Search

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of personalized, supervised group-based programs (ie, group physical therapy programs) and usual one-on-one physical therapy care (ie, usual physical therapy care) on disability for military personnel suffering from low back pain, rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, patellofemoral pain syndrome, or lateral ankle sprain. Secondary outcomes were pain severity, pain-related fear, health-related quality of life, and patients' satisfaction with their condition and care. DESIGN: Non-inferiority pragmatic randomized clinical trial. METHODS: One hundred twenty military personnel from the Canadian Armed Forces, experiencing 1 of 4 targeted musculoskeletal disorders, were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to group physical therapy programs or usual physical therapy care. Disability, pain severity, pain-related fear, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 26 weeks after baseline. Satisfaction with treatment was evaluated at the end of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses using linear mixed models with random effects were used to compare the effects of interventions. Chi-square tests were used to compare satisfaction. RESULTS: There were no significant Time × Group interactions for any of the primary and secondary outcomes (Time × Group: P >.67). Satisfaction with treatment also did not differ between groups ( P >.05). Statistically significant and clinically important improvements were observed in both groups for all outcomes after 12 weeks (Time effect: P <.01), except for health-related quality of life ( P = .13). CONCLUSION: Group physical therapy programs were not inferior to usual physical therapy care for managing pain, functional capacity, and patients' satisfaction with care of military personnel presenting with various musculoskeletal disorders. Both interventions led to clinical and statistical improvement in pain and function in the mid and long term. Group physical therapy could be an effective strategy to enhance access to care. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(6):1-10. Epub 26 Mar 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12342 .

Objective: To evaluate the effect of walking promotion strategies on physical activity, pain, and function in people with musculoskeletal disorders., Design: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis., Literature Search: We performed the searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) from inception to August 2019., Study Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions that promote walking in people with musculoskeletal disorders., Data Synthesis: We used the PEDro scale for assessing risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence. We expressed pooled effects for between-group differences as mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, or as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects meta-analyses., Results: Twelve eligible trials (n = 1456 participants) were identified. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence of no difference in physical activity levels for walking promotion interventions when compared to minimal interventions, and a significant effect favoring walking promotion when compared with usual care in the short term. There was moderate-quality evidence that walking promotion was modestly effective for reducing pain and improving function compared with minimal intervention and usual care. There was no difference in pain and function for walking promotion compared to supervised exercise. Walking promotion was not associated with different rates of adverse events compared to control conditions., Conclusion: Strategies to promote walking did not increase physical activity in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Walking promotion was associated with small improvements in pain and function compared to minimal intervention and usual care. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):597-606. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9666 .

Throughout the often complex and challenging process of musculoskeletal rehabilitation, the words that we use can have a significant impact on the clinical outcome. Words contain both the ability to heal and harm. Gaining an improved understanding of the frequently hidden influence that language can have on musculoskeletal rehabilitation is of paramount importance. This Viewpoint article highlights the powerful consequences of the words that we use in clinical practice and discusses the practical considerations for adapting the current language of musculoskeletal rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(7):519-522. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0610.

To a large extent, management of musculoskeletal disorders has traditionally focused on structural dysfunctions found within the musculoskeletal system, mainly around the affected joint. While a structural-dysfunction approach may be effective for musculoskeletal conditions in some populations, especially in acute presentations, its effectiveness remains limited in patients with recurrent or chronic musculoskeletal pain. Numerous studies have shown that the human central nervous system can undergo plastic reorganizations following musculoskeletal disorders; however, they can be maladaptive and contribute to altered joint control and chronic pain. In this Viewpoint, the authors argue that to improve rehabilitation outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, a global view of the disorder that incorporates both central (neural) and peripheral (joint-level) changes is needed. The authors also discuss the challenge of evaluating and rehabilitating central changes and the need for large, high-level studies to evaluate approaches incorporating central and peripheral changes and emerging therapies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(11):817-821. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0608.

