Search

A prototype chair with anterior chest and arm supports has been designed to reduce compressive spine loads. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of this offloading design on seated height compared to a control configuration of the same chair. 20 males sat on each configuration for 1 hour. Seated height, perceived pain, spine angles, seat pressure, and participants' experiences were measured. Spine height loss was significantly reduced in the offloading (-0.75 ± 3.79mm) compared to the control configuration (-6.16 ± 4.27mm, p

Prolonged sitting has been associated with negative health effects; however, short-term time-varying exposure and response data is lacking. Twenty-two young and healthy participants were seated for 2 hours with the instruction to avoid the confounding effects of large leg movements while calf circumference, perceived discomfort, and lower limb muscle activity were collected. Calf circumference increased significantly (0.90 ± 0.32 cm) during sitting with no statistical differences between sexes. Perceived discomfort increased significantly over time in the low back and gluteal regions (p = 0.001-0.072, ηp2=0.080-0.360). On average, it took 20.31 ± 10.87 minutes of walking for calf measures to return to pre-sitting baseline. These results suggest that sitting for 2 hours without activity breaks may not be advisable and that recovery may take longer than expected. The exposure/response data from this study may be helpful in the design of future studies, with a larger and more general population, aiming to better define recommended duration/activity ratios for sitting-focused occupations. Practitioner summary: Leg swelling is a concern in prolonged sitting. In this study of young, healthy participants, we found a 2 hour constrained sitting exposure (controlling for large leg movements) induced significant increases in calf circumference that took an average of 20.31 ± 10.87 min of walking to return to baseline.Abbreviations: FMD: flow-mediated dilation, GSC: gastrocnemius; TA: tibialis anterior; EMG: electromyography; VAS: visual analog scale; MVC: maximum voluntary contractions.

Chair design features are typically compared using multiple seats, which can lead to confounding effects. Using a single chair, configurable to four designs (control, lumbar support, seat pan tilt and scapular relief), we investigated the effect of chair design on spine posture and movement, muscle activity and perceived pain in a sample of 31 asymptomatic adults. A total of 39% of the population were classified as pain developers, having significantly higher peak pain levels across most body regions. The lumbar support and seat pan tilt condition resulted in more neutral spine and pelvic postures. Greater muscle activity was found in the seat pan condition and non-pain developers displayed lower spine muscle activation levels overall. Despite some improvements in spine posture, sitting-induced pain was present in the study sample at similar proportions to those reported previously. Future studies may consider investigating interventions targeted to sitting-induced pain developers as opposed to the general population.

Background Colonoscopy exposes endoscopists to awkward postures and prolonged forces, which increases their risk of musculoskeletal injury. Patient positioning has a significant impact on the ergonomics of colonoscopy. Recent trials have found the right lateral decubitus position is associated with quicker insertion, higher adenoma detection rates, and greater patient comfort compared to the left lateral decubitus position. However, this patient position is perceived as more strenuous by endoscopists. Methods Nineteen endoscopists were observed performing colonoscopies during a series of four-hour endoscopy clinics. Durations of each patient position (right lateral decubitus, left lateral decubitus, prone, and supine) were recorded for all observed procedures (n = 64). Endoscopist injury risk was estimated by a trained researcher for the first and last colonoscopies of the shifts (n = 34) using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), an observational ergonomic tool that estimates risk of musculoskeletal injury by scoring postures of the upper body and factors such as muscle use, force, and load. The total RULA scores were compared with a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test for patient position (right and left lateral decubitus) and time (first and last procedures) with significance taken at p

Objective To explore the self-perceived preparedness and clinical proficiency in headache diagnosis and management of Australian chiropractic students in senior years of study. Methods Australian chiropractic students in the 4th (n = 134) and 5th year (n = 122) of 2 chiropractic university programs were invited to participate in an online cross-sectional survey. Descriptive analyses were conducted for all variables. Post hoc analyses were performed using simple linear regression to evaluate the relationship between self-perceived preparedness and correctness of headache diagnosis and management scores. Results Australian chiropractic students in senior years demonstrated moderate overall levels of self-perceived preparedness and proficiency in their ability to diagnose and manage headache disorders. Final-year students had a slightly higher self-perceived preparedness and proficiency in headache diagnosis and management compared to those students in the 4th year of study. There was no relationship between self-perceived preparedness and correctness of headache diagnosis and management for either 4th- or 5th-year chiropractic students. Conclusion Our findings suggest that there may be gaps in graduate chiropractic student confidence and proficiency in headache diagnosis and management. These findings call for further research to explore graduate chiropractic student preparedness and proficiency in the diagnosis and management of headache disorders.

The Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership (CARL) was formed in 2016 in response to a need for a global network of early career researchers and leaders in the chiropractic profession. Thirteen fellows were accepted competitively and have since worked together at residentials and virtually on many research and leadership projects. In 2020, the CARL program ended for this first cohort, and it is now timely to take stock and reflect on the achievements and benefits of the program. In this paper we present the structure of CARL, the scientific and leadership outputs as well as the personal value of CARL for the participating fellows. As a result of the success of the first CARL cohort, organizations from Europe, North America, and Australia have supported a second cohort of 14 CARL fellows, who were competitively accepted into the program in early 2020. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00363-8.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of studies to determine whether sitting time measured objectively (by laboratory controlled time trial, direct observation, or wearable sensor) is associated with the immediate increase in low back pain (LBP) (determined by pain scale rating) in people >18 years of age.METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception to September 1, 2018. Randomized controlled trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies, where objectively measured sitting time was temporally matched with a measure of LBP in adults, were included. Studies without a control session conducted on a separate day were excluded. Screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (Quality In Prognosis Studies) of included papers were performed independently by 2 reviewers, with a third available to resolve disagreements.RESULTS: In total, 609 articles were identified, 361 titles/abstracts were screened,75 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. All but 1 reported sitting time to be associated with an immediate increase in LBP. Six of these reported clinically relevant pain levels (n = 330). Half of the included studies were rated as having a low risk of bias and the remaining were rated as having a moderate risk of bias.CONCLUSION: Prolonged sitting increases immediate reporting of LBP in adults; however, no conclusion between sitting and clinical episodes of LBP can be made. Based upon these findings, we recommend that future prospective studies should match objectively measured sitting with temporally related pain measurements to determine whether prolonged sitting can trigger a clinical episode of LBP.

It is unknown whether the presence of sitting-induced pain or a clinical history of low back pain (LBP) changes spine function outcomes such as the flexion relaxation ratio (FRR). The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether sitting-induced pain or a history of non-specific LBP results in a different FRR. Forty-seven participants were instrumented with surface electromyography over erector spinae at L1, and accelerometers at L1 and S2. Standing maximum lumbar flexion trials were taken preceding and following a 1-hour sitting trial. Pain ratings during sitting and history of LBP were used to group participants for analysis. FRR values taken after the sitting exposures were compared between those that did and did not develop pain during sitting. Baseline FRR values were compared participants with and without a history of LBP. No significant differences in FRR were found for either pain groups (p = 0.11) or clinical history (p = 0.85). Lack of differences may be due to participants not currently experiencing a clinical episode of pain when the ratio was measured and/or because 1-hour sitting exposure was not long enough to induce pain modulation. The findings suggest that neither sitting-induced pain development or clinical history need to be controlled to prevent confounding of FRR.

Background The inappropriate use of lumbar spine imaging remains common in primary care despite recommendations from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to avoid imaging in the absence of red flags. This study aimed to explore factors influencing ordering behaviours and adherence to radiographic guidelines for low back pain (LBP) in chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Methods We conducted two focus groups in December 2018 with chiropractors in different regions of NL (eastern, n = 8; western, n = 4). An interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) served to identify perceived barriers to, and enablers of, target behaviours of guideline adherence and managing LBP without X-rays. We conducted thematic analysis of chiropractors’ statements into relevant theoretical domains, followed by grouping of similar statements into specific beliefs. Domains key to changing radiographic guideline adherence, LBP imaging behaviours, and/or informing intervention design were identified by noting conflicting beliefs and their reported influence on the target behaviours. Results Six of the 14 TDF domains were perceived to be important for adherence to radiographic guidelines and managing non-specific LBP without imaging. Participating chiropractors reported varying levels of knowledge and awareness of guidelines for LBP imaging (Knowledge). Many chiropractors based their decision for imaging on clinical presentation, but some relied on “gut feeling” (Memory, attention, and decision processes). While chiropractors thought it was their role to manage LBP without imaging, others believed ordering imaging was the responsibility of other healthcare providers (Social/professional role and identity). Contrasting views were found regarding the negative consequences of imaging or not imaging LBP patients (Beliefs about consequences). Communication was identified as a skill required to manage LBP without imaging (Skills) and a strategy to enable appropriate imaging ordering behaviours (Behavioural regulation). Chiropractors suggested that access to patients’ previous imaging and a system that facilitated better interprofessional communication would likely improve their LBP imaging behaviours (Behavioural regulation). Conclusion We identified potential influences, in six theoretical domains, on participating chiropractors’ LBP imaging behaviours and adherence to radiographic guidelines. These beliefs may be targets for theory-informed behaviour change interventions aimed at improving these target behaviours for chiropractors in NL.

