops, timed stair walk, number of single limb squats, including dynamometry (strength) and wearable technology).”¹⁹	“Physical function capacity too, because it's easy to measure. And because I think it's really correlated. If we can get some improved kind of strength through the complex, we tend to be able to see that people can tolerate loading a bit more.” (Participant 7)
Pain over a specified timeframe	“Participant reported pain intensity over a period of time (morning, night, 24 hours, a week; eg, VAS, NRS).”¹⁹	“Probably the pain response to load and whether they're having any associated calf tightness… what does that person look like? Post-game and, do they have a pain 24 hours later, 48 hours later, 72 hours later?”(Participant 5)

Defining meaningful progress

Clinicians found it difficult to articulate meaningful progress given that it is outcome measure specific. However, two key themes emerged: 1) clinicians are happy with progress provided they observe a positive trajectory (regardless of the magnitude of change), and 2) clinicians tend to have a finish goal they expect a patient to achieve (Table 3).

Table 3

Defining meaningful progress
Key theme	Description of theme	Exemplar Quote
Clinicians are happy with progress provided they observe a positive trajectory (regardless of the magnitude of change)	Monitoring meaningful change in patients is hard, and no one number is ever going to be meaningful for every patient. Clinicians instead tend to look for a positive trajectory and judge, based on their own clinical experience, whether progress is satisfactory or not.	“I think that's a really open, difficult thing to answer, but you don't want to also spend six weeks doing a program and then having come back with a one point change on your VISA.” (Participant 8) “It would be more like a trend, I guess there's no specific set number, but like a positive trend, you know, towards the higher numbers.” (Participant 10) “Wanting to see a two to three point drop… but again, it really depends if they are only a three out of 10 versus if they're at an eight out of 10, it's going to be more based on a percentage.” (Participant 7)
Clinicians tend to have a finish goal they expect a patient to achieve	While clinicians may not have clear increments of improvement, they expect to see over time they often have a goal they expect to see achieved for the relevant outcome measure before allowing a patient to progress rehabilitation.	“You would certainly not want to be, in my opinion, progressing that run distance until the calf rises are probably close to 25.” (Participant 11) “I mean, I'd have to have a KPI (key performance indicator) in terms of that. I'm not going to allow them to do decent running until they get above 20 calf raises. So, I guess that would be an absolute value that I put more weight on.” (Participant 12) “For the calf raise then, I mean, really depends on his level of fitness beforehand, but using, say the other side as an example, I'd be then thinking, okay, what we'd want to be getting at least to there, but probably a bit higher. And I'd be looking at 20-25 I think, for a running athlete.” (Participant 7) “So say someone comes in to me and they got 10 single leg calf raises, I'm looking up to get up to 20 plus single leg calf raises” (Participant 12)

Barriers to implementing optimal assessment

Clinicians identified several barriers to performing what they would consider optimal monitoring of their patients with Achilles tendinopathy (Table 4). The four main themes were: ‘Financial constraints’ (9/13), ‘Time constraints’ (8/13), ‘Access to Equipment’ (4/13) and ‘Patients Symptom Severity’ (3/12) with eight other minor themes emerging. In terms of ‘Financial constraints,’ clinicians were aware of the costs to patients in terms of deciding which course of treatment to recommend. Participants reported ‘Time constraints’ as being an issue to monitoring patients with the focus being on management as opposed to reassessment. Participants recognised that ‘Access to Equipment’ can be a problem in a shared clinical environment. Participants also reported ‘Patient Symptom Severity’ was a barrier to monitoring as they did not want to perform assessments likely to aggravate patient symptoms.