The profile of human health is changing across the globe such that the burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), particularly musculoskeletal conditions, is becoming more profound. Such change demands that health systems adapt to better support people in maintaining a functional health state and quality of life, as life expectancy continues to increase. In parallel to the rising burden of NCDs, in particular a disability burden, the need for rehabilitation services is increasing. The World Health Organization (WHO) responded recently with "Rehabilitation 2030: A Call for Action" (February 6-7, 2017, Geneva, Switzerland) and the publication of key recommendations for action. In this editorial, the authors reflect on Rehabilitation 2030 and consider its implications for health system reform in the context of rehabilitation for musculoskeletal health. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5)297-300. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0105.

Study Design: Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohort study., Objectives: To investigate the minimum important difference (MID) of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), 4 region-specific outcome measures, and the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) across 3 levels of patient-perceived global rating of change in a clinical setting., Background: The MID varies depending on the external anchor defining patient-perceived "importance." The MID for the PSFS has not been established across all body regions., Methods: One thousand seven hundred eight consecutive patients with musculoskeletal disorders were recruited from 5 physical therapy clinics. The PSFS, NPRS, and 4 region-specific outcome measures-the Oswestry Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and Lower Extremity Functional Scale-were assessed at the initial and final physical therapy visits. Global rating of change was assessed at the final visit. MID was calculated for the PSFS and NPRS (overall and for each body region), and for each region-specific outcome measure, across 3 levels of change defined by the global rating of change (small, medium, large change) using receiver operating characteristic curve methodology., Results: The MID for the PSFS (on a scale from 0 to 10) ranged from 1.3 (small change) to 2.3 (medium change) to 2.7 (large change), and was relatively stable across body regions. MIDs for the NPRS (-1.5 to -3.5), Oswestry Disability Index (-12), Neck Disability Index (-14), Upper Extremity Functional Index (6 to 11), and Lower Extremity Functional Scale (9 to 16) are also reported., Conclusion: We reported the MID for small, medium, and large patient-perceived change on the PSFS, NPRS, Oswestry Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and Lower Extremity Functional Scale for use in clinical practice and research.

Study Design: Prospective, single-group observational design., Objectives: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure and its shortened version (QuickDASH) in patients with upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders, using a triangulation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches., Background: Meaningful threshold change values of outcome tools are crucial for the clinical decision-making process., Methods: The DASH and QuickDASH were administered to 255 patients (mean ± SD age, 49 ± 15 years; 156 women) before and after a physical therapy program. The external anchor administered after the program was a 7-point global rating of change scale., Results: The test-retest reliability of the DASH and QuickDASH was high (intraclass correlation coefficient model 2,1 = 0.93 and 0.91, respectively; n = 30). The minimum detectable change at the 90% confidence level was 10.81 points for the DASH and 12.85 points for the QuickDASH. After triangulation of these results with those of the mean-change approach and receiver-operating-characteristic-curve analysis, the following MCID values were selected: 10.83 points for the DASH (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 74%) and 15.91 points for the QuickDASH (sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 75%). After treatment, the MCID threshold was reached/surpassed by 61% of subjects using the DASH and 57% using the QuickDASH., Conclusion: The MCID values from this study for the DASH (10.83 points) and the QuickDASH (15.91 points) could represent the lower boundary for a range of MCID values (reasonably useful for different populations and contextual characteristics). The upper boundary may be represented by the 15 points for the DASH and 20 points for the QuickDASH proposed by the DASH website.

