Search

Objectives: Low back pain is highly prevalent in rowing and can be associated with significant disability and premature retirement. A previous qualitative study in rowers revealed a culture of concealment of pain and injury due to fear of judgement by coaches or teammates. The aim of this study was to explore rowers' perspectives in relation to diagnosis, contributory factors, and management of low back pain. Design: Qualitative secondary analysis. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of interview data previously collected from 25 rowers (12 in Australia and 13 in Ireland). A reflexive thematic analysis approach was used. Results: We identified three themes: 1) Rowers attribute low back pain to structural/physical factors. Most rowers referred to structural pathologies or physical impairments when asked about their diagnosis. Some participants were reassured if imaging results helped to explain their pain, but others were frustrated if findings on imaging did not correlate with their symptoms. 2) Rowing is viewed as a risky sport for low back pain. Risk factors proposed by the rowers were primarily physical and included ergometer training, individual technique, and repetitive loading. 3) Rowers focus on physical strategies for the management and prevention of low back pain. In particular, rowers considered stretching and core-strengthening exercise to be important components of treatment. Conclusions: Rowers' understanding of low back pain was predominantly biomedical and focused on physical impairments. Further education of rowers, coaches and healthcare professionals in relation to the contribution of psychosocial factors may be helpful for rowers experiencing low back pain. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Background Wearable sensor technology may allow accurate monitoring of spine movement outside a clinical setting. The concurrent validity of wearable sensors during multiplane tasks, such as lifting, is unknown. This study assessed DorsaVi Version 6 sensors for their concurrent validity with the Vicon motion analysis system for measuring lumbar flexion during lifting. Methods Twelve participants (nine with, and three without back pain) wore sensors on T12 and S2 spinal levels with Vicon surface markers attached to those sensors. Participants performed 5 symmetrical (lifting from front) and 20 asymmetrical lifts (alternate lifting from left and right). The global-T12-angle, global-S2-angle and the angle between these two sensors (relative-lumbar-angle) were output in the sagittal plane. Agreement between systems was determined through-range and at peak flexion, using multilevel mixed-effects regression models to calculate root mean square errors and standard deviation. Mean differences and limits of agreement for peak flexion were calculated using the Bland Altman method. Results For through-range measures of symmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 0.86° (0.78) at global-T12-angle, 0.90° (0.84) at global-S2-angle and 1.34° (1.25) at relative-lumbar-angle. For through-range measures of asymmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 1.84° (1.58) at global-T12-angle, 1.90° (1.65) at global-S2-angle and 1.70° (1.54) at relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of symmetrical lifts, was − 0.90° (-6.80 to 5.00) for global-T12-angle, 0.60° (-2.16 to 3.36) for global-S2-angle and − 1.20° (-8.06 to 5.67) for relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of asymmetrical lifts was − 1.59° (-8.66 to 5.48) for global-T12-angle, -0.60° (-7.00 to 5.79) for global-S2-angle and − 0.84° (-8.55 to 6.88) for relative-lumbar-angle. Conclusion The root means squared errors were slightly better for symmetrical lifts than they were for asymmetrical lifts. Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement showed variability across lift types. However, the root mean squared errors for all lifts were better than previous research and below clinically acceptable thresholds. This research supports the use of lumbar flexion measurements from these inertial measurement units in populations with low back pain, where multi-plane lifting movements are assessed.

What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. In parallel, cross-discipline health professionals (n = 267; 75% female) rated the importance of these same priorities. Applying the RAND-UCLA method (panel medians: 1-3: "not important," 4-6: "equivocal," or 7-9: "important"), "important" items were retained where the panel median score was7 with panel agreement ≥70%, with 44 items (84.6%) retained. Specific workforce training targets included the following: empathic validation; effective, respectful, safe communication; and ensuring genuine partnerships in coplanning personalised care. Panellists and health professionals agreed or strongly agreed (95.7% and 95.2%, respectively) that this framework meaningfully reflected the importance in care seeking for pain. More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability. Physical work environment There was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.096 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). Individual approach There was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term. Organisational level No studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level. Multi-component approach There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.

To investigate the muscle activation patterns of the abdomino-pelvic region used by incontinent women during a pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction and a Valsalva manouevre compared to healthy, asymptomatic subjects.Thirteen incontinent (symptomatic) women, identified using ultrasound to be consistently depressing the bladder base during PFM contraction, and thirteen continent women (asymptomatic) able to perform an elevating PFM contraction were assessed using surface electromyography (EMG) of the PFM, abdominal and chest wall muscles and vaginal and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurements during PFM contraction and Valsalva under ultrasound surveillance.There were no differences between groups in age, parity or BMI. There was a difference in muscle activation patterns between groups (P = 0.001). During PFM contraction the PFM were less active and the abdominal and chest wall muscles were more active in the symptomatic group. During Valsalva, the PFM and EO were more active in the symptomatic group but there was no difference in the activation of the other muscles between groups. There was a significant interaction (group x pressure) for change in IAP (P = 0.047) but no significant interaction for change in vaginal pressure (VP) (P = 0.324).The symptomatic women displayed altered muscle activation patterns when compared to the asymptomatic group. The symptomatic women were unable to perform a voluntary PFM contraction using a localized muscle strategy, instead activating all the muscles of the abdomino-pelvic cavity. The potential for muscle substitution strategies reinforces the need for close attention to specificity when prescribing PFM exercise programs.