A necessary step in the validation of accelerometers for the measurement of spine angles is to determine the levels of agreement with current gold standard methods. However, agreement may be a function of filtering parameters. We aimed to (1) systematically determine the effect of different filter frequency cut-offs on the peak range of motion (ROM) during forward bending as measured by accelerometers and an optoelectronic (OE) system, (2) explore the influence of filtering on agreement between systems, and (3) determine the difference in peak ROM measurement between these systems. Accelerometers and OE sensors were attached at L2, L4, and S1 of 20 asymptomatic female participants for a guided flexion trial. Signals were then iteratively low-pass filtered with cut-off frequencies ranging from 14 Hz to 1 Hz and peak range of motion outcome measures were compared between systems. Peak ROM was minimally affected by filter cut-off frequency for both accelerometer and OE system. The difference in peak ROM between difference cut-off frequencies were maximum 0.66°, median 0.18° and minimum 0.06° for accelerometer derived values and maximum 0.23°, median 0.08° and minimum 0.03° for the OE system. The maximum difference across the filtering frequencies was 0.62° and the largest difference between the two systems (with outliers removed) was 0.82°. Cut-off frequencies ranging from 14 to 1 Hz had little effect of peak lumbar spine ROM during low velocity (6°/s) forward bending, regardless of motion capture method. Filtering cut-off frequency had little effect on the differences between the accelerometer and OE system and similar measurements can be achieved using accelerometers compared to OE systems.

Introduction: To understand spinal disorders in terms of their biomechanical effects on symptoms and evaluate treatment effects, biomechanical variables must be repeatable over an acceptable follow-up period in a symptomatically stable population. In previous work using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF), where both the motion task (lumbar flexion) and the analysis were highly standardised, some intervertebral motion sharing characteristics in the lumbar spine were found to be significantly different in NSLBP patients and asymptomatic controls (1). Control measurements were also stable over 6 weeks, making measures suitable for use in outcome and prognostic studies (2). Previous studies have found it advantageous to study the outward and return paths of lumbar flexion separately in order to appreciate the differences in dynamic loading models during bending and lifting tasks (3). Against such normative data, individual patient studies using the same protocols can be compared. The aim of this study was to establish a database of reference values for key dynamic lumbar motion variables during controlled outward and return bending using standardised QF recording and analysis protocols. These could serve as reference information for both the construction of mathematical models and for comparison with patient-specific kinematics. Methods: Low dose continuous fluoroscopic image sequences, recorded at 15 fps, were acquired from 131 asymptomatic participants during active, weight-bearing lumbar flexion and return motion. This used a bending protocol guided by an upright motion frame (Fig 1). This standardised the bending range and velocity and minimized accessory movements. Continuous intervertebral rotations in the sagittal plane were extracted for each level (L2-S1) in each frame and transformed into contributions proportional to the total L2-S1 angle. Mean and ± 95% confidence intervals across all participants were calculated for each 1% increment of L2–S1 motion. Data were separated to distinguish the flexion and return-to-neutral portions of the bending task. Statistically significant differences between each level’s contribution to motion were detected by the absence of overlap in the ±CI95 bands and checked using statistical parametric mapping. Results: Full data sets were extracted from 127 participants, (48.8% female, mean age 38.6 years, range: 21-70). The proportion of the motion performed by each level at full flexion was similar to previous studies (4). However, there were significant differences in the contributions to bending during motion, both between and within levels, which change as participants progress through the tasks (Figures 2a and b). Across the study population, each intervertebral level also had its own characteristic motion signature, with significant differences (p