Study Design: Prospective cohort., Objectives: (1) To determine the trajectory of depressive symptoms over the course of physical therapy, (2) to identify variables that best predict the resolution of depressive symptoms, and (3) to explore the relationship between recovery from depressive symptoms and long-term outcomes., Background: Twenty-five percent to 50% of patients referred to physical therapy for orthopaedic injuries suffer from symptoms of depression. Depressive symptoms have been identified as an influential risk factor for problematic response to physical therapy. Despite these findings, there is a dearth of research specifically exploring the trajectory and determinants of patients' depressive symptoms over the course of physical therapy, which has impeded the evidence-based management of patients with depressive symptoms., Methods: One hundred six patients with work-related musculoskeletal injuries and symptoms of depression received 7 weeks of physical therapy and were followed 1 year after treatment onset. Pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and other psychosocial factors were evaluated throughout treatment, and data were collected at 1-year follow-up., Results: Depressive symptoms resolved in 40% of patients, and resolution was linked to pain and disability at 1-year follow-up. Persistence of depressive symptoms at treatment completion was predicted by elevated levels of depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing at pretreatment, and by lack of improvement in levels of depressive symptoms and pain self-efficacy at midtreatment., Conclusion: For many patients, depressive symptoms resolve over the course of physical therapy, and resolution is associated with long-term improvements in pain and disability. These findings will help identify patients whose depressive symptoms are least likely to respond to physical therapy and may therefore warrant additional treatment.

Study Design: Clinical measurement, longitudinal; multicenter prospective cohort study., Objectives: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems being treated in physical therapy., Background: The clinimetric properties of the PSFS have not been established nor compared with region-specific outcome measures in patients with upper extremity problems., Methods: Patients completed the PSFS, Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI), and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) at baseline and follow-up, and were categorized as improved, stable, or worsened, using the global rating of change. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the change scores of the stable and improved groups, using independent-samples t tests. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) with 95% confidence intervals. Bland-Altman plots determined limits of agreement. Responsiveness and minimal important difference (MID) were determined with receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves., Results: One hundred eighty patients met the inclusion criteria. Construct validity was supported for the PSFS and the UEFI (P<.001). Reliability was moderate to good for the PSFS (ICC2,1 = 0.713) and UEFI (ICC2,1 = 0.848). Reported estimates of reliability may be lower than true values because the group of "stable" patients from this cohort had, on average, a small positive change. Bland-Altman plots indicated good agreement. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly different from the null value of 0.5 for the PSFS (0.887) and the UEFI (0.877), indicating good accuracy in distinguishing improved patients from stable patients. MID was 1.2 for the PSFS (scale, 0-10) and 8.5 for the UEFI (scale, 0-80)., Conclusion: The PSFS is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure for patients with upper extremity problems.

Study Design: Systematic review of the literature., Objective: To summarize peer-reviewed literature on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), and to identify its use as an outcome measure., Methods: Searches were performed of several electronic databases from 1995 to May 2010. Studies included were published articles containing (1) primary research investigating the psychometric and clinimetrics of the PSFS or (2) the implementation of the PSFS as an outcome measure. We assessed the methodological quality of studies included in the first category., Results: Two hundred forty-two articles published from 1994 to May 2010 were identified. Of these, 66 met the inclusion criteria for this review, with 13 reporting the measurement properties of the PSFS, 55 implementing the PSFS as an outcome measure, and 2 doing both of the above. The PSFS was reported to be valid, reliable, and responsive in populations with knee dysfunction, cervical radiculopathy, acute low back pain, mechanical low back pain, and neck dysfunction. The PSFS was found to be reliable and responsive in populations with chronic low back pain. The PSFS was also reported to be valid, reliable, or responsive in individuals with a limited number of acute, subacute, and chronic conditions. This review found that the PSFS is also being used as an outcome measure in many other conditions, despite a lack of published evidence supporting its validity in these conditions., Conclusion: Although the use of the PSFS as an outcome measure is increasing in physiotherapy practice, there are gaps in the research literature regarding its validity, reliability, and responsiveness in many health conditions.

