Search

With the overall objective of providing implication for clinical and research practices regarding the identification and measurement of modifiable predicting factors for return to work (RTW) in people with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and common mental disorders (CMDs), this study 1) systematically examined and synthetized the research evidence available in the literature on the topic, and 2) critically evaluated the tools used to measure each identified factor. A systematic search of prognostic studies was conducted, considering four groups of keywords: 1) population (i.e., MSDs or CMDs), 2) study design (prospective), 3) modifiable factors, 4) outcomes of interest (i.e., RTW). Studies showing high risk of bias were eliminated. Tools used to measure prognostic factors were assessed using psychometric and usability criteria. From the 78 studies that met inclusion criteria, 19 (for MSDs) and 5 (for CMDs) factors reaching moderate or strong evidence were extracted. These factors included work accommodations, RTW expectations, job demands (physical), job demands (psychological), job strain, work ability, RTW self-efficacy, expectations of recovery, locus of control, referred pain (back pain), activities as assessed with disability questionnaires, pain catastrophizing, coping strategies, fears, illness behaviours, mental vitality, a positive health change, sleep quality, and participation. Measurement tools ranged from single-item tools to multi-item standardized questionnaires or subscales. The former generally showed low psychometric properties but excellent usability, whereas the later showed good to excellent psychometric properties and variable usability. The rigorous approach to the selection of eligible studies allowed the identification of a relatively small set of prognostic factors, but with a higher level of certainty. For each factor, the present tool assessment allows an informed choice to balance psychometric and usability criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, its clinical objective assessment is currently limited. Part of this syndrome arises from the abnormal sensorimotor control of back muscles, involving increased muscle fatigability (i.e., assessed with the Biering–Sorensen test) and abnormal muscle activation patterns (i.e., the flexion–extension test). Surface electromyography (sEMG) provides objective measures of muscle fatigue development (median frequency drop, MDF) and activation patterns (RMS amplitude change). This study therefore assessed the sensitivity and validity of a novel and flexible sEMG system (NSS) based on PEVA electrodes and potentially embeddable in textiles, as a tool for objective clinical LBP assessment. Methods: Twelve participants wearing NSS and a commercial laboratory sEMG system (CSS) performed two clinical tests used in LBP assessment (Biering–Sorensen and flexion–extension). Erector spinae muscle activity was recorded at T12-L1 and L4-L5. Results: NSS showed sensitivity to sEMG changes associated with fatigue development and muscle activations during flexion–extension movements (p < 0.05) that were similar to CSS (p > 0.05). Raw signals showed moderate cross-correlations (MDF: 0.60–0.68; RMS: 0.53–0.62). Adding conductive gel to the PEVA electrodes did not influence sEMG signal interpretation (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This novel sEMG system is promising for assessing electrophysiological indicators of LBP during clinical tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of an in-clinic cervicovestibular rehabilitation program (education, home exercises, manual techniques, sub-symptom threshold aerobic exercise [STAE] program) to a similar program (education, home-exercises, STAE program), but without manual techniques, provided in a telerehabilitation format in adults with persisting post-concussion symptoms (PCS). In this parallel-group non-randomized clinical trial, 41 adults with persisting PCS were allocated to the in-clinic (n = 30) or telerehabilitation (n = 11) program. The outcome measures, which included the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS; primary outcome), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for neck pain and headache and three disability questionnaires, were collected at baseline, weeks 6, 12, and 26. Non-parametric analysis for longitudinal data (NparLD) was used. For the PCSS, there was a group-by-time interaction (p = 0.05) with significant between-group differences at week 6, 12, and 26 (p < 0.05) for the in-clinic group. There were also group-by-time interactions for NPRS neck pain and headache (p < 0.05) for the in-clinic group. The study suggests that a telehealth format failed to reach the efficiency of an in-clinic rehabilitation program in terms of symptoms reduction and functional improvement. These results must be interpreted with caution given the limited number of participants. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03677661. The telerehabilitation format for adults with persisting post-concussion symptoms was widely implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic without any evidence of efficacy over the more traditional in-clinic rehabilitation format. The study suggests that a telerehabilitation format failed to reach the efficiency of an in-clinic rehabilitation program in terms of symptoms reduction and functional improvement. Clinicians should try to incorporate some in-clinic appointments when a telerehabilitation format is required such as for patients in underserved area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

tOBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of personalized, supervised group-based programs (ie, group physical therapy programs) and usual oneon- one physical therapy care (ie, usual physical therapy care) on disability for military personnel suffering from low back pain, rotator cuff--related shoulder pain, patellofemoral pain syndrome, or lateral ankle sprain. Secondary outcomes were pain severity, pain-related fear, health-related quality of life, and patients' satisfaction with their condition and care. tDESIGN: Non-inferiority pragmatic randomized clinical trial. tMETHODS: One hundred twenty military personnel from the Canadian Armed Forces, experiencing 1 of 4 targeted musculoskeletal disorders, were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to group physical therapy programs or usual physical therapy care. Disability, pain severity, pain-related fear, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 26 weeks after baseline. Satisfaction with treatment was evaluated at the end of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses using linear mixed models with random effects were used to compare the effects of interventions. Chi-square tests were used to compare satisfaction. tRESULTS: There were no significant Time - Group interactions for any of the primary and secondary outcomes (Time - Group: P>.67). Satisfaction with treatment also did not differ between groups (P>.05). Statistically significant and clinically important improvements were observed in both groups for all outcomes after 12 weeks (Time effect: P<.01), except for health-related quality of life (P = .13). tCONCLUSION: Group physical therapy programs were not inferior to usual physical therapy care for managing pain, functional capacity, and patients' satisfaction with care of military personnel presenting with various musculoskeletal disorders. Both interventions led to clinical and statistical improvement in pain and function in the mid and long term. Group physical therapy could be an effective strategy to enhance access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal disorder. LBP experiences and expectations can vary from one person to another and influence their clinical outcomes. Despite the existence of numerous evidence‐based treatment recommendations, LBP management in primary care remains challenging. This study aims to investigate the experiences and expectations of patients with LPB in primary care settings. Methods: A qualitative study with an inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Semi‐structured interviews were performed using individuals who had experienced LBP in the past year and had consulted a family physician (FP) or a physiotherapist (PT). Results: Ten participants with LBP were interviewed (5 women, 5 men, mean age 49 ± 17). Five themes were identified: (1) I am always upset because I can't do anything; (2) I waited to consult; I thought it would go away; (3) I want to see what is going on with my LBP; (4) I want to see the person that will provide the right treatment; (5) I needsupportto get over it. Participants consulted when their pain was severe and disabling. They expected an imaging test to explain the cause of their LBP and placed more importance on the imaging test results than the FP's or PT's evaluation. Their opinions on care selection and being listened to were important for the participants. Conclusion: This study has highlighted the importance of the patient's point of view in their care. This consideration is important to ensure a comprehensive and collaborative approach with evidence‐based practice care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]