BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) may be a relevant comorbidity when managing people with low back or pelvic girdle pain. It is unknown how often physiotherapists inquire about LUTS, and what the potential barriers and facilitators are to inquire about LUTS in this patient population.OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency of inquiring about LUTS, and to identify the barriers and facilitators among physiotherapists with and without additional pelvic health training to ask for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic girdle pain.DESIGN: A qualitative study using thematic analysis.METHODS: Through purposeful sampling, 29 primary care physiotherapists were interviewed (16 physiotherapists and 13 physiotherapists with additional pelvic health training). Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding facilitators and barriers.FINDINGS: The frequency of inquiring about LUTS was: 'never': 10%, 'sometimes': 38%, and 'always': 52%. Four barriers were identified: (1) lack of knowledge of the physiotherapist, (2) a standardised assessment approach which did not include LUTS, (3) patient expectations assumed by the physiotherapist, and (4) social, cultural and personal barriers. Three facilitators were identified: (1) communication skills and experience of the physiotherapist, (2) education and knowledge, and (3) interprofessional consultation and referral.CONCLUSION: The majority of physiotherapists surveyed in this study regularly asked for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic pain. For when not asked, the identified barriers seem modifiable with adequate training, knowledge and skill acquisition, and sound clinical reasoning.
DOCUMENT
Background: Previous systematic reviews revealed poor reliability and validity for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mobility tests. However, these reviews were published nearly 20 years ago and recent evidence has not yet been summarised. Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date systematic review to verify whether recommendations regarding the clinical use of SIJ mobility tests should be revised. Study design: Systematic review. Method: The literature was searched for relevant articles via 5 electronic databases. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality. Studies were included if they had at least fair methodology and reported clinimetric properties of SIJ mobility tests performed in adult patients with non-specific low back pain, pelvic (girdle) pain and/or SIJ pain. Only tests that can be performed in a clinical setting were considered. Results: Twelve relevant articles were identified, of which three were of sufficient methodological quality. These three studies evaluated the reliability of eight SIJ mobility tests and one test cluster. For the majority of individual tests, the intertester reliability showed slight to fair agreement. Although some tests and one test cluster had higher reliability, the confidence intervals around most reliability estimates were large. Furthermore, there were no validity studies of sufficient methodological quality. Conclusion: Considering the low and/or imprecise reliability estimates, the absence of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies, and the uncertainty regarding the construct these tests aim to measure, this review supports the previous recommendations that the use of SIJ mobility tests in clinical practice is problematic.
LINK
BACKGROUND: Observation of movement quality (MQ) is an indelible element in the process of clinical reasoning for patients with non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP). However, the observation and evaluation of MQ in common daily activities are not standardized within allied health care. This study aims to describe how Dutch allied health care professionals (AHCPs) observe and assess MQ in patients with NS-LBP and whether AHCPs feel the need to have a specific outcome measure for assessing MQ in patients with NS-LBP.METHODS: In this cross-sectional digital survey study, Dutch primary care AHCPs (n = 114) answered one open and three closed questions about MQ in NS-LBP management. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were applied.RESULTS: Qualitative analyses of the answers to the open questions revealed four main themes: 1) movement pattern features, 2) motor control features, 3) environmental influences and 4) non-verbal expressions of pain and exertion. Quantitative analyses clearly indicated that AHCPs observe MQ in the diagnostic (92%), therapeutic (91%) and evaluation phases (86%), that they do not apply any objective measurement of MQ and that 63% of the AHCPs consider it important to have a specific outcome measure to assess MQ. The AHCPs expressed added benefits and critical notes regarding clinical reasoning and quality of care.CONCLUSION: AHCPs recognize the importance of observing MQ in the assessment and management of LBP in a standardized way. However, there is no consensus amongst AHCPs how MQ should be standardized. Prior to standardization, it will be important to develop a theoretical framework to determine which observable and measurable dimensions of MQ are most valid and relevant for patients with NS-LBP to include in the assessment.
DOCUMENT