Study Design: Prospective cohort., Objective: To investigate fear-avoidance beliefs across different anatomical regions for patients with musculoskeletal pain., Background: Fear-avoidance beliefs were first widely studied in patients with low back pain. The early results of studies involving patients with cervical spine, knee, and shoulder disorders suggest that fear-avoidance beliefs have the potential to influence pain and function in different anatomical regions. However, very few prospective studies of fear-avoidance beliefs involve multiple anatomical regions., Methods: The sample of this study consisted of 313 patients (mean age, 45.5 years; 115 males, 198 females) seeking outpatient physical therapy for cervical spine (n = 63), upper extremity (n = 58), lumbar spine (n = 79), or lower extremity (n = 113) complaints. During the intake session, patients completed the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity scale (FABQ-PA), modified for the appropriate anatomical location. Patients also rated pain intensity and function on the Therapeutic Associates Outcomes System (TAOS) Functional Index at intake and discharge. The collection of treatment-related parameters included the number of visits, calendar days of physical therapy, and treatment received. FABQ-PA scores were compared across anatomical regions. Elevated FABQ-PA scores and anatomical regions were also investigated for association with intake pain and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment utility parameters., Results: Similar FABQ-PA levels were observed across the 4 anatomical regions (P>.05). Number of visits, calendar days of physical therapy, and treatment received did not differ between elevated and lower fear-avoidance belief levels (P>.05). Findings for pain intensity and function were similar for each anatomical region. Patients with elevated fear-avoidance beliefs had higher intake scores (P<.05), larger improvements (P<.05), but similar discharge scores (P>.05), compared to those with lower fear-avoidance beliefs., Conclusion: These data suggest that, in patients with cervical, upper extremity, lumbar, or lower extremity complaints, fear-avoidance beliefs may have a similar influence on intake and change scores for pain intensity and function. General assessment of fear-avoidance beliefs using the FABQ-PA, especially to predict change scores, may be appropriate for use in patients with various musculoskeletal pain conditions.

Study Design: Case series., Case Description: Five consecutive collegiate Division I wrestlers, with a mean age of 20.2 years (range, 18-22 years), were treated postsurgical stabilization to address posterior glenohumeral joint instability. All received physical therapy postoperatively, consisting of range-ofmotion, strengthening, and plyometrics exercises, neuromuscular re-education, and sport-specific training. Functional outcome scores using the Penn Shoulder Score questionnaire were recorded at postsurgical initial evaluation and discharge. Isometric shoulder strength, measured with a handheld dynamometer at discharge, was compared with measurements made during preseason screening., Outcomes: Postsurgery, upon initial physical therapy evaluation, scores on the Penn Shoulder Score questionnaire ranged from 37 to 74 out of 100. All 5 wrestlers improved with rehabilitation such that their scores at discharge ranged from 81 to 91 out of 100. Mean external rotation-internal rotation strength ratio for the involved shoulder was 73.5% (range, 55.9%-88.7%) preseason and 80.9% (range, 70.2%-104.1%) postrehabilitation. Four patients were able to return to wrestling over a period of 1 season, with no episodes of reinjury to their surgically repaired shoulder., Discussion: Current research on posterior glenohumeral instability is limited, due to the relatively rare diagnosis and infrequent need for surgical intervention. Providing a structured physical therapy program following this surgical procedure appeared to have assisted in a return to full functional activities and sports., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(7):550-559, Epub 24 February 2009. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2952.

Study Design: Single-group, repeated-measures study., Objective: To estimate the test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) on inpatients attending an orthopaedic rehabilitation ward., Background: The LEFS has acceptable validity on outpatients in assessing functional mobility, but it has not been tested for use on an inpatient orthopaedic ward., Methods and Measures: Inpatients in an orthopaedic ward (n = 142) completed the 20-item, self-report LEFS on admission, 7 to 10 days after admission, and on discharge. To test reliability, 24 patients had the LEFS repeated 1 day after the admission test, and the intraclass correlation (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated. Change scores of the LEFS were evaluated against patients' and therapists' rating of improvement, and change scores of comparison measures that included pain, functional performance, and the composite index created from scores of these comparison measures. The standardized response mean (SRM) of the LEFS was also computed., Results: The ICC of the LEFS was 0.88, and the SEM was 4 LEFS points (LEFS score range, 0-80). The change in LEFS correlated with changes of comparison measures in the same direction of improvement. Patients rated as improved by both themselves and their therapists had significantly larger change in LEFS scores than subjects rated as no change. The SRM of the LEFS from admission to discharge was 1.76 on patients rated as improved., Conclusion: The LEFS is reliable and valid to assess group and individual change, and has large responsiveness. The LEFS and the comparison measures likely assess different constructs.

