Search

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telerehabilitation allowed the continuation of physical therapy care in parallel with public health measures to prevent the virus spread. However, in low- and middle-income countries including Brazil, telerehabilitation was unfamiliar to most of the population., Objective: To investigate acceptability, preferences, and needs in telerehabilitation by Brazilian physical therapists and the general population., Methods: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study with an online survey consisting of 13 multiple-choice items. Items were distributed among acceptability, preferences, and needs sections, and encompassed confidence in delivering or receiving telerehabilitation, its perceived efficacy and costs, and suitable content., Results: A total of 1107 responses were registered, 717 from physical therapists. Half of them self-reported confidence in conducting telerehabilitation through the internet (synchronous or asynchronous). The same proportion disagreed that telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person interventions. Physical therapists agreed telerehabilitation should contain educational, self-management strategies, and exercises information, but the general population endorsed the provision of technical advice on exercise execution. The general population mostly reported that telerehabilitation could help their specific health condition (86%), but only 14% of respondents would pay the same as they pay for in-person consultations. Participants reported an overall preference for synchronous communication and concern about the lack of a hands-on approach., Conclusion: Physical therapists and the general population appear to demonstrate apprehension towards telerehabilitation. Insufficient preparation or inadequate knowledge might influence participants' acceptance, preferences, and needs., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Dr Fagundes is the CEO of the startup Hi! Healthcare Intelligence, which develops solutions in telerehabilitation for insurance companies. Dr Fagundes was not involved in the data collection or data analysis; he contributed as a stakeholder perspective to validate the research question and design of the study. Dr Saragiotto is advisor of the startup but he did not receive any financial support from the company. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the discriminative and predictive validity of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire Short-Form (ÖMPSQ-Short)., Methods: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, the ÖMPSQ-Short was administered to 150 patients with acute, subacute, and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A 6-month follow-up was also completed to assess the predictive ability of the questionnaire for risk of pain, disability, and absence from work. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, pain numerical rating scale, and additional questions related to work and absence from work were also used., Results: The ÖMPSQ-Short cutoff point was determined by analyzing the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity, which yielded a value of 44 points for the Brazilian population. Analysis of the 2 × 2 contingency tables showed that the ÖMPSQ-Short correctly classified high-risk patients with pain. Predictive capacity was assessed by univariate linear regression analysis. The ÖMPSQ-Short was able to predict pain, disability, and absence from work in patients with acute pain and disability in patients with subacute pain, and disability and absence from work in patients with chronic pain, but with a small predictive capacity., Conclusion: The ÖMPSQ-Short cutoff demonstrated the ability to classify patients with low and high risk of involvement of psychosocial factors. However, due to its small predictive capacity, we suggest that the ÖMPSQ-Short should not be used to predict pain, disability, and absence from work over 6 months. However, we recommend using it as a guide to discuss the patient's clinical condition., (© 2022 by National University of Health Sciences.)

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of an education intervention with or without the addition of the therapeutic alliance to no education intervention in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP) and low risk of poor prognosis., Design: Randomized controlled trial. Randomization was performed using randomly generated numbers., Methods: Two hundred twenty-two patients with nonspecific chronic LBP and low risk of poor prognosis from 2 university physical therapy services in Taubaté, Brazil were randomized into 3 groups: education plus therapeutic alliance, education only, and no education. Primary outcomes were pain (measured with the numeric pain-rating scale) and patient-specific disability (measured with the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), assessed 1 month after randomization. The patients, therapists, and assessors were not blinded due to the nature of the intervention and self-reported outcomes., Results: Patients were recruited between November 2015 and February 2017. There was a loss of 17 (7.6%) follow-up assessments at 1 month, 28 (12.6%) at 6 months, and 31 (13.9%) at 12 months after randomization, and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. There were no significant differences in pain between groups. However, there was a significant improvement in patient-specific disability for the education-plus-therapeutic alliance and education-only groups compared to no education after 1 month (mean difference, -1.41; 95% confidence interval: -2.31, -0.51 and -0.95; 95% confidence interval: -1.85, -0.04, respectively)., Conclusion: An education intervention did not provide clinically relevant improvements in patient-specific disability and did not influence pain in patients with nonspecific chronic LBP and low risk of poor prognosis. Additionally, there was no difference between interventions with or without emphasis on the therapeutic alliance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(8):392-400. Epub 7 May 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9636 .

Objective: The purpose of this study was to translate, cross-culturally adapt to Brazilian Portuguese, and analyze the measurement properties of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure and investigate whether empathy can be a predictor of clinical improvement., Methods: This psychometric study was divided into 2 stages: the cross-cultural adaptation process included 30 patients, and the evaluation of the measurement properties included 106 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. After the third therapy session with the same physical therapist, the following questionnaires were applied to assess internal consistency, construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects: Pain Numerical Rating Scale, Brazilian Portuguese version of the CARE Measure (CARE-Br), MedRisk Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction with Physical Therapy Care, and Global Perceived Effect Scale. To assess reliability and measurement error, the CARE-Br was answered 48 hours later. For prediction analysis of the CARE-Br in relation to clinical improvement, the participants answered the Pain Numerical Rating Scale and Global Perceived Effect Scale 2 months after baseline., Results: The internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach's ɑ = 0.88), reliability was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.77), measurement error was good (standard error of the measurement = 5.16%), and a moderate correlation was found with the MedRisk Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction with Physical Therapy Care ( r = 0.50). A ceiling effect was also found (39.6% of participants). Empathy was not considered a predictor of clinical improvement., Conclusion: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the CARE Measure is reliable, adequate, and applicable in clinical settings and research in Brazil. However, it is not capable of predicting clinical improvement in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Study Design: Correlation and agreement analysis., Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the Brazilian Portuguese versions of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire Short-Form (ÖMPSQ-short) and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST)-Brazil in patients with low back pain and to verify their correlation with disability, kinesiophobia, and pain., Summary of Background Data: The ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST were designed to identify patients at risk of developing pain and disability related to psychosocial factors., Methods: We assessed 130 patients, who answered the ÖMPSQ-short, SBST-Brazil, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, Tampa scale of kinesiophobia, and Pain Numerical Rating scale. The total scores of the ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil were correlated with the other questionnaires. Cross-tabulation and Cohen κ were used to analyze the agreement between the ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil for participant classification as low or high risk for involvement of psychosocial factors., Results: The ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil presented good correlation between total scores (r = 0.73), good correlation with disability (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.72; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.76), and kinesiophobia (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.68; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.60) and moderate correlation with pain in the last episode (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.39; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.48), in last 2 weeks (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.39; SBST: r = 0.43), and current pain (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.39; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.31). Participant classification as high or low risk by the two questionnaires showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.49). A total of 83% of participants were classified correctly by the two questionnaires., Conclusion: The ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil showed good correlation between total scores and moderate agreement for patient classification in relation to the presence of psychosocial factors., Level of Evidence: 3.