Table 4

Barriers to implementing optimal assessment for assessment and monitoring of patients with mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy
Key theme	Definition of key theme	Exemplar Quote
Financial Constraints	Clinicians are conscious of the financial burden their services place upon patients and opt for the outcome measure that would give them the ideal information to inform management strategies.	“Costs can sometimes be an issue. So that's why they might not engage with physio because again, it's more cost. And that's why I always say to them, look, I could do some imaging. I could spend some money on imaging or an MRI or something like that, but I don't want to spend that on you or an injection.” (Participant 3) “Patient cost is definitely part of it” (Participant 8) “Can they afford to see me every two weeks for follow up?” (Participant 2)
Time Constraints	Clinicians reported that having sufficient time within consultations prevents them from assessing everything they would typically like to within consultations.	“Time that they're allowed to spend at the club. And the time allocated to pre-training screening is actually, pretty limited.” (Participant 5) “I just didn't have time to do all of them [outcome measures] every single time.” (Participant 4) “Time again [as a barrier] for the more elaborate things like, you know, that one RM lift-off test or whether it's, endurance tests.” (Participant 8)
Access To Equipment	Clinicians reported that access to equipment would something be an issue. They may want to do certain assessments but either do not have the equipment of the equipment is being used for other purpose during their patients consult.	“I do like to get them on the treadmill or get them out into that space as we have one, but sometimes there's gym classes and things, we can't access it.” (Participant 2) “For me at work in private practice, I don't have capacity to look at that. So, if it was part of a program for a patient, they were doing it in Smith machine. For example, at the gym, I'd get them to report back to me.” (Participant 9)
Patients Symptom Severity	Clinicians were conscious of performing too many assessments, which may provide valuable information, at the cost of flaring up the symptoms of a patient with an irritable condition.	“The patient's symptoms are the perfect barrier to do a strength assessment.” (Participant 4) “I think part of this comes down to how irritable or not it [Achilles tendon] is.” (Participant 11) “Does it [Physical examination] overload the patient?” (Participant 8)
Access To Sports Medicine Doctors	Clinicians reported that in some situations access to Sports Medicine doctors would be valuable but it is often challenging logistically.	“I think that's always the barrier. I mean, when we talk about these kind of these amazing sports clubs… they can actually go and do the blood tests, they're on site.” (Participant 1)
Decreased Monitoring Once Improvement Was Clear	It was reported that it can be easy to decrease the amount of monitoring when you are getting clear improvements with a patient.	“Athletes… they can tend to slip through the cracks once they start going well, you might not monitor their loads as closely.” (Participant 5)
Engagement With The Management Plan	It was reported that when someone has failed rehabilitation, or is not progressing at the rate they may want that having the patient re-engage with health care providers can be a challenge.	“So for me, it's then convincing them to go back to their physio to progress this. Or if they're not comfortable with that, then finding them someone else who can, who's good at giving a tendon reloading program. I think that's one of the biggest barriers I find.” (Participant 3)
Good Communication Between Healthcare Providers	Communication was reported to be an issue and sometimes monitoring might occur, but clinicians are unaware due to poor communication channels between healthcare providers.	“To have that dialogue with the patient and then try and have that dialogue with the physiotherapist, by sending them a letter outlining what I think is going on and hopefully that they give me correspondence back that it keeps me in the loop.” (Participant 13)
Knowledge Of What To Assess And Monitor	Clinicians’ knowledge was reported to be a barrier as inexperienced clinicians are not sure of everything they should be assessing.	“I don't really know what I don't know yet. And, I'm still learning my way through lots of things.” (Participant 2)
Motivation To Prepare Self-Reported Outcome Measures	The burden of having to prepare self-reported measures in advance, such as the VISA, was reported. This can lead clinicians to not providing these assessments to patients.	“In brutal honesty, motivation and organization. So if I'm busy, and I don't get printing off each day, I might not do a VISA, and you can call that laziness.” (Participant 12)
Patient Understand Of The Self-Reported Outcome Measures	Clinicians feel like patients do not always understand self-reported outcome measures and they can lack confidence in the findings of these tools.	“Sometimes when you get to the functional questions at the end, it just gets the patient gets a bit confused. I think. And I'm not, I'm not sure that it's, look, it's obviously been… tested and validated, so it's a good one, but yeah.” (Participant 3)
Patient Compliance To Monitoring	While patients may have the ideal intentions to monitor things like running distance or daily symptoms sometimes they will forget and therefore this cannot be provided to the clinician.	“Some things in practice that I say people like, they just forget to do it.” (Participant 10)

A plethora of different assessment tools exist to assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of progress for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy. Despite this, no consensus exists on which of these tools are meaningful for use in clinical practice. The ICON 2019 Consensus Statement progressed the field by developing core health domains upon which to map tendinopathy outcome measures.¹⁹ Building on this work, this is the first study to qualitatively explore the perceptions and experiences of clinicians in relation to assessment and monitoring of patients with mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy, with assessments mapped to the ICON 2019 core health domains.

