Search

Background: Overweight and obesity has a bi-directional association with the growing burden of musculoskeletal (MSk) dysfunction and pain. It seems inevitable that MSk practitioners will see increasing numbers of patients who are overweight and or obese and require this to be addressed as part of their management. Little evidence exists to describe the engagement of patients and their MSk practitioner in weight management as an adjunct or direct component of their intervention or therapy. Methods: A self-administered electronic survey was constructed with 13 items to collect self-reported data from Australian practitioners who have a focus on MSk management. The target group was from a multidisciplinary MSk network of 350 members. Results: A total of 204 completed surveys were analysed from respondents working in one of seven MSk- related professions. It was found that 70% of patients/clients seen by respondents were overweight or obese and that <18% of these patients had weight management included as part of their treatment. Conclusions: Sixty percent of the respondents in this survey indicated that they do not include weight management as part of their practice despite 70% of their patients/clients being overweight and or obese. With the exception of Medical Practitioners and Exercise Physiologists, in this survey, the other therapists including Chiropractors, Osteopaths, Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists, indicated that they lacked confidence, knowledge and methods to engage a systematic approach to weight management with their patients/clients. A large percentage of presentations for musculoskeletal management are overweight/obese, and it is reported that musculoskeletal conditions are impacted by this co-morbid issue. It is little known to what extent musculoskeletal clinicians manage overweight/obesity as part of their practice, and this research found most musculoskeletal clinicians do not manage this issue, claiming they do not have the knowledge or skill to include this in their scope. This finding prompts consideration of limitations in scope of practice and subsequent curriculum change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Integrative medicine (IM) is a recent phenomenon within primary care practice. It is defined variously as a process of integration or convergence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with mainstream medicine or as the incorporation of alternative therapies into mainstream medical practice. Little is known about the attitude of complementary medicine practitioners regarding their place within this model or the factors that influence referral between them and medical practitioners. Objectives: The aim of this research was to explore practitioners' perspectives of the theory and practice of the IM model, relevant to factors influencing referral among them. Design: This research applied a qualitative method with semi-structured interviews to determine practitioner perspectives of factors influencing referral in the IM setting. One family practice physician (called a general practitioner [GP] in Australia), one osteopath, and one naturopath were interviewed at each of two IM clinics in regional Australia. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and concepts. Results: Thematic analysis of the transcribed data allowed for an in-depth understanding of themes and concepts surrounding practitioner perceptions of IM. Predominant themes centered on the notion of interpractitioner relationships and collaborations. Insight into these relationships within IM revealed concepts of interpractitioner trust and respect. In addition, sharing a philosophy of care and a common understanding pertaining to scope of practice and area of expertise appeared to support the IM framework. These concepts and themes were determined as important factors influencing referrals between GPs, osteopathic physicians, and naturopathic practitioners in the IM clinics studied. Conclusion: This research has highlighted the significance of interprofessional relationships and multidisciplinary referral networks as pivotal in the efficacy of the IM clinics represented in this sample. Further research is needed to define the practitioner roles and the factors influencing referrals within IM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic Non Specific Low Back Pain (CNSLBP) is a common, complex and disabling condition that has been present for longer than three months and is not caused by a serious pathology. Osteopaths are health practitioners who commonly diagnose and treat CNSLBP patients using a complex set of interventions that includes manual therapy. The study aimed to complete a Systematic Review of clinical research into osteopathic intervention in CNSLBP using a rigorous assessment of study quality. Methods: The literature was searched to August 2011 using the following databases: AMED, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, MEDLINE Plus, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, PEDro, ScienceDirect. Multiple search terms were used in various combinations: osteopathy/osteopathic, osteopathic manipulative technique, OMT, Spinal Manipulative Therapy, SMT, clinical trial, back pain, chronic back pain. The inclusion criteria were papers that: reported clinical trials; had adult participants; tested the effectiveness and/or efficacy of osteopathic manual therapy intervention applied by osteopaths, and had a study condition of CNSLBP. The quality of the papers was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Risk of Bias criteria. A meta-analysis would proceed if the studies had adequate clinical and methodological homogeneity. Results: Initial searches revealed 809 papers, 772 of which were excluded on the basis of abstract alone. The remaining 37 trial papers were subjected to a more detailed analysis of the full text, which resulted in 35 being excluded. The two remaining trials had a lack of methodological and clinical homogeneity, precluding a metaanalysis. The trials used different comparators with regards to the primary outcomes, the number of treatments, the duration of treatment and the duration of follow-up. Conclusion: There are only two studies assessing the effect of the manual therapy intervention applied by osteopathic clinicians in adults with CNSLBP. One trial concluded that the osteopathic intervention was similar in effect to a sham intervention, and the other suggests similarity of effect between osteopathic intervention, exercise and