Search

Objective To determine the effect of mobilization and routine physiotherapy on pain, disability, neck range of motion (ROM) and neck muscle endurance (NME) in patients having chronic mechanical neck pain (NP). Methods Sixty eight patients with chronic mechanical NP were randomly allocated into two groups by using a computer generated random sequence table with 34 patients in the multi-modal mobilization group and 34 patients in the routine physiotherapy group. Baseline values for pain, disability, NME, and neck ROM were recorded using visual analogue scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), neck flexor muscle endurance test and universal goniometer respectively, before the treatment. Each patient received 10 treatment sessions over a period of four weeks and at the end of four weeks all the outcome measures were recorded again. Results A paired t -test revealed significant pre to post treatment differences for all outcome measures in both groups (p ≤ 0.001 in all instances). An independent t -test revealed statistically significant differences for pain, disability, NME, and neck ROM in favor of the multi-modal mobilization group with a between group difference of 1.57 cm for VAS (p < 0.001), 11.74 points for NDI (p = 0.001), 18.45 s for NME (p < 0.001) and 6.06–8.24° for neck ROM (p < 0.05). Conclusion The results suggest that a combination of cervical mobilization with routine physiotherapy is more effective for reducing pain and disability and improving NME and neck ROM in patients with chronic mechanical NP compared to routine physiotherapy alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flexicurity, or the integration of labor market flexibility with social security and active labor market policies, has figured prominently in economic and social policy discussions in Europe since the mid-1990s. Such policies are designed to transcend traditional labor-capital conflicts and to form a mutually supportive nexus of flexibility and security within a climate of intensified competition and rapid technological change. International bodies have marketed flexicurity as an innovative win-win strategy for employers and workers alike, commonly citing Denmark and the Netherlands as exemplars of best practice. In this article, we apply a social determinants of health framework to conduct a scoping review of the academic and gray literature to: (a) better understand the empirical associations between flexicurity practices and population health in Denmark and (b) assess the relevance and feasibility of implementing such policies to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Ontario, Canada. Based on 39 studies meeting our full inclusion criteria, preliminary findings suggest that flexicurity is limited as a potential health promotion strategy in Ontario, offers more risks to workers' health than benefits, and requires the strengthening of other social protections before it could be realistically implemented within a Canadian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flexicurity, or the integration of labor market flexibility with social security and active labor market policies, has figured prominently in economic and social policy discussions in Europe since the mid-1990s. Such policies are designed to transcend traditional labor-capital conflicts and to form a mutually supportive nexus of flexibility and security within a climate of intensified competition and rapid technological change. International bodies have marketed flexicurity as an innovative win-win strategy for employers and workers alike, commonly citing Denmark and the Netherlands as exemplars of best practice. In this article, we apply a social determinants of health framework to conduct a scoping review of the academic and gray literature to: (a) better understand the empirical associations between flexicurity practices and population health in Denmark and (b) assess the relevance and feasibility of implementing such policies to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Ontario, Canada. Based on 39 studies meeting our full inclusion criteria, preliminary findings suggest that flexicurity is limited as a potential health promotion strategy in Ontario, offers more risks to workers' health than benefits, and requires the strengthening of other social protections before it could be realistically implemented within a Canadian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]