The use of clinical assessments to diagnose Achilles tendinopathy

Clinicians commonly use assessments that measure Function, Pain on Loading, Pain Over a Specified Timeframe and Palpation to assist diagnosis. Despite this, in our study, clinicians considered only Pain On Loading and Pain Over A Specified Timeframe as being important core health domains. Furthermore, we demonstrated that clinicians use, and consider relevant, some of the health domains classified by the ICON 2019 as ‘non-core health domains’. Specifically, clinicians reported routinely palpating the tendon and measuring range of motion as part of the diagnostic process for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy.

Of interest, whilst clinicians commonly assessed these health domains, they were not rated by clinicians as being essential for reaching a diagnosis. Our findings echo those in other conditions, such as low back pain and knee osteoarthritis, where a disparity exists between what is recommended and what is performed clinically.^{30 31} These findings highlight the heterogeneity of assessments used in clinical practice as diagnostic criteria for Achilles tendinopathy. This is an important finding as it means that there is likely to be substantial heterogeneity of clinical phenotypes within an Achilles tendinopathy population, even when diagnosed by health care providers.

The use of clinical assessments to monitor Achilles tendinopathy

Clinicians commonly measure Disability, Pain on Loading, Pain over a Specified Timeframe and Physical Function Capacity to monitor progress over time. When comparing the similarity of what assessments are being performed and what health domains clinicians’ thought were important, there was much more similarity within assessments used for monitoring, as opposed to diagnosis. For example, both Pain on Loading, and Physical Function Capacity were assessed in clinical practice and viewed as important by clinicians. However, we identified a disparity between some health domains that clinicians monitor to assess progress over time and those that clinicians think are the most important. For instance, some clinicians reported psychological factors as an important health domain yet they do not assess psychological factors within their clinical practice. This discrepancy may be explained by the several barriers clinicians identified that exist to implementing ideal practice.

Barriers to performing ‘ideal’ practice

Two clinicians reported they would not include additional assessments to assist with diagnosis and three clinicians reported they would not include additional assessments to assist with monitoring within an ‘ideal’ world scenario. This suggests that clinicians felt doing more would add value. However, there is no current evidence that suggests performing more assessments provides additional value or improves patient outcomes in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy. In fact, the concept of ‘over-testing’ might actually be associated with harm.³²

The main barriers to implementing what clinicians felt was ideal practice were ‘financial constraints’, ‘time constraints’, ‘access to equipment’ and ‘patients symptom severity’. These barriers reflect those identified in other chronic musculoskeletal complaints.^{33 34} Exploring these barriers in terms of their potential for modification, and thus the potential to optimise practice is warranted. Certain barriers could be removed at the individual level, for instance by training clinicians to efficiently, effectively, and routinely use patient reported outcome measures. Likewise, other barriers could be removed at the institutional and cultural level by optimising relationships and communication between different sub-groups of clinicians. In contrast, we recognise barriers that exist which may not be modifiable. For example, clinicians concern for a patient’s financial constraints are difficult to overcome, although this does assume the clinician has established a thorough understanding of personal resources. This may not necessarily be the case and was not reported by physiotherapists working within elite sport where cost is not a barrier. Whilst several strategies exist to remove this barrier one solution is to avoid costly assessment protocols not supported by the evidence, such as imaging,³⁵ and given the potential for iatrogenic effects related to over-testing this barrier might actually be useful. These resources could then be redirected to fund ideal-practice management, which could be mediated through clinician education. Likewise, the development of online, freely available resources for patients might assist in reducing the number of required consultations.³⁶ The provision of better educational resources (either isolated or in conjunction with exercise rehabilitation) for patients may also help decrease the time burden clinicians identified as being a key barrier and are being trialled in other chronic musculoskeletal complaints such as chronic lower back pain.^{36 37}