physiotherapy. Further clinical trials into this subject are required that have consistent and rigorous methods. These trials need to include an appropriate control and utilise an intervention that reflects actual practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study is an exploratory study of a media event in Australia based on the publication of two separate systematic analyses of complementary medicine (CM) therapies. The objective of the study was to measure the scientific quality of Australian newspaper media reports about two international peer-reviewed research papers reporting results on complementary medicines published in biomedical journals during Feb/March 2007. For purposes of clarity, we refer to the papers as the ‘Antioxidant Study’ (Bjelakovic et al 2007) and the ‘Prenatal Multivitamin Study’ (Goh et al 2007). Methods: We sourced articles that were published about the two research papers in mainstream metropolitan and national Australian newspapers during February and March 2007. We then applied a model of analysis called the Index of Scientific Quality (ISQ) to measure the scientific quality of the news reports. Results: We identified 14 newspaper articles and one newswire article about the Antioxidant Study and two newspaper articles about the Prenatal Multivitamin Study. Of the seven ISQ criteria, ‘validity’ and ‘precision’ were rated the least adequate, ‘important consequences’ of the research were reported partially in the Antioxidant Study and wholly in the Prenatal Multivitamin Study, and ‘opinion from fact’ was adequate in the majority of articles. Conclusion: This exploratory study conveyed an overall inadequacy in the scientific quality of the newspaper reporting about the two CM studies in major metropolitan and national Australian newspapers. Whilst we found that journalists were careful to attribute opinions to their sources, their reports conveyed a very limited understanding of biomedical research methodologies and a subsequent incapacity to scrutinise these methodologies with rigour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic Non Specific Low Back Pain (CNSLBP) is a common, complex and disabling condition that has been present for longer than three months and is not caused by a serious pathology. Osteopaths are health practitioners who commonly diagnose and treat CNSLBP patients using a complex set of interventions that includes manual therapy. The study aimed to complete a Systematic Review of clinical research into osteopathic intervention in CNSLBP using a rigorous assessment of study quality.Methods: The literature was searched to August 2011 using the following databases: AMED, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, MEDLINE Plus, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, PEDro, ScienceDirect. Multiple search terms were used in various combinations: osteopathy/osteopathic, osteopathic manipulative technique, OMT, Spinal Manipulative Therapy, SMT, clinical trial, back pain, chronic back pain. The inclusion criteria were papers that: reported clinical trials; had adult participants; tested the effectiveness and/or efficacy of osteopathic manual therapy intervention applied by osteopaths, and had a study condition of CNSLBP. The quality of the papers was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Risk of Bias criteria. A meta-analysis would proceed if the studies had adequate clinical and methodological homogeneity.Results: Initial searches revealed 809 papers, 772 of which were excluded on the basis of abstract alone. The remaining 37 trial papers were subjected to a more detailed analysis of the full text, which resulted in 35 being excluded. The two remaining trials had a lack of methodological and clinical homogeneity, precluding a meta-analysis. The trials used different comparators with regards to the primary outcomes, the number of treatments, the duration of treatment and the duration of follow-up.Conclusion: There are only two studies assessing the effect of the manual therapy intervention applied by osteopathic clinicians in adults with CNSLBP. One trial concluded that the osteopathic intervention was similar in effect to a sham intervention, and the other suggests similarity of effect between osteopathic intervention, exercise and physiotherapy. Further clinical trials into this subject are required that have consistent and rigorous methods. These trials need to include an appropriate control and utilise an intervention that reflects actual practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aimed to compare the characteristics of Australian osteopaths who definitely agree that prescribing scheduled medicines is part of their future scope of practice with those who do not. A secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of osteopaths from an Australian practice-based research network was undertaken. Demographic, practice and treatment characteristics were identified using inferential statistics and backward linear regression modelling. Over one-quarter (n = 257, 25.9%) of the total participants (n = 992) indicated that they 'definitely' agree that osteopaths should seek prescription rights. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) suggested these osteopaths were more likely to engage in medication discussions with patients (OR 1.88), frequently manage migraines (OR 1.68) and seek increased practice rights for referrals to medical specialists (OR 2.61) and diagnostic imaging (OR 2.79). Prescribing as part of the future scope of practice for Australian osteopaths is associated with patient management (medication discussions) and practice characteristics (increased referral rights for specialists and diagnostic imaging) that warrant additional investigation. Understanding of the practice, clinical and patient management characteristics of Australian osteopaths who see prescribing as part of the future scope of practice informs the case for regulatory and health policy changes for prescribing scheduled medicines. Prescription of medicines by healthcare professionals other than doctors is increasing to meet patient care needs. Australian osteopaths appear to be interested in prescribing medicines, particularly to assist with treatment of sport injuries and migraines. The prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints in the Australian population warrants the exploration of prescribing by primary contact healthcare professionals who manage these conditions (i.e. osteopaths). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]