Search

The human resources needed to provide health promotion services to improve health behaviors in populations are currently limited. Health promotion and education is included in the definition of massage therapy, and many within the massage therapy profession understand that health promotion and education are a part of massage therapy practice. However, the amounts and types of health promotion activities in massage therapy practice have not been thoroughly explored. The objective of this study was to investigate the current attitudes, practices, and barriers toward providing health promotion in a national sample of practicing massage therapists. A descriptive cross-sectional survey disseminated May to August 2016 to practicing massage therapists in the United States. The majority (90.2%) of the 182 participants agree or strongly agree that it is important for massage therapists to provide health promotion. Therapists with less favorable attitudes about providing health promotion reported more barriers to providing the messages to their patients. Barriers to providing health promotion included a lack of guidelines, knowledge, and skills. Training and guidelines for massage therapists regarding health promotion would be a reasonable next step for future research development. Utilizing massage therapists as health promoters may provide opportunities to deliver more prevention messages to patients which may impact public health.

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy of shoe orthotics with and without chiropractic treatment for chronic low back pain compared with no treatment., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Setting: Integrative medicine teaching clinic at a university., Participants: Adult subjects (N=225) with symptomatic low back pain of ≥3 months were recruited from a volunteer sample., Interventions: Subjects were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups (shoe orthotic, plus, and waitlist groups). The shoe orthotic group received custom-made shoe orthotics. The plus group received custom-made orthotics plus chiropractic manipulation, hot or cold packs, and manual soft tissue massage. The waitlist group received no care., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were change in perceived back pain (numerical pain rating scale) and functional health status (Oswestry Disability Index) after 6 weeks of study participation. Outcomes were also assessed after 12 weeks and then after an additional 3, 6, and 12 months., Results: After 6 weeks, all 3 groups demonstrated significant within-group improvement in average back pain, but only the shoe orthotic and plus groups had significant within-group improvement in function. When compared with the waitlist group, the shoe orthotic group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in pain (P<.0001) and function (P=.0068). The addition of chiropractic to orthotics treatment demonstrated significantly greater improvements in function (P=.0278) when compared with orthotics alone, but no significant difference in pain (P=.3431). Group differences at 12 weeks and later were not significant., Conclusions: Six weeks of prescription shoe orthotics significantly improved back pain and dysfunction compared with no treatment. The addition of chiropractic care led to higher improvements in function., (Copyright © 2017 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this pilot clinical trial was to assess the feasibility of recruiting older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) into a clinical trial that used different dosages of flexion-distraction manipulation., Methods: This randomized controlled trial used a 4-group design. Three groups consisted of chiropractic flexion-distraction manipulation applied at different dosages (8, 12, or 18 treatments). The fourth group was given 8 treatments of placebo care. Feasibility measures included recruitment goals, adherence to various treatment schedules, credibility of the placebo treatment, and rates of adverse events. The primary outcome measure was the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, a validated self-report of LSS symptom severity and physical function., Results: The recruitment and adherence goals of the study were met with a total of 60 subjects randomized (n = 15 per group) and most subjects attending at least 75% of their scheduled visits. No adverse events were reported by any of the subjects in the trial. Our placebo treatment did not appear to be credible; most subjects correctly guessed that they were receiving a placebo treatment. Between-group effect size estimates were small, indicating larger samples are needed for future studies., Conclusion: This pilot study showed that it is feasible to recruit patients with LSS and that most subjects will adhere to a 6-week treatment schedule. The information gained from this trial will be useful to inform the design of larger trials., (Copyright © 2014 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to quantify lumbar zygapophyseal (Z) joint space separation (gapping) in low back pain (LBP) subjects after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or side-posture positioning (SPP)., Methods: This was a controlled mechanisms trial with randomization and blinding. Acute LBP subjects (N = 112; four n = 28 magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] protocol groups) had 2 MRI appointments (initial enrollment and after 2 weeks of chiropractic treatment, receiving 2 MRI scans of the L4/L5 and L5/S1 Z joints at each MRI appointment. After the first MRI scan of each appointment, subjects were randomized (initial enrollment appointment) or assigned (after 2 weeks of chiropractic treatment appointment) into SPP (nonmanipulation), SMT (manipulation), or control MRI protocol groups. After SPP or SMT, a second MRI was taken. The central anterior-posterior joint space was measured. Difference between most painful side anterior-posterior measurements taken postintervention and preintervention was the Z joint "gapping difference." Gapping differences were compared (analysis of variance) among protocol