Access to equipment is difficult to overcome but the use of reliable measures of physical function capacity which do not require equipment should be encouraged (e.g. single leg heel raise) as these may provide valuable information and negate the need for equipment.³⁸ Patient symptom severity will always be a barrier in irritable presentations. However, assessments providing a measure of physical function capacity without increasing pain should be considered. The reality that health domain focus shifts during the clinical journey assists with this issue, with the initial focus being on pain-related health domains, then progressing to more disability and functional health domains as the patients’ clinical status improves.³⁹

Limitations

We used one-on-one interviews as they can generate a range of themes on a per-person basis and provide very detailed transcripts for analysis.⁴⁰ One-on-one interviews were used to ensure participants were comfortable with discussing their own barriers to ideal-practice, specifically related to what they do not do as well as they could. For this reason, we decided against conducting focus groups as we believed participants would feel more comfortable in a one-to-one setting rather than in a focus group setting containing respected peers, ²⁵ As such, interviews are ideal practice for exploring the descriptions of the experiences and perceptions held by individuals and while they are associated with small sample sizes compared to larger quantitative studies they are rich in data and appropriate to answer the questions posed in this study.²⁵

The ICON 2019 consensus statement of core health domains of tendinopathy is only recently published so it would be unlikely any largescale change in clinical practice would have occurred. Hence this study cannot assess the impact of the consensus statement, and only depicts what is currently being performed in clinical practice. Given the applicability of using the core health domains as nodes to code the data we performed this for both diagnostic and monitoring measures mentioned by participants. However, we recognise diagnosis was never the purpose of the core health domains paper.

We interviewed a heterogeneous population of clinicians across disciplines and across career stages to capture breadth of perspective, which results in some limitations. Firstly, our final sample only included one Sport and Exercise Medicine Physician and one Sport and Exercise Medicine Registrar. Therefore, Sports and Exercise Medicine may be under-represented within our sample. Secondly, we did not include other health care providers who manage mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy (e.g. podiatrists, exercise physiologists or general practitioners). Although thematic saturation was reached within the interviews conducted, the results are not intended to be representative of the broader population and cannot be assumed to represent other provider groups. Nonetheless, the findings were insightful, and generalisability could be rectified by future larger studies (e.g. survey). Such a study could be developed based on the themes identified within this study and administered to large numbers of clinicians. This would provide more accurate estimates on the disparities between current clinical practice and ‘ideal’ practice, and what the barriers to ideal practice are. Furthermore, a survey could enable analysis of how demographic features such as speciality and experience might impact these perspectives.

No consensus exists that helps clinicians decide which clinical assessment tools assist in the diagnosis or monitoring over time of patients with Achilles tendinopathy. Assessments related to Function, Pain On Loading, Pain Over A Specified Timeframe And Palpation are commonly used to assist diagnosis. Assessments related to Disability, Pain On Loading, Pain Over A Specified Timeframe and Physical Function Capacity are used to monitor progress over time. Furthermore, Pain On Loading and Pain Over A Specified Timeframe were considered the most important core health domains for assisting diagnosis whereas Pain On Loading, Patient Rating Of The Condition and Physical Function Capacity were the most important health domains for monitoring progress. Finally, four main themes were perceived as barriers to implementing ideal practice of assessment and monitoring in people with Achilles tendinopathy: Financial Constraints, Time Constraints, Access To Equipment and Patient Symptom Severity.

Recommendations for clinicians on what assessments should be used in clinical practice should consider the barriers to optimal clinical assessment. Considering these barriers may assist compliance with recommendations in providing optimal clinical care for patients with Achilles tendinopathy.

Ethics approval: Ethical approval for the study was provided by the University of Notre Dame Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 2020-014F).

Consent to participate: All participants provided written consent to participate.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: Datasets (i.e., transcripts) generated and analysed during the study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests: All authors declare they have no competing interests.

Funding: Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions: MM, JD, ER, WG and MT conceived the idea. MM, CB, PC, JD, SD, WG, ER and MT designed the methods. MM, JD, WG and MT performed all interviews. MM performed data analysis. All authors contributed to developing the final manuscript.