Study Design: Single-group repeated-measures study., Objective: To examine the test-retest reliability of the timed up and go (TUG) test and its validity for measuring change and predicting length of stay (LOS) on an inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation ward., Background: The TUG test is used to measure functional mobility of persons with musculoskeletal conditions but it has not been thoroughly tested for use in an inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation ward., Methods and Measures: The TUG test was administered to 142 patients on admission to an orthopaedic rehabilitation ward 7 to 10 days after admission and on discharge. To test reliability, 24 subjects had these tests repeated 1 day after admission, and the intraclass correlation (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated. Change scores of the TUG test were evaluated against change scores in pain and function, and the rating of improvement of the patient and therapist. The standardized response mean (SRM) was also calculated. A regression analysis was performed to determine whether the admission TUG test score could predict LOS., Results: The ICC of the TUG test was 0.80 and the SEM was 10.2 seconds. The change in TUG test scores correlated with the changes in pain (r = 0.21, P<.01) and function (r = -0.23, P<.01), and resulted in an SRM of 0.89 for subjects rated as improved. The admission TUG test scores accounted for only 3.4% of the variance in inpatient LOS., Conclusion: The TUG test is reliable and valid to assess group change of inpatients on an orthopaedic rehabilitation ward but is not a good predictor of LOS., Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 1b.

Study Design: Prospective observation study., Objectives: To compare the test-retest reliability and longitudinal validity (sensitivity to change) of 2 single-item numeric pain rating scales (NPRSs) with a 4-item pain intensity measure (P4)., Background: Pain is a frequent outcome measure for patients seen in physical therapy; however, the error associated with efficient pain measures, such as the single-item NPRS, is greater than for self-report measures of functional status. Initial evaluation of the P4 suggests that it is more reliable and sensitive to change than the NPRS., Methods and Measures: Two single-item NPRSs and the P4 were administered on 3 occasions--initial visit (n = 220), within 72 hours of baseline (n = 213), and 12 days following baseline assessment (n = 183)--to patients with musculoskeletal problems receiving physical therapy. Reliability was assessed using a type 2,1 intraclass correlation coefficient. Longitudinal validity was assessed by correlating the measures' change scores with a retrospective rating of change that included patients' and clinicians' perspectives., Results: The test-retest reliability and longitudinal validity of the P4 were significantly greater (P1<.05) than both single-item NPRSs. Minimal detectable change of the P4 at the 90% confidence level was estimated to be a change of 22% of the scale range (9 points) compared to 27.3% (3 points) and 31.8% (3.5 points) for the 2-day NPRS and 24-hour NPRS, respectively., Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest the P4 is more adept at assessing change in pain intensity than popular versions of single-item NPRSs.

Study Design: Test-retest reliability study., Objective: To assess test-retest reliability and estimate minimal detectable change of an overall measure and 2 summary measures of patient self-report of health status., Background: Change in patient self-report of health status is a common outcome measure following rehabilitation. Because collection of health status data takes time and clinicians are required to be productive, selected items from reliable instruments were used to form a new, abbreviated instrument of health status relevant to patients in outpatient rehabilitation. There are no test-retest reliability statistics of these health status measures in this population., Methods and Measures: A convenience sample of 71 patients (mean age +/- SD, 41.9 +/- 17.9 years; age range, 15-83 years; sex, 35% male), with a variety of orthopaedic diagnoses, seeking rehabilitation in 2 outpatient facilities, volunteered. Patients completed health status questionnaires at initial evaluation and at 24 to 72 hours following evaluation. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2.1) were used to estimate test-retest reliability and to estimate measurement error and minimal detectable changes., Results: ICCs with a 1-sided lower limit 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the Overall Health Status measure and the Physical and Mental Component Summary measures for patients with chronic symptoms were 0.92 (0.85), 0.82 (0.68), and 0.85 (0.74), respectively. Minimal detectable changes (90% CI) were +/-12 (scale range, 100), +/- 9 (scale range, 60), and +/- 9 (scale range, 60) scale points, respectively, for the same measures., Conclusions: Results support the test-retest reliability of the Overall Health Status measure and summary measures for patients with chronic symptoms and demonstrate ability of the Overall Health Status and Physical Summary Scale measures to detect improvement of patient self-report of health status within the first few days of rehabilitation.