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a global public health challenge, which causes high healthcare costs and the highest burden on society in terms of years lived with disability. While patients' expectations for improvement may have effects on LBP treatment outcomes, it remains unclear if psychological profiles modify this relationship. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate if (a) patients' expectations predicted short-term outcome, and (b) psychological profile, pain intensity and self-rated health modified the relationship between expectations and outcome.METHODS: Data were collected between April 2012 and January 2016 during the inclusion into a randomized controlled trial. Potentially eligible participants were identified through 40 chiropractic clinics located across Sweden. Patients' expectations, psychological profile, pain intensity, activity limitation and self-rated health were collected from patients with recurrent persistent LBP during their first chiropractic visit (n = 593). Subjective improvement was measured at the fourth visit.RESULTS: Patients with a high expectation of improvement had 58% higher risk to report an improvement at the fourth visit (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.28, 1.95). Controlling for potential confounders only slightly decreased the strength of this association (RR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.86). Baseline pain intensity, psychological profile and self-rated health did not modify the effect of expectation on outcome.CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patients' expectations play an important role when predicting LBP treatment outcomes. Clinicians should consider and address patients' expectations at the first visit to best inform prognosis.SIGNIFICANCE: This study confirms the importance of patients' expectations in a clinical setting. Patients' expectations predict the short-term outcome of chiropractic care for LBP. Pain intensity, psychological profile and self-rated health did not modify this relationship.

Objective The purpose of this study was to quantify the threshold at which clinicians can detect a difference in spinal stiffness of the thoracic and lumbar spine via palpation and then determine if this detection threshold would affect a clinician’s ability to identify changes in spinal stiffness as measured by an objective instrument. Methods In this study, the threshold at which a change in spinal stiffness was detected was quantified in 12 experienced clinicians (physical therapists and doctors of chiropractic) by changing the differential stiffness in 2 inflatable targets until the clinician could no longer identify which was stiffer. In the second part of the study, clinicians then were asked to palpate pre-identified pairs of vertebrae in an asymptomatic volunteer and to identify the stiffer of the pair (T7 and L3, T7 and L4, L3 and L4), and the biomechanical stiffness of each vertebral pair was quantified objectively by a validated instrument. Results The mean stiffness detection threshold for the clinicians was 8%. Objective measurement of the stiffness differential between vertebral pairs was 30% for T7* and L3, 20% for T7* and L4, and 10% for L3* and L4 (*denotes the stiffer of the pair). Ten of 12 clinicians correctly identified T7 as stiffer when compared with L3 and T7 as stiffer than L4. Alternatively, when the differential vertebral pair stiffness was similar to the stiffness detection threshold (~8%), clinicians were less successful in identifying the stiffer vertebra of the pair; 4 of 12 clinicians correctly identified L3 as being stiffer compared with L4. Conclusion These results suggest that the physiological limits of human palpation may limit the ability of clinicians to identify small alterations in spine stiffness.

Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Background Low back pain (LBP) rarely requires routine imaging of the lumbar spine in the primary care setting, as serious spinal pathology is rare. Despite evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommending delaying imaging in the absence of red flags, chiropractors commonly order imaging outside of these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to survey chiropractors to determine the level of knowledge, adherence to, and beliefs about, clinical practice guidelines related to the use of lumbar radiography for LBP in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Methods A cross-sectional survey of chiropractors in NL (n = 69) was conducted between May and June 2018, including questions on demographics, awareness of radiographic guidelines, and beliefs about radiographs for LBP. We assessed behavioural simulation using clinical vignettes to determine levels of adherence to LBP guideline recommendations. Results The response rate was 77% (n = 53). Half of the participants stated they were aware of current radiographic guideline recommendations, and one quarter of participants indicated they did not use guidelines to inform clinical decisions. The majority of participants agreed that x-rays of the lumbar spine are useful for patients with suspected pathology, are indicated when a patient is non-responsive to 4 weeks of conservative treatment for LBP, and when there are neurological signs associated with LBP. However, a small proportion indicated that there is a role for full spine x-rays (~ 21%), x-rays to evaluate patients with acute LBP (~ 13%), and that patient expectations play a role in decision making (4%). Adherence rate to radiographic guidelines measured using clinical vignettes was 75%. Conclusions While many chiropractors in this sample reported being unsure of specific radiographic guidelines, the majority of respondents adhered to guideline recommendations measured using clinical vignettes. Nonetheless, a small proportion still hold beliefs about radiographs for LBP that are discordant with current radiographic guidelines. Future research should aim to determine barriers to guideline uptake in this population in order to design and evaluate tailored knowledge translation strategies to reduce unnecessary LBP imaging.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting has been shown to induce transient low back pain (LBP). Height adjustable office desks now present the opportunity to replace sitting with standing in the workplace. Since standing has also been associated with LBP, this may not be an advisable alternative. OBJECTIVE: To determine if objectively measured prolonged exposures to desk work while standing, compared to sitting, results in lower perceived LBP in healthy adults. METHODS: A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and conducted a quality assessment. The results of three studies were pooled using an inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-squared test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: Objectively measured prolonged standing postures during desk work did not induce significantly less perceived LBP compared to seated postures (standardized mean difference 0.60, 95% CI –0.68 to 1.87, p = 0.36.) There was significant heterogeneity, I2 = 90%). CONCLUSIONS: It appears that replacing seated desk work postures with standing for prolonged periods of time would not be recommended. Larger studies, including a wider age range and health history, conducted in the field with objective measures is recommended to obtain more generalizable data on which to base ergonomic standards for work postures.