groups. Secondary measures of pain (visual analog scale, verbal numeric pain rating scale) and function (Bournemouth questionnaire) were assessed., Results: Gapping differences were significant at the first (adjusted, P = .009; SPP, 0.66 ± 0.48 mm; SMT, 0.23 ± 0.86; control, 0.18 ± 0.71) and second (adjusted, P = .0005; SPP, 0.65 ± 0.92 mm; SMT, 0.89 ± 0.71; control, 0.35 ± 0.32) MRI appointments. Verbal numeric pain rating scale differences were significant at first MRI appointment (P = .04) with SMT showing the greatest improvement. Visual analog scale and Bournemouth questionnaire improved after 2 weeks of care in all groups (both P < .0001)., Conclusions: Side-posture positioning showed greatest gapping at baseline. After 2 weeks, SMT resulted in greatest gapping. Side-posture positioning appeared to have additive therapeutic benefit to SMT., (Copyright © 2013 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to use previously validated methods to quantify and relate 2 phenomena associated with chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT): (1) cavitation and (2) the simultaneous gapping (separation) of the lumbar zygapophyseal (Z) joint spaces., Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, mechanistic clinical trial with blinding. Forty healthy participants (18-30 years old) without a history of low-back pain participated. Seven accelerometers were affixed to the skin overlying the spinous processes of L1 to L5 and the S1 and S2 sacral tubercles. Two additional accelerometers were positioned 3 cm left and right lateral to the L4/L5 interspinous space. Participants were randomized into group 1, side-posture SMT (n = 30), or group 2, side-posture positioning (SPP, n = 10). Cavitations were determined by accelerometer recordings during SMT and SPP (left side = upside for both groups); gapping (gapping difference) was determined by the difference between pre- and postintervention magnetic resonance imaging scan joint space measurements. Results of mean gapping differences were compared., Results: Upside SMT and SPP joints gapped more than downside joints (0.69 vs -0.17 mm, P < .0001). Spinal manipulative therapy upside joints gapped more than SPP upside joints (0.75 vs 0.52 mm, P = .03). Spinal manipulative therapy upside joints gapped more in men than in women (1.01 vs 0.49 mm, P < .002). Overall, joints that cavitated gapped more than those that did not (0.56 vs 0.22 mm, P = .01). No relationship was found between the occurrence of cavitation and gapping with upside joints alone (P = .43)., Conclusions: Zygapophyseal joints receiving chiropractic SMT gapped more than those receiving SPP alone; Z joints of men gapped more than those of women, and cavitation indicated that a joint had gapped but not how much a joint had gapped., (Copyright © 2012 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This project determined the location and distribution of cavitations (producing vibrations and audible sounds) in the lumbar zygapophyseal (Z) joints that were targeted by spinal manipulative therapy (SMT)., Methods: This randomized, controlled, clinical study assessed 40 healthy subjects (20 men, 20 women) 18 to 30 years of age who were block randomized into SMT (group 1, n = 30) or side-posture positioning only (group 2; control, n = 10) groups. Nine accelerometers were placed on each patient (7 on spinous processes/sacral tubercles of L1-S2 and 2 placed 3 cm left and right lateral to the L4/L5 interspinous space). Accelerometer recordings were made during side-posture positioning (groups 1 and 2) and SMT (group 1 only). The SMT was delivered by a chiropractic physician with 19 years of practice experience and included 2 high-velocity, low-amplitude thrusts delivered in rapid succession. Comparisons using χ(2) or McNemar test were made between number of joints cavitating from group 1 vs group 2, upside (contact side for SMT) vs downside, and Z joints within the target area (L3/L4, L4L5, L5/S1) vs outside the target area (L1/L2, L2/L3, sacroiliac)., Results: Fifty-six cavitations were recorded from 46 joints of 40 subjects. Eight joints cavitated more than once. Group 1 joints cavitated more than group 2 joints (P < .0001), upside joints cavitated more than downside joints (P < .0001), and joints inside the target area cavitated more than those outside the target area (P < .01)., Conclusions: Most cavitations (93.5%) occurred on the upside of SMT subjects in segments within the target area (71.7%). As expected, SMT subjects cavitated more frequently than did subjects with side-posture positioning only (96.7% vs 30%). Multiple cavitations from the same Z joints had not been previously reported., (Copyright © 2011 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this article is to describe the methods for recruitment in a clinical trial on chiropractic care for lumbar spinal stenosis., Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study investigated the efficacy of different amounts of total treatment dosage over 6 weeks in 60 volunteer subjects with lumbar spinal stenosis. Subjects were recruited for this study through several media venues, focusing on successful and cost-effective strategies. Included in our efforts were radio advertising, newspaper advertising, direct mail, and various other low-cost initiatives., Results: Of the 1211 telephone screens, 60 responders (5.0%) were randomized into the study. The most successful recruitment method was radio advertising, generating more than 64% of the calls (776 subjects). Newspaper and magazine advertising generated approximately 9% of all calls (108 subjects), and direct mail generated less than 7% (79 subjects). The total direct cost for recruitment was $40 740 or $679 per randomized patient. The costs per randomization were highest for direct mail ($995 per randomization) and lowest for newspaper/magazine advertising ($558 per randomization)., Conclusions: Success of recruitment methods may vary based on target population and location. Planning of recruitment efforts is essential to the success of any clinical trial., (Copyright 2010 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)