Search

Objectives The plethora of self-administered questionnaires to assess positive psychosocial factors complicates questionnaire selection. This study aimed to identify and reach consensus on the most suitable self-administered questionnaires to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and social support in people with pain. Design A three-round modified Delphi study. Participants Forty international experts. Methods In Round 1, the experts suggested questionnaires deemed appropriate to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and/or social support. In Round 2, experts indicated whether they considered the suggested questionnaires to be suitable (Yes/No/Don't know) to assess these psychosocial factors, taking into consideration content, feasibility, personal experience and the measurement properties which we provided for each questionnaire. Questionnaires that were considered suitable by the majority of experts (≥60%) were retained for Round 3. In Round 3, the suitability of each questionnaire was rated on a 0–10 Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts rated the questionnaire ≥7. Results From the 67 questionnaires suggested in Round 1, one questionnaire could be recommended per domain. For resilience: Pain Resilience Scale; for optimism: Revised Version of the Life Orientation Test; for pain acceptance: 8-item and Revised Versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; for social support: Emotional Support Item Bank of the PROMIS tool. Consensus for these questionnaires was also reached in a sensitivity analysis which excluded the ratings of experts involved in the development, translation and/or validation of relevant questionnaires. Conclusion We advocate the use of these recommended questionnaires so data can be compared and pooled more easily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain may be influenced by multiple factors. However, little is known about the relative importance of these factors, and few studies account for them. This Delphi study aimed to reach consensus on the most important confounders which influence the association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain. Methods The panel consisted of 48 experts. In Round 1, the experts proposed what they believed were important confounders. In Round 2, the experts indicated for each confounder whether they believed it was important (yes/no). At least 50% of experts had to indicate the confounder was important to be considered in the final round. In Round 3, the experts rated the importance of each confounder on a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the experts considered the factor either extremely or moderately important. Results In Round 1, 120 confounders were proposed, which were synthesized into 38 distinct factors. In Round 2, 33 confounders met the criterion to be considered important. In Round 3, consensus was reached for 14 confounders: acute illness/trauma, immune disease, medication use, endocrine, nutritional, or metabolic disease, other musculoskeletal conditions, age, handling of blood samples, sex, cancer, body composition, pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, physical activity, and pain characteristics. Conclusions These findings provide insight in the complexity of the association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain. Some factors currently listed as confounders may be re-classified as moderators or mediators as insights progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care. Methods Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated. Results Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21–0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14–1.00). Conclusion The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment. Impact The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) are commonly assessed to quantify mechanical sensitivity in various conditions, including migraine. Digital and analogue algometers are used, but the concurrent validity between these algometers is unknown. Therefore, we assessed the concurrent validity between a digital and analogue algometer to determine PPTs in healthy participants and people with migraine. Methods: Twenty-six healthy participants and twenty-nine people with migraine participated in the study. PPTs were measured interictally and bilaterally at the cephalic region (temporal muscle, C1 paraspinal muscles, and trapezius muscle) and extra-cephalic region (extensor carpi radialis muscle and tibialis anterior muscle). PPTs were first determined with a digital algometer, followed by an analogue algometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3.1) and limits of agreement were calculated to quantify concurrent validity. Results: The concurrent validity between algometers in both groups was moderate to excellent (ICC3.1 ranged from 0.82 to 0.99, with 95%CI: 0.65 to 0.99). Although PPTs measured with the analogue algometer were higher at most locations in both groups (p < 0.05), the mean differences between both devices were less than 18.3 kPa. The variation in methods, such as a hand-held switch (digital algometer) versus verbal commands (analogue algometer) to indicate when the threshold was reached, may explain these differences in scores. The limits of agreement varied per location and between healthy participants and people with migraine. Conclusion: The concurrent validity between the digital and analogue algometer is excellent in healthy participants and moderate in people with migraine. Both types of algometer are well-suited for research and clinical practice but are not exchangeable within a study or patient follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Health care providers need prognostic factors to distinguish between patients who are likely to recover and those who are not likely to recover. Objective. The aim of this study was to: (1) describe the clinical course of recovery and (2) identify prognostic factors of recovery in patients with shoulder pain at the 26-week follow-up. Design. A prospective