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.

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.