Objective The objective of this review is to identify and map current literature describing the center of rotation locations and migration paths during lumbar spine movements. Introduction The importance of lumbar spine kinematics has been described and altered kinematics has been associated with pain and injury. Intervertebral segments' center of rotations, the point around which spinal segments rotate, are important for determining the lumbar spine kinematics features and the potential for increased injury risk during movements. Although many studies have investigated the center of rotations of humans' lumbar spine, no review has summarized and organized the state of the science related to center of rotation locations and migration paths of the lumbar spine during lumbar spine movements. Inclusion criteria This review will consider studies that include human lumbar spines of any age and status condition (e.g. heathy, pathological) during lumbar spine movements. Quantitative study designs, including clinical, observational, laboratory biomechanical experimental studies, mathematical and computer modelling studies will be considered. Only studies published in English will be included, and there will be no limit on dates of publication. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library Controlled Register of Trials, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Compendex, Inspec, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and dissertation and theses repositories will be searched. After titles and abstracts screening of identified references, two independent reviewers will screen the full-text of identified studies and extract data. Data will be summarized and categorized, and a comprehensive narrative summary will be presented with the respective results.

Objective To compare the impact of multiple computer monitor configurations on health and performance outcomes compared to the use of a single monitor. Background Multiple monitor configurations are used in office settings to promote increased productivity by providing more screen space; however, it is unknown if there are health-related trade-offs to increased productivity. Method A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement guidelines and adapted the best evidence synthesis. Results Eighteen studies were included in our review. There was strong evidence that implementing dual monitors is in line with users’ preference. There was also moderate evidence for controlled laboratory studies demonstrating that multiple monitors may increase task efficiency with decreased desktop interaction; however, implementing multiple monitors may also result in nonneutral neck postures for users. Conclusion More research needs to be conducted on biomechanical exposures when using larger displays. Longitudinal field studies should be conducted to determine the influence of monitor interventions on health, productivity, and well-being. All studies must consider task complexity and user positioning and should measure health and productivity outcomes together. Researchers must also consider up-to-date purchasing trends when choosing the monitor configurations and sizes for their studies. Application Regulatory bodies and practitioners can use the results to develop evidence-based monitor guidelines and inform decision-making in practice, respectively. Researchers can use this information to design future studies on monitor configurations that incorporate current purchasing trends.

© 2018 The Author(s). In an evidence-based health care environment, healthcare professions require a sustainable research culture to remain relevant. At present however, there is not a mature research culture across the chiropractic profession largely due to deficiencies in research capacity and leadership, which may be caused by a lack of chiropractic teaching programs in major universities. As a response to this challenge the Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership, CARL, was created with the aim of develop a global network of successful early-career chiropractic researchers under the mentorship of three successful senior academics from Australia, Canada, and Denmark. The program centres upon an annual week-long program residential that rotates continental locations over the first three-year cycle and between residentials the CARL fellows work on self-initiated research and leadership initiatives. Through a competivite application process, the first cohort was selected and consists of 13 early career researchers from five professions in seven countries who represent diverse areas of interests of high relevance for chiropractic. The first residential was held in Odense, Denmark, with the second being planned in April 2018 in Edmonton, Canada, and the final residential to be held in Sydney, Australia in 2019.

Following publication of the original article [1], we were notified of a mismatch between the submitted author affiliations (3 to 12) and the published ones.