Muscles operate eccentrically to either dissipate energy for decelerating the body or to store elastic recoil energy in preparation for a shortening (concentric) contraction. The muscle forces produced during this lengthening behavior can be extremely high, despite the requisite low energetic cost. Traditionally, these high-force eccentric contractions have been associated with a muscle damage response. This clinical commentary explores the ability of the muscle-tendon system to adapt to progressively increasing eccentric muscle forces and the resultant structural and functional outcomes. Damage to the muscle-tendon is not an obligatory response. Rather, the muscle can hypertrophy and a change in the spring characteristics of muscle can enhance power; the tendon also adapts so as to tolerate higher tensions. Both basic and clinical findings are discussed. Specifically, we explore the nature of the structural changes and how these adaptations may help prevent musculoskeletal injury, improve sport performance, and overcome musculoskeletal impairments.

Clinical specialization is part of physical therapy's continued development as a profession. Clinical specialization in physical therapy has evolved with little discussion of how specialization is related to the development of professional expertise. The purposes of this paper were to compare the identified clinical competencies in orthopaedic physical therapy to selected clinical reasoning models and expertise development models in physical therapy and interpret these comparisons in light of current theoretical work in expertise. Descriptive content analysis using results from the 1993 Practice Analysis for Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Certified Specialists was done to link attributes identified in 3 selected theoretical models of clinical decision making and practice. Survey materials were linked to theories by use of a binary index (yes/no) of whether theoretical concepts were present or absent in the survey results. The attributes that characterize an expert physical therapy practitioner involve clinical reasoning, and the ability to teach patients. The skills of a master clinician were based not just on the application of knowledge, but also on thinking and reasoning that occurs with experience. We propose that knowledge is gained through the clinician's thinking and reasoning during practice which results in a transformation or change in the clinician's knowledge base. Describing the clinical specialization process in the context of expert theory provides a strong foundation for the specialization process in physical therapy.

Patellofemoral disorders are among the most common clinical conditions managed in the orthopaedic and sports medicine setting. Nonoperative intervention is typically the initial form of treatment for patellofemoral disorders; however, there is no consensus on the most effective method of treatment. Although numerous treatment options exist for patellofemoral patients, the indications and contraindications of each approach have not been well established. Additionally, there is no generally accepted classification scheme for patellofemoral disorders. In this paper, we will discuss a classification system to be used as the foundation for developing treatment strategies and interventions in the nonsurgical management of patients with patellofemoral pain and/or dysfunction. The classification system divides the patellofemoral disorders into eight groups, including: 1) patellar compression syndromes, 2) patellar instability, 3) biomechanical dysfunction, 4) direct patellar trauma, 5) soft tissue lesions, 6) overuse syndromes, 7) osteochondritis diseases, and 8) neurologic disorders. Treatment suggestions for each of the eight patellofemoral dysfunction categories will be briefly discussed.

Self-report measures of disability are being used more frequently to assess patients' outcomes in clinical practice. This study examines the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale when applied to persons with neck dysfunction. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale and Neck Disability Index were applied at the initial visit, within 72 hours of the initial visit, and following 1-4 weeks of treatment in 31 patients with cervical dysfunction. At the time of the initial visit, the clinician made an estimate of patients' prognoses on a five-point scale. This estimate served as an priori construct for change: patients with better ratings would change more. The results demonstrate excellent reliability (R = .92) validity (r = .73-.83 compared with the Neck Disability Index, and r = .52-.64 compared with the prognosis rating), and sensitivity of change (r = .79-.83 compared with Neck Disability Index change scores, and r = .46-.53 compared with the prognosis rating). No difference was found between the Patient-Specific Functional Scale and Neck Disability Index in their ability to detect change over time. The results of this study are consistent with previous investigations which have concluded that the Patient-Specific Functional Scale is an efficient and valid measure for assessing disability and change in disability in persons with low back pain and knee dysfunction.