cohort study was carried out in the Netherlands and included 389 patients who consulted a physical therapist for a new episode of shoulder pain. Method. Participants were followed for 26 weeks. Potential predictors of recovery were selected from the literature and, with the addition of 2 new variables (ie, use of diagnostic ultrasound and working alliance), evaluated in the multivariable regression analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data, and bootstrap methods were used for internal validation. Results. The recovery rate was 60% for the total population and 65% for the working population after 26 weeks. Short duration of complaints, lower disability scores, having a paid job, better working alliance, and no feelings of anxiety or depression were associated with recovery. In the working population, only duration of complaints and disability remained in the final model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the final model was 0.67 for the total population and 0.63 for the working population. After internal validation, the AUC was corrected to 0.66 and 0.63, respectively. Limitations. External validation of the prognostic model should be done prior to its use in clinical practice. Conclusion. The results of this study indicate that several factors can predict recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Recent health care reforms in the Netherlands have led to the introduction of intermediate health care. Intermediate health care combines features of primary care and secondary (hospital) care. It is characterized by a task shift from hospital care to primary care. The initial experiences of medical specialists and general practitioners with intermediate health care are positive. However, the patients' perspectives regarding this reform are unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the level of support from patients with back and/or neck pain for intermediate health care services and to provide insight into their preferences how this care should be organized. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in which members of the patient association for spinal pain in the Netherlands completed electronic questionnaires to measure the level of support and preferred organization of intermediate health care services. Results Questionnaires were returned by 367 patients (response rate: 51%). Respondents supported the concept of intermediate health care (numeric rating scale: 7/10). Aspects considered important for intermediate health care included knowledge and expertise of staff, multidisciplinary cooperation, patient contact time, reimbursement via health insurance, quality control of care, evidence-based treatments and electronic medical records. Although intermediate care is a health care reform, patients continued to think according to traditional primary and secondary care constitutions. Conclusions Patients with neck and/or back pain support the introduction of intermediate health care services and have explicit preferences regarding its organization, but may need to be better informed when intermediate care is introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine risk factors for running injuries during the Lage Landen Marathon Eindhoven 2012. Prospective cohort study. Population-based study. This study included 943 runners. Running injuries after the Lage Landen Marathon. Sociodemographic and training-related factors as well as lifestyle factors were considered as potential risk factors and assessed in a questionnaire 1 month before the running event. The association between potential risk factors and injuries was determined, per running distance separately, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. In total, 154 respondents sustained a running injury. Among the marathon runners, in the univariate model, body mass index ≥ 26 kg/m2, ≤ 5 years of running experience, and often performing interval training, were significantly associated with running injuries, whereas in the multivariate model only ≤ 5 years of running experience and not performing interval training on a regular basis were significantly associated with running injuries. Among marathon runners, no multivariate model could be created because of the low number of injuries and participants. This study indicates that interval training on a regular basis may be recommended to marathon runners to reduce the risk of injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test compared with an arthroscopic examination in patients with suspected meniscal tears. Background: The Thessaly test was introduced to improve the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination in detecting meniscal tears. This test appears to be a valuable alternative to other meniscal clinical tests usually performed, but additional diagnostic accuracy data are required. Methods: Patients with suspected meniscal tears, referred to a hospital for arthroscopic surgery, were eligible. The Thessaly test alone and the combination of the Thessaly and McMurray tests were considered as index tests, and arthroscopy was used as the reference test. Experienced physical therapists performed the Thessaly test at 20° of flexion and the McMurray test for both knees. The physical therapist was blinded to patient information, the affected knee, and the results from possible earlier diagnostic imaging. An orthopaedic surgeon blinded to the clinical test results from the physical therapist performed the arthroscopic examination. Results: A total of 593 patients were included, of whom 493 (83%) had a meniscal tear, as determined by the arthroscopic examination. The Thessaly test had a sensitivity of 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%, 68%), specificity of 53% (95% CI: 43%, 63%), positive predictive value of 87% (95% CI: 83%, 90%), negative predictive value of 23% (95% CI: 18%, 29%), and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 1.37 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.70) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.78), respectively. The combination of positive Thessaly and McMurray tests showed a sensitivity of 53% and specificity of 62%. Conclusion: The results of the Thessaly test alone or combined with the McMurray test do not seem useful to determine the presence or absence of meniscal tears. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe the incidence, 12-month prevalence, and course of lower extremity injuries that occurred during and after the Amgen Singelloop Breda in 2009. The design was based on a prospective cohort study with a population-based setting. In total, 3605 registered runners received a web-based baseline questionnaire of which 713 participants completed and returned it. Information about previous injuries, training programs, and demographic data were gathered at baseline. Site and intensity of running injuries and occurrence of new injuries were obtained from five post-race questionnaires. The main outcome measurement was lower extremity injury. The incidence of running injuries during the Amgen Singelloop Breda itself was 7.8%; most of these injuries occurred in the calf muscle, thigh, and knee joint. Three-month incidence of injuries during follow-up varied between 13.5% and 16.3%. During the 12-month follow-up period, 277 new running injuries were reported. Runners who ran more than 10 km are more susceptible to injury in comparison with runners who ran short distances (10 km or less). In total, 69.1% of running injuries resolves within 10 days. Running injuries are very common among recreational runners. Injuries mostly occur in the knee, thigh, and calf muscle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Population ageing fosters new models of care delivery for older people that are increasingly integrated into existing care systems. In the Netherlands, a primary-care based preventive home visitation programme has been developed for potentially frail community-dwelling older people (aged ⩾75 years), consisting of a comprehensive geriatric assessment during a home visit by a practice nurse followed by targeted interdisciplinary care and follow-up over time. A theory-based process evaluation was designed to examine (1) the extent to which the home visitation programme was implemented as planned and (2) the extent to which general practices successfully redesigned their care delivery. Methods Using a mixed-methods approach, the focus was on fidelity (quality of implementation), dose delivered (completeness), dose received (exposure and satisfaction), reach (participation rate), recruitment, and context. Twenty-four general practices participated, of which 13 implemented the home visitation programme and 11 delivered usual care to older people. Data collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with practice nurses (PNs), general practitioners (GPs), and older people; feedback meetings with PNs; structured registration forms filled-out by PNs; and narrative descriptions of the recruitment procedures and registration of inclusion and drop-outs by members of the research team. Results Fidelity of implementation was acceptable, but time constraints and inadequate reach (i.e., the relatively healthy older people participated) negatively influenced complete delivery of protocol elements, such as interdisciplinary cooperation and follow-up of older people over time. The home visitation programme was judged positively by PNs, GPs, and older people. Useful tools were offered to general practices for organising proactive geriatric care. Conclusions The home visitation programme did not have major shortcomings in itself, but the delivery offered room for improvement. General practices received useful tools to redesign their care delivery from reactive towards proactive care, but perceived barriers require attention to allow for sustainability of the home visitation programme over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has gained widespread acceptance in physical therapy. However, because little is known about the attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of physical therapists towards EBM, and their participation in research to generate EBM, we explored these aspects among physical therapy students, teachers, supervisors and practising physical therapists. Methods This is a cross-sectional survey in which participants completed a web-based questionnaire to determine their attitudes, knowledge and behaviour regarding EBM, and their participation in research. Results Questionnaires were sent to 814 participants of which 165 were returned. The overall mean score for attitude was 4.3 [standard deviation (SD) 1.0; range 1-7], which indicates a weak positive attitude. Teachers scored the highest (4.9, SD 1.2) and students the lowest (4.1, SD 0.8). Although most participants had some understanding of the technical terms used in EBM, only teachers felt able to explain these terms to others. Of the students, 45% rated their perceived EBM knowledge as bad and 45% as average, whereas 78% of the teachers considered that they had good knowledge. To answer clinical questions, most students generally use textbooks (96%) and the opinion of their supervisors (87.7%). Conclusions There is a weak positive attitude of physical therapists, teachers, supervisors and students towards participating in research in general practice, but there is a lack of knowledge and active behaviour regarding EBM, especially among physical therapy students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012. Two reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated manipulative therapy compared to sham manipulative therapy in adults, assessed risk of bias and extracted data concerning participants, intervention, kind of sham, outcome measures, duration of follow-up, profession, data on efficacy and adverse events. Pooled (standardized) mean differences or risk differences were calculated were possible using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were pain, disability, and perceived recovery. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group. Conclusions: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]