1. Albers IS, Zwerver J, Diercks RL, et al. Incidence and prevalence of lower extremity tendinopathy in a Dutch general practice population: a cross sectional study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2016;17(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-0885-2

2. Lopes AD, Hespanhol LC, Yeung SS, et al. What are the Main Running-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries? Sports Med 2012;42(10):891-905. doi: 10.1007/bf03262301

3. Murphy M, Travers MJ, Gibson W, et al. The rate of improvement of pain and function in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy with loading protocols: A Systematic Review and Longitudinal Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 2018;48(8):1875-91. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0932-2.

4. Murphy MC, Travers MJ, Chivers P, et al. Efficacy of heavy eccentric calf training for treating mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of sports medicine 2019;53(17):1070-77. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099934

5. van der Vlist AC, Winters M, Weir A, et al. Which treatment is most effective for patients with Achilles tendinopathy? A living systematic review with network meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials. British journal of sports medicine 2021;55(5):249-56. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101872 [published Online First: 2020/06/12]

6. de Vos RJ, van der Vlist AC, Zwerver J, et al. Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on Achilles tendinopathy. British journal of sports medicine 2021 doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103867 [published Online First: 2021/07/01]

7. Alfredson H, Pietila T, Jonsson P, et al. Heavy-load eccentric calf muscle training for the treatment of chronic Achilles tendinosis. The American journal of sports medicine 1998;26(3):360-6. [published Online First: 1998/06/09]

8. Balius R, Álvarez G, Baró F, et al. A 3-Arm Randomized Trial for Achilles Tendinopathy: Eccentric Training, Eccentric Training Plus a Dietary Supplement Containing Mucopolysaccharides, or Passive Stretching Plus a Dietary Supplement Containing Mucopolysaccharides. Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental 2016;78:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2016.11.001

9. de Vos RJ, Weir A, Cobben LP, et al. The value of power Doppler ultrasonography in Achilles tendinopathy: a prospective study. The American journal of sports medicine 2007;35(10):1696-701. doi: 10.1177/0363546507303116 [published Online First: 2007/06/15]

10. Murphy M, Rio E, Chivers P, et al. Do people with unilateral mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy who participant in running-related physical activity exhibit a meaningful conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effect: A pilot study. . Journal of science and medicine in sport 2021;24(5):441-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.10.015

11. O'Neill S, Radia J, Bird K, et al. Acute sensory and motor response to 45-s heavy isometric holds for the plantar flexors in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018 doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5050-z

12. Murphy M, Rio E, Debenham J, et al. Evaluating the progress of mid-portion Achilles Tendinopathy during rehabilitation. A Review of Outcome Measures for muscle structure and function, tendon structure and neural and pain associated mechanisms. . Int J Sports Phys Ther 2018;13(3):537-51.

13. Murphy M, Rio E, Debenham J, et al. Evaluating the progress of mid-portion Achilles Tendinopathy during rehabilitation. A Review of Outcome Measures for Self- Reported Pain and Function. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2018;13(2):283-92. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20180283

14. Grävare Silbernagel K, Malliaras P, de Vos R-J, et al. ICON 2020—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Reported in Clinical Trials of Achilles Tendinopathy. Sports Med 2021 doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01588-6

15. Auliffe SM, Korakakis V, Hilfiker R, et al. Participant characteristics are poorly reported in exercise trials in tendinopathy: A systematic review. Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine 2021;48:43-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.12.012 [published Online First: 2020/12/29]

16. Kamper SJ. Reliability and Validity: Linking Evidence to Practice. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy 2019;49(4):286-87. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.0702

17. Scott A, Squier K, Alfredson H, et al. ICON 2019: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: Clinical Terminology. British journal of sports medicine 2020;54(5):260-62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100885

18. Rio EK, Mc Auliffe S, Kuipers I, et al. ICON PART-T 2019–International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: recommended standards for reporting participant characteristics in tendinopathy research (PART-T). British journal of sports medicine 2019;54(11):627-30. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100957

19. Vicenzino B, de Vos R-J, Alfredson H, et al. ICON 2019—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: There are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients. British journal of sports medicine 2019;54(8):444-51. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100894

20. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19(6):349-57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

21. Brooks J, King N. Qualitative psychology in the real world: The utility of template analysis. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/13656/: 2012 British Psychological Society Annual Conference 2012.

22. Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, et al. Qualitative description – the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9(1):52. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-52

23. Walter M. Social research methods Third edition ed. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press 2013:110-111.

24. Polit D, Beck C. Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. 7th ed. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2010.

25. Busetto L, Wick W, Gumbinger C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurol Res Pract 2020;2(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z

26. Zoom Cloud Meetings [program]. https://zoom.us/, 2020.

27. Descript [program]. 20.1.4 version. https://www.descript.com/transcription: Descript, 2021.

28. NVIVO 12 [program]. 12.6.1.970 version: QSR International 2021.

29. Brooks J, McCluskey S, Turley E, et al. The Utility of Template Analysis in Qualitative Psychology Research. Qual Res Psychol 2015;12(2):202-22. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2014.955224 [published Online First: 2014/09/02]

30. Morgan T, Wu J, Ovchinikova L, et al. A national intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain by general practitioners: a retrospective economic program evaluation using Medicare Benefits Schedule data. BMC Health Serv Res 2019;19(1):983. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4773-y

31. Brand CA, Harrison C, Tropea J, et al. Management of Osteoarthritis in General Practice in Australia. Arthritis care and research : the official journal of the Arthritis Health Professions Association 2014;66(4):551-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22197

32. Friedman DJ, Khan KM. Preventing overdiagnosis and the harms of too much sport and exercise medicine. British journal of sports medicine 2019;53(20):1314-18. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100039

33. Al Zoubi FM, French SD, Patey AM, et al. Professional barriers and facilitators to using stratified care approaches for managing non-specific low back pain: a qualitative study with Canadian physiotherapists and chiropractors. Chiropr Man Therap 2019;27(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12998-019-0286-3

34. Östhols S, Boström C, Rasmussen-Barr E. Clinical assessment and patient-reported outcome measures in low-back pain - a survey among primary health care physiotherapists. Disability and rehabilitation 2019;41(20):2459-67. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1467503 [published Online First: 2018/05/10]

35. Sajid IM, Parkunan A, Frost K. Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care. BMJ Open Qual 2021;10(3):e001287. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001287

36. Hodges PW, Setchell J, Nielsen M. An Internet-Based Consumer Resource for People with Low Back Pain (MyBackPain): Development and Evaluation. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2020;7(1):e16101-e01. doi: 10.2196/16101

37. Post AA, Rio EK, Sluka KA, et al. Effect of Pain Education and Exercise on Pain and Function in Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy: Protocol for a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9(11):e19111. doi: 10.2196/19111 [published Online First: 2020/11/04]

38. Hébert-Losier K, Newsham-West RJ, Schneiders AG, et al. Raising the standards of the calf-raise test: a systematic review. Journal of science and medicine in sport 2009;12(6):594-602. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2008.12.628 [published Online First: 2009/02/24]

39. Rio E, Kidgell D, Purdam C, et al. Isometric exercise induces analgesia and reduces inhibition in patellar tendinopathy. British journal of sports medicine 2015;49(19):1277-83. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094386 [published Online First: 2015/05/17]

40. Guest G, Namey E, Taylor J, et al. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2017;20(6):693-708. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601

Appendices.docx
Appendix

Assessment and Monitoring of Achilles Tendinopathy in Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Exploration of the Barrier’s Clinicians Face.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Key Points

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Concepts of interest

Research team and reflexivity

Personal characteristics

Relationship with participants

Study design

Methodology

Participant selection

Setting

Data collection

Analysis

Data analysis

Reporting

Results

Assessments used to assist diagnosis

Assessments performed by clinicians in a ‘real world’ setting

Additional assessments clinicians would perform in an ‘ideal world’ setting

Health Domains viewed as important by clinicians

Assessments used to monitor progress over time

Assessments performed by clinicians in a ‘real world’ setting

Additional assessments performed by clinicians in an ‘ideal world’ setting

Health domains regarded as important by clinicians

Defining meaningful progress

Barriers to implementing optimal assessment

Discussion

The use of clinical assessments to diagnose Achilles tendinopathy

The use of clinical assessments to monitor Achilles tendinopathy

Barriers to performing ‘ideal’ practice

Limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1