Search

Objectives The plethora of self-administered questionnaires to assess positive psychosocial factors complicates questionnaire selection. This study aimed to identify and reach consensus on the most suitable self-administered questionnaires to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and social support in people with pain. Design A three-round modified Delphi study. Participants Forty international experts. Methods In Round 1, the experts suggested questionnaires deemed appropriate to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and/or social support. In Round 2, experts indicated whether they considered the suggested questionnaires to be suitable (Yes/No/Don’t know) to assess these psychosocial factors, taking into consideration content, feasibility, personal experience and the measurement properties which we provided for each questionnaire. Questionnaires that were considered suitable by the majority of experts (≥60%) were retained for Round 3. In Round 3, the suitability of each questionnaire was rated on a 0–10 Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts rated the questionnaire ≥7. Results From the 67 questionnaires suggested in Round 1, one questionnaire could be recommended per domain. For resilience: Pain Resilience Scale; for optimism: Revised Version of the Life Orientation Test; for pain acceptance: 8-item and Revised Versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; for social support: Emotional Support Item Bank of the PROMIS tool. Consensus for these questionnaires was also reached in a sensitivity analysis which excluded the ratings of experts involved in the development, translation and/or validation of relevant questionnaires. Conclusion We advocate the use of these recommended questionnaires so data can be compared and pooled more easily.

Objective The association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain may be influenced by multiple factors. However, little is known about the relative importance of these factors, and few studies account for them. This Delphi study aimed to reach consensus on the most important confounders which influence the association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain. Methods The panel consisted of 48 experts. In Round 1, the experts proposed what they believed were important confounders. In Round 2, the experts indicated for each confounder whether they believed it was important (yes/no). At least 50% of experts had to indicate the confounder was important to be considered in the final round. In Round 3, the experts rated the importance of each confounder on a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the experts considered the factor either extremely or moderately important. Results In Round 1, 120 confounders were proposed, which were synthesized into 38 distinct factors. In Round 2, 33 confounders met the criterion to be considered important. In Round 3, consensus was reached for 14 confounders: acute illness/trauma, immune disease, medication use, endocrine, nutritional, or metabolic disease, other musculoskeletal conditions, age, handling of blood samples, sex, cancer, body composition, pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, physical activity, and pain characteristics. Conclusions These findings provide insight in the complexity of the association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain. Some factors currently listed as confounders may be re-classified as moderators or mediators as insights progress.

Quality improvement is now a central tenet in physiotherapy care, and quality indicators (QIs), as measurable elements of care, have been applied to analyze and evaluate the quality of physiotherapy care over the past two decades. QIs, based on Donabedian's model of quality of care, provide a foundation for measuring (improvements in) quality of physiotherapy care, providing insight into the many remaining evidentiary gaps concerning diagnostics, prognostics and treatment, as well as patient-related outcome measures. In this overview we provide a synthesis of four recently published articles from our project group on the topic of quantitative measures of quality improvement in physiotherapy care, in this context specifically focused on patients with WAD in primary care physiotherapy. A set of process and outcome QIs (n = 28) was developed for patients with WAD and linked to a database consisting of routinely collected data (RCD) on patients with WAD collected over a 16-year period. The QIs were then embedded per step of the clinical reasoning process: (a) administration (n = 2); (b) history taking (n = 7); (c) objectives of examination (n = 1); (d) clinical examination (n = 5); (e) analysis and conclusion (n = 1); (f) treatment plan (n = 3); (g) treatment (n = 2); (h) evaluation (n = 5); and (i) discharge (n = 2). QIs were expressed as percentages, allowing target performance levels to be defined ≥70% or ≤30%, depending on whether the desired performance required an initially high or low QI score. Using RCD data on primary care patients with WAD (N = 810) and a set of QIs, we found that the quality of physiotherapy care has improved substantially over a 16-year period. This conclusion was based on QIs meeting predetermined performance targets of ≥70% or ≤30%. Twenty-three indicators met the target criterium of ≥70% and three indicators ≤30%. Our recommended set of QIs, embedded in a clinical reasoning process for patients with WAD, can now be used as a basis for the development of a validated QI set that effectively measures quality (improvement) of primary care physiotherapy in patients with WAD.

Background Quality indicators (QIs) are measurable elements of practice performance and may relate to context, process, outcome and structure. A valid set of QIs have been developed, reflecting the clinical reasoning used in primary care physiotherapy for patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Donabedian’s model postulates relationships between the constructs of quality of care, acting in a virtuous circle. Aim To explore the relative strengths of the relationships between context, process, and outcome indicators in the assessment of primary care physiotherapy in patients with WAD. Materials and Methods Data on WAD patients (N=810) were collected over a period of 16 years in primary care physiotherapy practices by means of patients records. This routinely collected dataset (RCD-WAD) was classified in context, process, and outcome variables and analyzed retrospectively. Clinically relevant variables were selected based on expert consensus. Associations were expressed, using zero-order, as Spearman rank correlation coefficients (criterion: rs >0.25 [minimum: fair]; α-value = 0.05). Results In round 1, 62 of 85 (72.9%) variables were selected by an expert panel as relevant for clinical reasoning; in round 2, 34 of 62 (54.8%) (context variables 9 of 18 [50.0%]; process variables 18 of 34 [52.9]; outcome variables 8 of 10 [90.0%]) as highly relevant. Associations between the selected context and process variables ranged from 0.27 to 0.53 (p≤0.00), between selected context and outcome variables from 0.26 to 0.55 (p≤0.00), and between selected process and outcome variables from 0.29 to 0.59 (p≤0.00). Moderate associations (rs >0.50; p≤0.00) were found between “pain coping” and “fear avoidance” as process variables, and “pain intensity” and “functioning” as outcome variables. Conclusion The identified associations between selected context, process, and outcome variables were fair to moderate. Ongoing work may clarify some of these associations and provide guidance to physiotherapists on how best to improve the quality of clinical reasoning in terms of relationships between context, process, and outcome in the management of patients with WAD., Video abstract Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use: https://youtu.be/J5N9cYF3BW4

Objective Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care. Methods Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated. Results Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21–0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14–1.00). Conclusion The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment. Impact The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework.

Background Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) are commonly assessed to quantify mechanical sensitivity in various conditions, including migraine. Digital and analogue algometers are used, but the concurrent validity between these algometers is unknown. Therefore, we assessed the concurrent validity between a digital and analogue algometer to determine PPTs in healthy participants and people with migraine. Methods Twenty-six healthy participants and twenty-nine people with migraine participated in the study. PPTs were measured interictally and bilaterally at the cephalic region (temporal muscle, C1 paraspinal muscles, and trapezius muscle) and extra-cephalic region (extensor carpi radialis muscle and tibialis anterior muscle). PPTs were first determined with a digital algometer, followed by an analogue algometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3.1) and limits of agreement were calculated to quantify concurrent validity. Results The concurrent validity between algometers in both groups was moderate to excellent (ICC3.1 ranged from 0.82 to 0.99, with 95%CI: 0.65 to 0.99). Although PPTs measured with the analogue algometer were higher at most locations in both groups (p Conclusion The concurrent validity between the digital and analogue algometer is excellent in healthy participants and moderate in people with migraine. Both types of algometer are well-suited for research and clinical practice but are not exchangeable within a study or patient follow-up.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is the second highest cause of health burden in China. Delayed recovery, poor clinical outcomes and persistence of LBP are associated with negative pain beliefs about LBP. Chinese philosophies are nested into the daily life of people in China, which is likely to influence pain beliefs. However, there is lack of knowledge about people’s discourses regarding their LBP in China. The primary aim of this study was to explore the discourses underlying the beliefs of people in China about what causes their persistent or recurrent LBP. The secondary aim was to investigate the sources of these pain beliefs. Methods People (n = 152) from South Central, East and North Mainland China with LBP completed an online survey about what they believed caused their persistent or recurrent LBP and where these understandings came from. Potential causes of persistent or recurrent LBP were explored qualitatively using discourse analysis. The sources of these discourses were assessed by descriptive statistics with conventional content analysis. Results Five discourses were identified to underpin participants’ beliefs about what caused their persistent or recurrent LBP, namely: (1) biomedical problems (66.4%), (2) unbalanced lifestyle (48.7%), (3) menstruation and ‘kidney’ status (9.2%), (4) the ‘Five Elements’ imbalance (7.9%), and (5) energy status (5.9%). Most participants responded that their pain beliefs were based on information derived from healthcare professionals (59.2%), followed by the internet (24.3%) and family (23.0%). Conclusions People from moderately and well-developed parts of Mainland China think predominantly in line with a Western biomedical viewpoint about their LBP. Traditional Chinese medicine related pain beliefs mainly to the concept of ‘balance’ were evident on contemporary Chinese society’s understandings of LBP. These cultural beliefs could be relevant to consider in LBP management and involve healthcare professionals, family and patient in this process.