The purpose of this study was to determine which office chair feature is better at improving spine posture in sitting.Participants (n = 28) were radiographed in standing, maximum flexion and seated in four chair conditions: control, lumbar support, seat pan tilt and backrest with scapular relief. Measures of lumbar lordosis, intervertebral joint angles and sacral tilt were compared between conditions and sex.Sitting consisted of approximately 70% of maximum range of spine flexion. No differences in lumbar flexion were found between the chair features or control. Significantly more anterior pelvic rotation was found with the lumbar support (p = 0.0028) and seat pan tilt (p 0.0001). Males had significantly more anterior pelvic rotation and extended intervertebral joint angles through L1-L3 in all conditions (p 0.0001).No one feature was statistically superior with respect to minimising spine flexion, however, seat pan tilt resulted in significantly improved pelvic posture. Practitioner Summary: Seat pan tilt, and to some extent lumbar supports, appear to improve seated postures. However, sitting, regardless of chair features used, still involves near end range flexion of the spine. This will increase stresses to the spine and could be a potential injury generator during prolonged seated exposures.

It is not currently known if biomechanical factors contribute to low back pain (LBP) during prolonged sitting. Thus, this study recruited 90 participants (61 with no history of LBP, and 29 with) to sit for 1 hour where back electromyography, spine posture, and perceived pain ratings (PPR) were collected. Participants were classified as Pain Developers (PD) or Non-Pain Developers (NPD) based on their maximum PPR. PDs had significantly higher PPR (

To: 1) develop/adapt and validate an instrument to measure patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) providers; 2) implement the instrument; and 3) compare results among healthcare professions.A review of the literature and content validation were used for the survey development. Community-based chiropractors and physiotherapists in 4 Canadian provinces were invited.The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture was the preferred instrument. The survey was modified and validated, measuring 14 patient safety dimensions. 276 SMT providers volunteered to respond to the survey. Generally, SMT providers had similar or better patient safety dimension scores compared to the AHRQ 2016 medical offices database.We developed the first instrument measuring patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based SMT providers. This instrument provides understanding of SMT providers' opinions and attitudes on patient safety and identifies potential areas for improvement.1) Élaborer/adapter et valider un instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l’égard de la sécurité du patient et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des manipulations vertébrales (MV); 2) adopter cet instrument; et 3) comparer les résultats obtenus entre les professionnels de la santé.Pour élaborer le sondage, on a revu la littérature, on a validé le contenu et on a invité des chiropraticiens et des physiothérapeutes de quatre provinces canadiennes à participer.On a élaboré le premier instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l’égard de la sécurité et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des MV dans une collectivité. Cet instrument permet de comprendre les opinions et les attitudes à l’égard de la sécurité du patient des professionnels effectuant des MV et de cerner les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés.

Background: Diagnostic imaging has limited utility in the assessment and management of non-specific low back pain (LBP), but remains commonly used in clinical practice. Interventions have been designed to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP; however, evidence of effectiveness has been variable. It is unclear whether intervention fidelity was adequately assessed in these interventions, which may have an impact on the interpretation of trial results. Within implementation research, intervention fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention was delivered as intended and to the strategies used to monitor and enhance this process. Intervention fidelity covers five domains: design, training, delivery, receipt, and enactment. Objectives: The objectives of this study are to explore perceived barriers and enablers to fidelity of training and delivery of a proposed theory-informed intervention aimed at reducing non-indicated imaging for LBP by general practitioners (GPs) and chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Methods: Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with GPs and chiropractors in NL to explore their views on barriers and enablers towards enhancing and/or assessing fidelity of training and delivery. Interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Relevant domains related to perceived barriers and enablers will be identified by: the frequency of beliefs; the presence of conflicting beliefs; and the perceived strength of the impact a belief may have on the target behaviours. Discussion: Results of this study will aid in the development of a fidelity protocol for an upcoming cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-informed intervention aimed at reducing non-indicated imaging for LBP. Our results may help to ensure that the proposed intervention will be delivered with good fidelity and that fidelity can be appropriately assessed.

