INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a leading contributor to disability and service demand in primary healthcare (PHC), particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Contemporary responses increasingly emphasise people-centred, multimodal and non-pharmacological approaches. However, in practice, service integration is often limited to co-location, with insufficient clarity regarding how collaboration and integration are operationalised within private, fee-for-service PHC environments. METHODS: This qualitative study explored how 22 health professionals working within a large-scale, proximity-based primary healthcare precinct in Australia defined and experienced service integration for MSK pain management. Semi-structured interviews were conducted across two timepoints (2021 and 2023) and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, informed by implementation and people-centred care principles. RESULTS: Three interdependent enablers of integration were identified: (1) Relationships, enabled by physical proximity, including shared philosophy and respect for professional roles; (2) Communication, characterised by knowledge exchange, forward momentum and shared processes; and (3) Consumer-centred access, via availability of affordable and needed services. Integration was experienced as a continuum, ranging from parallel multidisciplinary practice to higher-order interdisciplinary collaboration involving shared processes and collective responsibility for consumer outcomes. CONCLUSION: Within this site-specific context, physical proximity acted as a necessary but insufficient condition for effective integration. Higher levels of interdisciplinary practice emerged only when proximity was combined with shared values, effective communication and coordinated consumer flow. These findings provide a base for how proximity-based primary healthcare environments can operationalise people-centred integration and can inform scalable models of MSK care in private PHC settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fjaagesund et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: