Search

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences regarding the number of treatment sessions, costs, and outcomes (including relapses) between a regular payment-per-session system and the recently introduced product payment system in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Dutch physical therapy practices in primary care over a 2-year period. PARTICIPANTS: 16,103 patients with low back pain (LBP). INTERVENTION: The new product payment system is compared with the regular payment-per-session system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, disability, recovery, number of physical therapy sessions, therapy duration, costs (per episode), and LBP relapse. RESULTS: At baseline, we found greater pain and disability scores associated with an increased risk profile in both payment systems. With regard to the payment systems, we found greater costs (€283.8 vs €210.8) and a greater percentage of relapse (4.5% vs 2.8%) for the product payment system compared with the payment-per-session system. Comparing the 2 payment systems within each risk strata, we found no significant differences, except for a decrease in pain in the medium-risk stratum. Concerning the therapy characteristics, we found that in the payment-per-session group, the therapy took 6 days longer for low-risk patients (median 27 vs 21 days) and 7 days shorter for high-risk patients (median 42 vs 49 days) compared with the product payment group. Moreover, the mean number of sessions in the payment-per-session group was greater for low-risk patients (5.4 vs 4.8 sessions) and lower for high-risk patients (7.7 vs 8.1 sessions) compared with the payment-per-session group. Finally, the costs were significantly greater in all strata of the product payment group compared with the payment-per-session group. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 payment systems are largely comparable regarding patient outcomes, therapy duration, and treatment sessions. Both the average cost per patient per LBP episode and the number of relapses in the product paymen

OBJECTIVES: To compare prevalence rates of serious and non-serious adverse events after manipulation and mobilization and to identify risk factors of serious and non-serious adverse events following 4 types of manual therapy treatment in patients with neck pain. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study in primary care manual therapy practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with neck pain (N=686) provided data on adverse events after 1014 manipulation treatments, 829 mobilization treatments, 437 combined manipulation and mobilization treatments, and 891 treatments consisting of "other treatment modality". INTERVENTIONS: Usual care manual therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A chi-square test was performed to explore differences in prevalence rates. Logistic regression analysis was performed within the 4 treatment groups. A priori we defined associations between patient-characteristics and adverse events of odds ratio (OR)>2 or OR<0.5 as clinically relevant. RESULTS: No serious adverse events, such as cervical artery dissection or stroke, were reported. With regard to non-serious adverse events, we found that these are common after manual therapy treatment: prevalence rates are ranging from 0.3% to 64.7%. We found a statistically significant difference between the 4 types of treatments, detrimental to mobilization treatment. Logistic regression analysis resulted in 3 main predictors related to non-serious adverse events after manual therapy treatment: smoking (OR ranges from 2.10 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.11] to 3.33 [95% CI 1.83-5.93]), the presence of comorbidity (OR ranges from 2.32 [95% CI 1.22-4.44] to 3.88 [95% CI 1.62-9.26]), and female sex (OR ranges from 0.22 [95% CI 0.11-0.46] to 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.86]). CONCLUSION: There is a significant difference in the occurrence of non-serious adverse events after mobilization compared with manipulation or a combination of manipulation and mobilization. Non-serious adverse events in manual therapy practice are common and are a

Introduction: Lifestyle factors are expected to contribute to the persistence and burden of low-back pain (LBP). However, there are no systematic reviews on the (cost-)effectiveness of combined lifestyle interventions for overweight or obese people with LBP. Aim: To assess whether combined lifestyle interventions are (cost-)effective for people with persistent LBP who are overweight or obese, based on a systematic review. Design: Systematic review Method: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Wiley/Cochrane Library were searched from database inception till January 6th 2023. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data-extraction and risk of bias scoring using the Cochrane RoB tool 2 and/or the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. GRADE was used to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. Results: In total 2510 records were screened, and 4 studies on 3 original RCTs with 216 participants were included. Low certainty evidence (1 study) showed that combined lifestyle interventions were not superior to usual care for physical functioning, pain and lifestyle outcomes. Compared to usual care, moderate certainty evidence showed that healthcare (-$292, 95%CI: 872; −33), medication (-$30, 95% CI -65; −4) and absenteeism costs (-$1000, 95%CI: 3573; −210) were lower for the combined lifestyle interventions. Conclusion: There is low certainty evidence from 3 studies with predominantly small sample sizes, short follow-up and low intervention adherence that combined lifestyle interventions are not superior to physical functioning, pain and lifestyle outcomes compared to usual care, but are likely to be cost-effective.

Background: Back pain is common among older adults resulting in the high societal and economic burden of persistent pain and disability. Pain medications are frequently prescribed for back pain, especially among older patients, but the efficacy of analgesics on back pain in this patient population remains under debate. In the present study, we investigated the outcomes (i.e. pain intensity and disability) of pain medication use in older people with back pain participating in a prospective cohort study. Methods: A total of 669 patients aged >55 years consulting a general practitioner for a new episode of back complaints were included in this study. The association between pain medication use and outcomes (pain intensity and disability) was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Results: Pain medication users were observed to experience more pain and disability at baseline compared with non-users. At 3-month follow-up, patients from all subgroups (e.g. pain medication users versus non-users) improved over time. Yet medication users had higher pain intensity and poorer disability scores compared with non-users. Patients who de-escalated or stopped pain medication had lower pain and disability than non-users. When comparing different types of medications (i.e. paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids), none of the groups showed better scores regarding pain and disability in users compared with non-users. Opioid users displayed the highest levels of pain and disability. Conclusions: In the present study, although patients who de-escalated or stopped analgesics had less pain and disability, pain medication overall does not result in better outcomes in older people with back pain. Significance: Older patients taking pain medication did not report better outcomes than the ones who did not, except for those who de-escalated or stopped pain medication. Caution should be taken in prescribing pain medication for older patients with back pain in primary care.