Flexion relaxation (FR) is characterized by the lumbar erector spinae (LES) becoming myoelectrically silent near full trunk flexion. This study was designed to: (1) determine if decreasing the lumbar moment during flexion would induce FR to occur earlier; (2) characterize thoracic and abdominal muscle activity during FR. Ten male participants performed four trunk flexion/extension movement conditions; lumbar moment was altered by attaching 0, 5, 10, or 15lb counterweights to the torso. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded from eight trunk muscles. Lumbar moment, lumbar flexion and trunk inclination angles were calculated at the critical point of LES inactivation (CPLES). Results demonstrated that counterweights decreased the lumbar moment and lumbar flexion angle at CPLES (p

Spine angles are an important measure in biomechanics research and are commonly normalized to a percentage of range of motion. However, standardized methods to collect the reference posture trials for this normalization do not exist. The purpose of this study was to determine posture (seated or standing) and number of trials that should be collected and how to calculate the angle that best represents the maximum range. Forty healthy adults (22 females, 18 males) completed 12 reference trials: 1 upright standing, 5 standing flexion, and 5 seated flexion trials. The maximum lumbar angle was found for each flexion trial. Additionally, different methods to calculate the maximum were applied by taking the maximum of the 5 standing, 5 seated, and all 10 flexion trials. An interaction was found between posture, order, and trial number. 42.5% and 57.5% of participants reached their maximum angle during seated and standing flexion respectively which may be due to back- vs hip-dominant movement strategies. 85% of participants achieved their maximum at some point during the first six flexion trials. The maximum angle of all 10 flexion trials was significantly greater than the angle of the first standing or seated trial only but not significantly greater than the maximum of all seated or standing flexion trials respectively. Secondarily, no differences in the maximum lumbar angle were found between sexes. This study suggests that 6 flexion trials, involving both standing and seated flexion, should be collected to best represent the maximum end range of spine flexion.

Clinical observations have suggested that limited hamstring flexibility may be associated with sagittal spinal curvatures in spine flexed postures. Thus, limited hamstring flexibility may be related to large amounts of spine flexion in “slumped” sitting postures which could contribute to low back pain and injury. The aim of this study was to determine if hamstring and pelvic flexibility are associated with flexed sitting postures using a backless office chair. Forty-one healthy female adults aged 18–69 years were recruited. Subjects performed the Sit-and-Reach test to determine maximum flexibility values and lumbar and pelvic angles were measured with accelerometers. Participants then completed a standardized typing task for a 10-minute sitting trial at an ergonomically adjusted workstation. The results showed no association between hamstring flexibility and seated lumbar spine and pelvic angles (p = 0.999, η2 = 0.000; p = 0.901, η2 = 0.006). Greater pelvic flexibility was associated with a more upright lumbar sitting posture (p = 0.023; η2 = 0.132) but with no specific pelvic sitting posture (p = 0.660; η2 = 0.005). Different movement strategies during the Sit-and-Reach test were detected: all participants moved through their lumbar spine; but only those with ‘excellent’ flexibility also used their pelvis. Individuals in the ‘excellent’ flexibility group were significantly shorter than those with ‘poor’ and ‘good’ flexibility (p = 0.020; η2 = 0.190). In conclusion, hamstring flexibility does not influence sitting posture but pelvic flexibility does. Other factors such as acetabulofemoral joint limitations, consciousness of posture, or the seat itself may also influence sitting posture. Different movement strategies as well as height appear to contribute to the Sit-and-Reach test which should be researched further.

Static sitting is thought to be related to low back pain. Of various common seated postures, slouched sitting has been suggested to cause viscoelastic creep. This, in turn, may compromise trunk muscle activity and proprioception, and heightening the risk of low back pain. To date, no research has evaluated immediate and short-term effects of brief exposures to different sitting postures on spinal biomechanics and trunk proprioception.This study aimed to compare the impacts of 20 min of static slouched, upright and supported sitting with a backrest on trunk range of motion, muscle activity, and proprioception immediately after and 30 min after the sitting tasks.Thirty-seven adults were randomly assigned to the three sitting posture groups. Surface electromyography of six trunk muscles during maximum voluntary contractions were measured at baseline for normalization. Pain intensity, lumbar range of motion, and proprioceptive postural control strategy were assessed at baseline, 20 min (immediately post-test) and at 50 min (recovery). Trunk muscle activity during sitting was continuously monitored by surface electromyography.While the slouched sitting group demonstrated the lowest bilateral obliquus internus/transversus abdominis activity as compared to other sitting postures (F = 4.87, p 0.05), no significant temporal changes in pain intensity, lumbar range of motion nor proprioceptive strategy were noted in any of the groups.Sitting for 20 min of duration appears to have no adverse effects on symptoms or spinal biomechanics regardless of the posture adopted. Future research should determine if there is a point at which does slouched sitting cause significant changes in pain/spinal biomechanics in people both with and without low back pain.