BACKGROUND Mobile eHealth apps are important tools in personal health care management. The Patient Journey app was developed to inform patients with musculoskeletal disorders during their perioperative period. The app contains timely information, video exercises, and functional tasks. Although the Patient Journey app and other health apps are widely used, little research is available on how patients appreciate these apps. OBJECTIVE The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the user-friendliness of the Patient Journey app in terms of its usability and the attitudes of users toward the app. The secondary aim was to evaluate positive and negative user experiences. METHODS A web-based questionnaire was sent to 2114 patients scheduled for surgery for a musculoskeletal disorder. Primary outcomes were usability (measured with the System Usability Scale) and user attitudes regarding the Patient Journey app (assessed with the second part of the eHealth Impact Questionnaire). The secondary outcomes were evaluated with multiple choice questions and open-ended questions, which were analyzed via inductive thematic content analyses. RESULTS Of the 940 patients who responded, 526 used the Patient Journey app. The usability of the app was high (System Usability Scale: median 85.0, IQR 72.5-92.5), and users had a positive attitude toward the Information and Presentation provided via the app (eHealth Impact Questionnaire: median 78.0, IQR 68.8-84.4). The app did not adequately improve the users’ confidence in discussing health with others (eHealth Impact Questionnaire: median 63.9, IQR 50.0-75.0) or motivation to manage health (eHealth Impact Questionnaire: median 61.1, IQR 55.6-72.2). Three core themes emerged regarding positive and negative user experiences: (1) content and information, (2) expectations and experiences, and (3) technical performance. Users experienced timely information and instructions positively and found that the app prepared and guided them optimally through the perioperative period. Negative user experiences were overly optimistic information, scarcely presented information about pain (medication), lack of reference data, insufficient information regarding clinical course deviations and complications, and lack of interaction with clinicians. CONCLUSIONS The Patient Journey app is a usable, informative, and presentable tool to inform patients with musculoskeletal disorders during their perioperative period. The qualitative analyses identified aspects that can further improve the user experiences of the app.

Background Mobile eHealth apps are important tools in personal health care management. The Patient Journey app was developed to inform patients with musculoskeletal disorders during their perioperative period. The app contains timely information, video exercises, and functional tasks. Although the Patient Journey app and other health apps are widely used, little research is available on how patients appreciate these apps. Objective The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the user-friendliness of the Patient Journey app in terms of its usability and the attitudes of users toward the app. The secondary aim was to evaluate positive and negative user experiences. Methods A web-based questionnaire was sent to 2114 patients scheduled for surgery for a musculoskeletal disorder. Primary outcomes were usability (measured with the System Usability Scale) and user attitudes regarding the Patient Journey app (assessed with the second part of the eHealth Impact Questionnaire). The secondary outcomes were evaluated with multiple choice questions and open-ended questions, which were analyzed via inductive thematic content analyses. Results Of the 940 patients who responded, 526 used the Patient Journey app. The usability of the app was high (System Usability Scale: median 85.0, IQR 72.5-92.5), and users had a positive attitude toward the Information and Presentation provided via the app (eHealth Impact Questionnaire: median 78.0, IQR 68.8-84.4). The app did not adequately improve the users’ confidence in discussing health with others (eHealth Impact Questionnaire: median 63.9, IQR 50.0-75.0) or motivation to manage health (eHealth Impact Questionnaire: median 61.1, IQR 55.6-72.2). Three core themes emerged regarding positive and negative user experiences: (1) content and information, (2) expectations and experiences, and (3) technical performance. Users experienced timely information and instructions positively and found that the app prepared and guided them optimally through the perioperative period. Negative user experiences were overly optimistic information, scarcely presented information about pain (medication), lack of reference data, insufficient information regarding clinical course deviations and complications, and lack of interaction with clinicians. Conclusions The Patient Journey app is a usable, informative, and presentable tool to inform patients with musculoskeletal disorders during their perioperative period. The qualitative analyses identified aspects that can further improve the user experiences of the app.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. There is evidence that joint and nerve mobilisations compared with sham or no intervention positively influence various neuroimmune responses in animal and human neuromusculoskeletal conditions., Several animal and human studies revealed that joint and nerve mobilisations positively influence neuroimmune responses in neuromusculoskeletal conditions. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been performed. Therefore, this study aimed to synthesize the effects of joint and nerve mobilisation compared with sham or no intervention on neuroimmune responses in animals and humans with neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Four electronic databases were searched for controlled trials. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and graded the certainty of the evidence. Where possible, meta-analyses using random effects models were used to pool the results. Preliminary evidence from 13 animal studies report neuroimmune responses after joint and nerve mobilisations. In neuropathic pain models, meta-analysis revealed decreased spinal cord levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein, dorsal root ganglion levels of interleukin-1β, number of dorsal root ganglion nonneuronal cells, and increased spinal cord interleukin-10 levels. The 5 included human studies showed mixed effects of spinal manipulation on salivary/serum cortisol levels in people with spinal pain, and no significant effects on serum β-endorphin or interleukin-1β levels in people with spinal pain. There is evidence that joint and nerve mobilisations positively influence various neuroimmune responses. However, as most findings are based on single studies, the certainty of the evidence is low to very low. Further studies are needed.