Dance Movement Therapy (DMT) is an established treatment in mental health care for clients with a personality disorder (PD). Literature on DMT and personality disorder shows that self-regulation, interpersonal relationships, and cognition are key objectives to focus on during the clinical application of DMT for PD. To date, no systematic descriptions of DMT interventions for PD are available. A systematic review of the literature concluded that DMT interventions in PD mainly covered body-oriented approaches and cognitive strategies. This study aimed to collect opinions from expert dance movement therapists on applications of a DMT intervention for PD, and more specifically, the use of dance-informed procedures, such as improvisation and choreography. A Delphi approach was used to arrive at a consensus between five participants (DMT experts). From these findings, a systematised intervention description is presented for clinical application of DMT for PD clients that can be implemented and used for efficacy research. The intervention consists of three phases, with a focus on (I) embodied presence and somatic/sensory awareness, (II) dance improvisation and (III) choreography. These foci could enhance (body) self-efficacy beliefs, emotion regulation, the integration of experiences and healthy interpersonal functioning.

Study design: A cross-sectional inter-examiner agreement and reliability study among physical therapists in primary care. Background: musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSU) is frequently used by physical therapists to improve specific diagnosis in patients with shoulder pain, especially for the diagnosis rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) including tears. Objectives: To estimate the inter-examiner agreement and reliability in physical therapists using MSU for patients with shoulder pain. Methods: Physical therapists performed diagnostic MSU in 62 patients with shoulder pain. Both physical therapists were blinded to each other's results and patients were not informed about the test results. We calculated the overall inter-examiner agreement, specific positive and negative inter-examiner agreement, and inter-examiner reliability (Cohen's Kappa's). Results: Overall agreement for detecting RC ruptures ranged from 61.7% to 85.5% and from 43.9% to 91.4% for specific positive agreement. The specific negative agreement was lower with values ranging from 44.4% to 79.1% for RC ruptures. Overall agreement for other pathology than ruptures related to SAPS, ranged from 72.6% to 93.6% and from 77.3% to 96% for specific positive agreement. The specific negative agreement was lower with values ranging from 44.4% to 79.1% for RC ruptures and 52.5%–83.3% for other pathology than ruptures related to SAPS. Reliability values varied from substantial for any thickness ruptures to moderate for partial thickness ruptures and fair for full thickness tears. Moreover, reliability was fair for cuff tendinopathy. The reliability for AC arthritis and no pathology found was fair and moderate. There was substantial agreement for the calcifying tendinopathy. Conclusions: Physical therapists using MSU agree on the diagnosis of cuff tendinopathy and on the presence of RCT in primary care, but agree less on the absence of pathology.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Objectives: Development and internal validation of prognostic models for post-treatment and 1-year recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Primary care manual therapy practices. Participants: Patients with non-specific neck pain of any duration (n = 1193). Intervention: Usual care manual therapy. Outcome measures: Recovery defined in terms of pain intensity, disability, and global perceived improvement directly post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. Results: All post-treatment models exhibited acceptable discriminative performance after derivation (AUC ≥ 0.7). The developed post-treatment disability model exhibited the best overall performance (R2 = 0.24; IQR, 0.22–0.26), discrimination (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.84), and calibration (slope 0.92; IQR, 0.91–0.93). After internal validation and penalization, this model retained acceptable discriminative performance (AUC = 0.74). The five other models, including those predicting 1-year recovery, did not reach acceptable discriminative performance after internal validation. Baseline pain duration, disability, and pain intensity were consistent predictors across models. Conclusion: A post-treatment prognostic model for disability was successfully developed and internally validated. This model has potential to inform primary care clinicians about a patient’s individual prognosis after treatment, but external validation is required before clinical use can be recommended.

The aim of this study is to compare Dutch usual care musculoskeletal therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain with recommendations from international clinical practice guidelines. Physical therapy is diverse, as it may consist of exercise, massage, advice, and other modalities. Physical therapists with post graduate qualifications in manual therapy (MT) may additionally apply spinal thrust manipulation or non-thrust mobilization techniques to treat neck pain. It is important that, in the absence of a Dutch clinical guideline for the treatment of patients with neck pain, musculoskeletal therapists use the available recommendations from international clinical practice guidelines when treating patients with neck pain. One updated clinical practice guideline was identified (Blanpied, 2017), a report from the Task Force on Neck Pain (Guzman et al., 2008) and the IFOMPT International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for potential of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction prior to Orthopaedic Manual Therapy Intervention (Rushton et al., 2014). At baseline 1193 patients are included and data with regard to pain, disability, fear avoidance, expectations and applied treatment modalities are gathered. Outcome is measured using the Global Perceived Effect questionnaire. Results show that patients with acute neck pain are treated significantly more often with manipulation compared to patients with sub-acute or chronic neck pain (p < .000) and younger patients are treated with manipulation more often than older patients (p < .000). In the presence of comorbidity, the preference of spinal manipulation seems to diminish, in favour of mobilization and exercise. Almost every patient receives multimodal therapy (94.3%) and spinal manipulation and mobilization are rarely used as a stand-alone treatment (4.5% and 0.8%). Dutch musculoskeletal therapists choose treatment strategies that correspond with recommendations from international guidelines.