BACKGROUND: Physical therapists' recommendations to patients to avoid daily physical activity can be influenced by the therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs. Little is known about the amount of influence of a physical therapist's kinesiophobic beliefs on a patient's actual lifting capacity during a lifting test.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the influence of physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs on lifting capacity in healthy people.DESIGN: A blinded, cluster-randomized cross-sectional study was performed.METHODS: The participants (n=256; 105 male, 151 female) were physical therapist students who performed a lifting capacity test. Examiners (n=24) were selected from second-year physical therapist students. Participants in group A (n=124) were tested in the presence of an examiner with high scores on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for health care providers (TSK-HC), and those in group B (n=132) were tested in the presence of an examiner with low scores on the TSK-HC. Mixed-model analyses were performed on lifting capacity to test for possible (interacting) effects.RESULTS: Mean lifting capacity was 32.1 kg (SD=13.6) in group A and 39.6 kg (SD=16.4) in group B. Mixed-model analyses revealed that after controlling for sex, body weight, self-efficacy, and the interaction between the examiners' and participants' kinesiophobic beliefs, the influence of examiners' kinesiophobic beliefs significantly reduced lifting capacity by 14.4 kg in participants with kinesiophobic beliefs and 8.0 kg in those without kinesiophobic beliefs.LIMITATIONS: Generalizability to physical therapists and patients with pain should be studied.CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs negatively influence lifting capacity of healthy adults. During everyday clinical practice, physical therapists should be aware of the influence of their kinesiophobic beliefs on patients' functional ability.
DOCUMENT
CC-BY Applied Ergonomics, 2021, March https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-ergonomics Purpose: To analyze progression of changes in kinematics and work physiology during progressive lifting in healthy adults.Methods: Healthy participants were recruited. A standardized lifting test from the WorkWell Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was administered, with five progressive lifting low series of five repetitions. The criteria of the WorkWell observation protocol were studied: changes in muscle use (EMG), heart rate (heart rate monitor), base of support, posture and movement pattern (motion capture system). Repeated measures ANOVA’s were used to analyze changes during progressive workloads.Results: 18 healthy young adults participated (8 men, 10 women; mean age 22 years). Mean maximum weight lifted was 66 (±3.2) and 44 (±7.4) kg for men and women, respectively. With progressive loads, statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences were observed: increase in secondary muscle use at moderate lifting, increase of heart rate, increase of base of support and movement pattern changes were observed; differences in posture were not significant.Conclusions: Changes in 4 out of 5 kinematic and work physiology parameters were objectively quantified using lab technology during progressive lifting in healthy adults. These changes appear in line with existing observation criteria.
MULTIFILE
We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.
MULTIFILE
INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.CONCLUSIONS: Much heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.
LINK
Objective: Psychophysical lift capacity tests are lifting tests in which the performance, expressed in Newtons, is divided by the perceived exertion, expressed on a Borg scale. The aim of this study was to analyse test-retest reliability of psychophysical lift capacity tests.Subjects: Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (n=20) and healthy subjects (n=20).Methods: Psychophysical lift capacity tests were assessed during a back school intake at the Centre for Rehabilitation of the University Medical Centre Groningen. Patients on the waiting list and healthy subjects were assessed twice, with a 2-week interval between assessments. Intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. An ICC ≥0.75 was considered as an acceptable reliability. Limits of agreement as a measure for natural variation were calculated.Results: The psychophysical static and dynamic lift capacity tests showed good reliability (ICC ≥0.75). The limits of agreement are substantial, indicating a considerable natural variation between test-sessions for all psychophysical tests.Conclusion: The psychophysical static lift capacity and dynamic lifting capacity are reliable instruments for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and healthy subjects. However, a substantial amount of natural variation should be taken into account between 2 test sessions when interpreting the test results clinically.
DOCUMENT
Background: Functional Capacity (FC) is a multidimensional construct within the activity domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF). Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are assessments of work-related FC. The extent to which these work-related FC tests are associated to bio-, psycho-, or social factors is unknown. The aims of this study were to test relationships between FC tests and other ICF factors in a sample of healthy workers, and to determine the amount of statistical variance in FC tests that can be explained by these factors. Methods: A cross sectional study. The sample was comprised of 403 healthy workers who completed material handling FC tests (lifting low, overhead lifting, and carrying) and static work FC tests (overhead working and standing forward bend). The explainable variables were; six muscle strength tests; aerobic capacity test; and questionnaires regarding personal factors (age, gender, body height, body weight, and education), psychological factors (mental health, vitality, and general health perceptions), and social factors (perception of work, physical workloads, sport-, leisure time-, and work-index). A priori construct validity hypotheses were formulated and analyzed by means of correlation coefficients and regression analyses. Results: Moderate correlations were detected between material handling FC tests and muscle strength, gender, body weight, and body height. As for static work FC tests; overhead working correlated fair with aerobic capacity and handgrip strength, and low with the sport-index and perception of work. For standing forward bend FC test, all hypotheses were rejected. The regression model revealed that 61% to 62% of material handling FC tests were explained by physical factors. Five to 15% of static work FC tests were explained by physical and social factors. Conclusions: The current study revealed that, in a sample of healthy workers, material handling FC tests were related to physical factors but not to the psychosocial factors measured in this study. The construct of static work FC tests remained largely unexplained.
LINK
OBJECTIVE: Change in psychophysical capacity, calculated as the ratio between physical capacity and perceived effort, may be a determinant of change in perceived disability. The aim of this study was to identify determinants for change in perceived disability, as measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain after rehabilitation.METHODS: Data were gathered for 84 outpatients. Psychophysical capacity (psychophysical static leg lift, psychophysical static trunk lift, and psychophysical dynamic lifting capacity), physical lifting capacity, perceived lifting effort, aerobic capacity and RMDQ were assessed. Associations between change in RMDQ and potential determinants were calculated. Variables associated with change in RMDQ were entered in a multivariate linear regression analysis (backward).RESULTS: Change in psychophysical static trunk lift (r = -0.51), psychophysical dynamic lifting capacity (r = -0.53) and psycho-physical static leg lift capacity (r = -0.23) were significantly associated with change in RMDQ. The RMDQ score at baseline (beta = -0.438), change in psychophysical dynamic lifting capacity (beta = -0.109), psychophysical static trunk lift capacity (beta = -0.038), psychophysical static leg lift capacity (beta = -0.012) and static leg lift capacity (beta = 0.007) all contributed significantly to the regression model (r2 = 52%).CONCLUSION: Improvements in psychophysical lifting capacity are determinants for a reduction in perceived disability.
DOCUMENT
Musculoskeletal pain is caused by risk factors for acquiring pain and prognostic factors for the persistence of prolonged pain and is the number one causal reason for restricted participation at work. Many studies have been performed on the reasons for acquiring and the continuance of musculoskeletal pain, however, a comprehensive overview does not exist. Musculoskeletal pain may result in a reduction of the ability to perform physical work.To determine whether a person’s functional capacity is high enough to performwork, standardized functional capacity tests can be executed. One example offunctional capacity tests is to measure lifting capacity. These tests are defined as an evaluation of the capacity of activities that is used to make recommendations for participation in work while considering the person’s body functions and structures, environmental factors, personal factors and health status. How many of the latter components that should be taken into account are unclear. The results of this study can support health care professionals providing care to patients in the field of work participation by making informed decisions during diagnostic procedures.
DOCUMENT
Patient-physiotherapist interactions may affect a person’s physicalfunctioning. Previous studies showed that Physical Therapists (PTs)who believe that specific activities might result in re-injuries are morelikely to stimulate patients to stay inactive.
DOCUMENT
