Search

Sexual disability is an emerging topic in the management of low back pain (LBP); nevertheless, sexual counseling skills are not widespread amongst professionals. The clinical behavior of physiotherapists in this field was not studied thoroughly; therefore, it is not clear if and how physiotherapists collect information related to sexual disability and how they manage it. This survey aimed to investigate knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of Italian physiotherapists in managing this disability. An online survey with 28 questions was distributed from February 2nd to July 10th 2023 via the newsletter of the Italian Association of Physiotherapy, email and social media. The questionnaire queried on participant demographics, assessment and treatment procedures, beliefs and potential barriers, sex, expertise, previous educational background, and geographical area. 448 physiotherapists completed the survey, with 69.87% not investigating LBP-related sexual disability routinely. 85% of physiotherapists diagnosed sexual disability in 0–10% of patients treated for LBP. Sexual disability is reported by physiotherapists at random in 54.91% of patients. When it is diagnosed, 90.41% of physiotherapists would choose evidence-based procedures, but only 19.96% of them would directly involve the patient’s partner. Postgraduate education and professional expertise positively influence beliefs and attitudes. Main barriers and difficulties in the field are the perceived lack of expertise, other therapeutic priorities, cultural attitudes of patients, and fear of violating patients’ privacy. The beliefs and attitudes of Italian physiotherapists in the management of sexual disability are characterized by scarce attention and feeling of inadequacy, but they show the potential to adequately treat this disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate effectiveness or non-inferiority of telerehabilitation for people with aphasia when compared to conventional face-to-face speech and language therapy. Five electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library) were searched. We extrapolated data from the included studies and evaluated the methodological quality using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). A meta-analysis compared effects of intervention, and it was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software. GRADE profile to assess overall quality of evidence was carried out. Out of a total of 1157 records, five studies met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for meta-analysis with a total of 132 participants with post-stroke aphasia. Results revealed that telerehabilitation and face-to-face speech and language treatment are comparable with respect to the gains achieved in auditory comprehension (SMD = −0.02; 95% CI −0.39, 0.35), naming accuracy (SMD = −0.09; 95% CI −0.44, 0.25), Aphasia Quotient (MD = −2.18; 95% CI −16.00, 11.64), generalization (SMD = 0.77; 95% IC −0.95, 2.49) and functional communication skills (SMD = −0.08; 95% IC −0.54, 0.38). Although evidence is still insufficient to guide clinical decision making due to the relatively low quality of the evidence identified, the analysis of the results suggest that telerehabilitation training for aphasia seems to be as effective as the conventional face-to-face treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]