Search

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a clinical syndrome that affects more than 200,000 people in the United States annually. It is a common cause of chronic insidious low back pain, especially in older patient populations (mean age = 64 years). Lumbar spinal stenosis is a degenerative condition of the spine leading to narrowing in the spaces around the neurovascular bundles and the classic symptom of low back pain that radiates to the buttocks and lower extremities bilaterally. It is typically a progressive waxing and waning process that may deteriorate over years. The pain is typically burning or cramping, which worsens with standing and walking and improves with bending forward or sitting. Magnetic resonance imaging is the recommended diagnostic test because it allows cross-sectional measurement of the spinal canal. Options for nonsurgical management include physical therapy, exercise programs, spinal injections with and without corticosteroids, chiropractic treatment, osteopathic manipulation, acupuncture, and lifestyle modifications; however, few of these treatments have high-quality randomized trials demonstrating effectiveness. Surgery may be considered if nonsurgical management is ineffective. (Am Fam Physician. 2024; 109(4): 350–359. Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Family Physicians.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hip pain is a relatively common complaint in sports. It is tempting to blame the athlete's symptoms on labral pathology. However, there is a high incidence of asymptomatic labral disease. Therefore, even when a labral tear is present, it may not be the underlying cause of the patient's pain. Clinicians should familiarize themselves with the large differential diagnosis for hip and pelvis pain to include nonmusculoskeletal pathology. This article reviews nonlabral causes of hip pain in athletes. For ease of classification, the hip is divided into anterior, lateral, and posterior regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses MedFest, a station-based mass screening preparticipation physical examination (PPE), for athletes with intellectual disabilities (ID) which can occur before or during Special Olympics (SO) Games. Topics discussed include basic equipment requirements for MedFest, special considerations in the PPE, and syndromes associated with cardiac defects.

The article discusses the case of an 18-year-old African-American college football player presented for a preparticipation evaluation. The football player denied any history of shortness of breathness, syncope, palpitations or chest pain. The player's vital signs, which include his pulse, blood pressure, height and weight were unremarkable. The case discusses asymptomatic left ventricular noncompaction aimed for athletic participation.

The Building Research Capacity (BRC) initiative was founded in 2015 as a collaboration between the Association of Departments of Family Medicine (ADFM) and the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG). It aims to enhance family medicine research engagement by helping develop researchers, research educators, and research leaders. Through consultations, a fellowship, tailored presentations at national conferences, and ongoing assessment, BRC addresses the dynamic needs of various stakeholders in family medicine research. There is a growing need for organized efforts in primary care research capacity development, and BRC is positioned to provide ongoing leadership and direction. Targeted areas of growth for BRC are expansion and diversification, collaboration, and iterative evaluation and adaptation. A commitment to innovation, inclusivity, and adaptability propels BRC toward transformative growth in family medicine research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Family medicine as a discipline is the foundation of health care systems. In addition to clinical practice and education, research is a professional duty for family physicians. Unfortunately, the culture of family medicine has historically de-emphasized research. As a specialty, our clinical practices provide an excellent opportunity to create patient-oriented evidence that can benefit the patients and communities we serve. To accomplish this task, family medicine should weave curiosity into the fabric of the specialty. To create a culture of curiosity which normalizes the production of practice-based research and scholarship, the authors describe 2 approaches - top-down and grass-roots - that can be used to develop a culture of curiosity among individuals and institutions. Methods to sustain a culture of curiosity that leads to inquiry and creates further improvements in research and scholarship are also described. By harnessing the power of curiosity, we can transform our discipline into one that values and excels in research and scholarship and produces generations of family physicians that will include practice-based research as an essential part of their daily activities., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Osteopathic physicians (DOs) comprise a growing portion of family physicians. In 2023, more DO seniors matched into family medicine than MD seniors, and nearly a quarter of US DO seniors matched into family medicine. Family medicine benefits from the osteopathic philosophy of whole-person care, though this provides challenges regarding research in family medicine. Notably, among students entering family medicine, MD students report an average of 2.4 research activities compared with 1.7 for DO students, marking the lowest values across specialties. There are multifarious reasons for the limited research exposure of osteopathic medical students, and 2 may be amenable to change. First, osteopathic trainees have relatively limited research exposure. Second, osteopathic manipulation training emphasizes techniques that are not compatible with current theories of anatomy and pathology. The reduced research emphasis among osteopathic trainees can be addressed by strategies that focus on enhanced research exposure and a cultural shift toward fearless reevaluation of these inconsistent beliefs. Improvements in research training and culture among osteopathic trainees (including medical students and residents) will directly benefit osteopathic medicine, family medicine, and patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Evaluating research activity in research departments and education programs is conventionally accomplished through measurement of research funding or bibliometrics. This limited perspective of research activity restricts a more comprehensive evaluation of a program's actual research capacity, ultimately hindering efforts to enhance and expand it. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the existing literature pertaining to the measurement of research productivity in research institutions. Using these findings, the study aimed to create a standardized research measurement tool, the Productivity And Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool. The evidence review identified 726 relevant articles in a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar with the keywords "research capacity" and "research productivity." Thirty-nine English-language studies applicable to research measurement were assessed in full and 20 were included in the data extraction. Capacity/productivity metrics were identified, and the relevance of each metric was data-charted according to 3 criteria: the metric was objective, organizational in scale, and applicable to varied research domains. This produced 42 research capacity/productivity metrics that fell into 7 relevant categories: bibliometrics, impact, ongoing research, collaboration activities, funding, personnel, and education/academics. With the expertise of a Delphi panel of researchers, research leaders, and organizational leadership, 31 of these 42 metrics were included in the final PACER Tool. This multifaceted tool enables research departments to benchmark research capacity and research productivity against other programs, monitor capacity development over time, and provide valuable strategic insights for decisions such as resource allocation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors report no financial conflicts of interest., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)