Physical activity (PA) is a key strategy for improving symptoms in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study was to investigate and rank the importance of known barriers and facilitators for engaging in PA, from the perspective of people living with RMD. Five hundred thirty-three people with RMD responded to a survey (nine questions) disseminated by the People with Arthritis and Rheumatism (PARE) network of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). The survey required participants to rank — based on their perceived importance — known PA barriers and facilitators from the literature, and specifically RMD symptoms as well as healthcare and community factors that may affect PA participation. Of the participants, 58% reported rheumatoid arthritis as their primary diagnosis, 89% were female, and 59% were between 51 and 70 years of age. Overall, participants reported fatigue (61.4%), pain (53.6%) and painful/swollen joints (50.6%) as the highest ranked barriers for engaging in PA. Conversely, less fatigue (66.8%) and pain (63.6%), and being able to do daily activities more easy (56.3%) were identified as the most important facilitators to PA. Three literature identified PA barriers, i.e., general health (78.8%), fitness (75.3%) and mental health (68.1%), were also ranked as being the most important for PA engagement. Symptoms of RMDs, such as pain and fatigue, seem to be considered the predominant barriers to PA by people with RMD; the same barriers are also the ones that they want to improve through increasing PA, suggesting a bi-directional relationship between these factors.
BackgroundWorking alliance can possibly influence patients’ experiences of pain and physical functioning. The aim of this systematic review is to merge evidence from literature regarding the influence of patients’ perceived working alliance on pain and physical functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.MethodsA systematic review in which randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were included that assessed the influence of working alliance on either pain or physical functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The methodological quality of the included studies were rated by means of the PEDro score and STROBE statement.ResultsThe first step of the search process provided 1469 studies. After screening, five studies were included in this review including one RCT and four cohort studies of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. One cohort study was rated as low methodological quality and the other studies as high methodological quality. There was a significant effect of working alliance on the outcome of pain severity, pain interference, and physical functioning in all studies. Physical functioning was measured by means of questionnaires and functional capacity tests. The effect on questionnaires was positive; the effect was conflicting on functional capacity.ConclusionWhen influencing pain with treatment, a patient’s perceived working alliance during treatment does predict pain reduction and improvement in physical functioning. It is recommended to inquire about a patient’s working alliance during treatment in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Background: Health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes influence patients’ beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. It is unclear to what extent physiotherapists undertaking a postgraduate master in manual therapy (MT students) possess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience to be able to apply the biopsychosocial model in patients with MSK pain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students. Design: A cross-sectional study. Method: Self-reported knowledge and attitudes were measured among students (n = 662) at baseline and in all years of the MT postgraduate programs in the Netherlands. The Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain questionnaire (KNAP) was used as a primary measure. Difference in KNAP-scores between baseline (0), year 1, year 2 and year 3 was tested using a one-way ANOVA (hypothesis: 0 < 1