Objective The purpose of this study was to describe the correlations between individual characteristics and spinal stiffness as measured with different spinal stiffness measurement devices in individuals with and without back pain. Methods A secondary analysis of 3 adult data sets obtained using 3 different devices, in 2 spinal regions, from a total of 5 separate cross-sectional studies was conducted. Differences in spinal stiffness between men and women and in the strength of correlations among spinal stiffness and age and anthropometric characteristics were evaluated using either the t test for independent samples, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, or Kendall’s τ rank correlation coefficient. Results As expected, results varied between data sets; however, few factors had consistent correlations. Specifically, spinal stiffness was significantly lower in women than men in all 3 data sets. Height was positively correlated with spinal stiffness across all data sets. Although weight was correlated with thoracic stiffness, its correlation with lumbar stiffness varied. In 2 data sets, body mass index was inversely associated with lumbar spinal stiffness, whereas results from the thoracic spine region revealed a positive correlation. The results for 1 data set suggest that physiological measurement evaluating body weight distribution may also affect spinal stiffness; however, the specific correlation remains unclear. Conclusion Despite data set differences, significant correlations were observed, indicating that participants’ characteristics appear to affect spinal stiffness measurement.

Multiple monitor configurations are used in office settings to promote increased productivity by providing more screen space. Our systematic review compiled literature to determine if office workers who use multiple computer monitor configurations have altered health and performance outcomes compared to the use of a single monitor. A secondary purpose was to compare the studies’ monitor configurations to purchasing trends. Finally, we compiled user preference results and methodological information, such as the tasks used and participant placement. Our systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (Gallagher, Cameron, De Carvalho, & Boule, 2018) a-priori and conducted and reported according to the PRISMA statement guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2010). Inclusion criteria were any study that assessed participants over the age of 18 years, looked at office work tasks, and assessed the use of either two or more monitors at a time in comparison to single monitor use. The primary outcomes were changes in health and performance-related variables. Secondary outcomes were user preference, the characteristics of the monitor configurations tested in the study, participant placement with respect to those monitors, and tasks used to assess configuration effectiveness. Two team members (KG & MB) independently screened the titles and abstracts to determine studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria. Justification for inclusion/exclusion was recorded on a standardized form. For all included studies, the independent reviewers separately extracted information and performed a risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and if necessary, consultation with a third reviewer (DC). We included eighteen articles in the systematic review. Four studies were conducted in a field setting using workers’ real tasks and fourteen were conducted in a laboratory setting. Performance outcomes generally improved or remained the same with the use of multiple computer monitors versus a single monitor; however, results were shown to be influenced by the task involved. Health-related outcomes were less consistent and have not been investigated enough on multiple monitor configurations and larger displays. Head rotation from neutral is found with multiple monitor use. Muscle activity and discomfort measures need further assessment, especially for larger monitors. Future work should assess health and performance measures together to get a clear picture of the potential benefits and disadvantages of the monitor setup, be cognizant of the tasks and user placements chosen, consider recent purchasing trends when selecting monitors for research studies, and conduct field studies to assess the influence of monitor choice and placement on performance, and health and well-being.

Submitted by Cristina Afonso (cac@lisboa.ucp.pt) on 2016-03-22T12:10:20Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Regime agências de viagens_Diana Correia de Sá final.pdf: 447266 bytes, checksum: e5122be68452208d7d2b665156dbb949 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Cristina Afonso (cac@lisboa.ucp.pt) on 2016-03-22T12:10:29Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Regime agências de viagens_Diana Correia de Sá final.pdf: 447266 bytes, checksum: e5122be68452208d7d2b665156dbb949 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-22T12:10:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Regime agências de viagens_Diana Correia de Sá final.pdf: 447266 bytes, checksum: e5122be68452208d7d2b665156dbb949 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2105-10-01

Tese de Mestrado em Arquitectura com Especialização em Planeamento Urbano e Territorial. Submitted by Pilar Lago (mpilar@fa.utl.pt) on 2013-07-09T15:14:53Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TRABALHO FINAL DE MESTRADO - Diana Moreira.pdf: 181599993 bytes, checksum: 0cebb7a419465a2068ee426296e85c0f (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2013-07-09T15:14:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TRABALHO FINAL DE MESTRADO - Diana Moreira.pdf: 181599993 bytes, checksum: 0cebb7a419465a2068ee426296e85c0f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-12