Assessing both physical and mental health is necessary in clinical settings to quantify the scope of disability and to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment programs. Changes in health-related quality of life following physical therapy treatment for many patients with orthopaedic-related diagnoses is not known. The purposes of this study were to describe changes in health-related quality of life between the initial assessment and the time of discharge from physical therapy for the most common orthopaedic diagnoses and to compare the patterns of deficit among diagnostic categories. Patient outcomes in this study were evaluated from a large database generated by the Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes (FOTO) network. Health-related and employment outcomes were described for adult patients who were classified using ICD-9-CM codes. The most common orthopaedic diagnostic categories were sacroiliac sprain, back sprain, low back pain (radiating and nonradiating), neck sprain, neck pain (radiating and nonradiating), adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, rotator cuff injury, shoulder sprain, knee dislocation, knee sprain, and knee derangement. The primary outcome measure was a 17-item questionnaire (the MOS-17) derived from the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). The comparison of each cohort to population norms was made by calculating a standard score on patient data adjusted for age and gender. An effect size was calculated to measure the change in health or employment status between the initial assessment and discharge from physical therapy. For all diagnostic categories, health-related quality of life with respect to norms and employment status showed a consistent pattern of improvement at the time of discharge compared with the initial assessment. There were only small changes in physical function for neck and shoulder diagnostic categories. Nearly all of the diagnostic categories had large reductions in bodily pain. The amount of clinical change in the physical components of health-related quality of life--especially the physical function and role physical domains--differed substantially across specific diagnostic categories. The largest improvements in the physical function occurred for patients with knee dislocation and knee sprain. Patients with knee dislocation also had the largest improvement in role limitations due to physical problems. The design of this study does not permit conclusions about the efficacy of physical therapy. Further study is needed to determine if the finding of different levels of health status improvement across diagnostic categories was due to the nature of the outcome measure, the type of treatments given to each patient, or other confounding variables, like depression or preinjury functional level.

There is growing recognition of the limitations of conventional, biomedical approaches to the management of pain in individuals having arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders. This article provides an overview of newly developed biopsychosocial approaches to the management of pain in this population. The presentation is divided into three sections. In the first section, a biopsychosocial model of pain is presented. This model highlights the role that biological factors (eg., disease severity, comorbid conditions), cognitive-behavioral factors (eg., thoughts, emotions, and behaviors), and environmental factors (eg., spouse or family responses to pain behavior) can play in influencing the pain experience. In the second section, we provide an overview of two newly developed treatment protocols based on the biopsychosocial model of pain: a pain coping skills training protocol and an exercise training protocol. Practical aspects of implementing these protocols are illustrated by highlighting how they are applied in the management of patients having persistent osteoarthritic pain. In the final section of the article, we pinpoint several important future directions for research in this area. Future studies need to explore the utility of combining pain coping skills and exercise training protocols. In addition, there is a need to identify variables that predict patients' response to biopsychosocial treatments.

Skeletal malalignments of the lower quarter, deformities within a bone or at a joint, may be the primary cause of musculoskeletal patient problems. Skeletal malalignments also may sustain the presence of a musculoskeletal patient problem that has some other causal mechanism. A screening exam for skeletal alignment of the lower quarter may assist clinicians in identifying skeletal malalignments that are associated with a musculoskeletal complaint. The purposes of this paper are to: 1) describe components for a skeletal alignment screening exam, 2) analyze how lower quarter malalignments may influence lower quarter function and contribute to the development of musculoskeletal pathology, and 3) suggest general characteristics of foot orthoses and shoes that may assist in the management of musculoskeletal patient problems of the lower quarter.