Background: The purpose of this study was to explore physiotherapists’ knowledge, attitude, and practice behavior in assessing and managing patients with non-specific, non-traumatic, acute- and subacute neck pain, with a focus on prognostic factors for chronification. Method: A qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews was conducted with 13 physiotherapists working in primary care. A purposive sampling method served to seek the broadest perspectives. The knowledgeattitude and practice framework was used as an analytic lens throughout the process. Textual data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach and constant comparison. Results: Seven main themes emerged from the data; physiotherapists self-estimated knowledge and attitude, role clarity, therapeutic relationship, internal- and external barriers to practice behavior, physiotherapists’ practice behaviors, and self-reflection. These findings are presented in an adjusted knowledge-attitude and practice behavior framework. Conclusion: A complex relationship was found between a physiotherapist’s knowledge about, attitude, and practice behavior concerning the diagnostic process and interventions for non-specific, non-traumatic, acute, and subacute neck pain. Overall, physiotherapists used a biopsychosocial view of patients with non-specific neck pain. Physiotherapists’ practice behaviors was influenced by individual attitudes towards their professional role and therapeutic relationship with the patient, and individual knowledge and skills, personal routines and habits, the feeling of powerlessness to modify patients’ external factors, and patients’ lack of willingness to a biopsychosocial approach influenced physiotherapists’ clinical decisions. In addition, we found self-reflection to have an essential role in developing self-estimated knowledge and change in attitude towards their therapeutic role and therapist-patient relationship.
MULTIFILE
Purpose To empirically define the concept of burden of neck pain. The lack of a clear understanding of this construct from the perspective of persons with neck pain and care providers hampers adequate measurement of this burden. An additional aim was to compare the conceptual model obtained with the frequently used Neck Disability Index (NDI). Methods Concept mapping, combining qualitative (nominal group technique and group consensus) and quantitative research methods (cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling), was applied to groups of persons with neck pain (n = 3) and professionals treating persons with neck pain (n = 2). Group members generated statements, which were organized into concept maps. Group members achieved consensus about the number and description of domains and the researchers then generated an overall mind map covering the full breadth of the burden of neck pain. Results Concept mapping revealed 12 domains of burden of neck pain: impaired mobility neck, neck pain, fatigue/concentration, physical complaints, psychological aspects/consequences, activities of daily living, social participation, financial consequences, difficult to treat/difficult to diagnose, difference of opinion with care providers, incomprehension by social environment, and how person with neck pain deal with complaints. All ten items of the NDI could be linked to the mind map, but the NDI measures only part of the burden of neck pain. Conclusion This study revealed the relevant domains for the burden of neck pain from the viewpoints of persons with neck pain and their care providers. These results can guide the identification of existing measurements instruments for each domain or the development of new ones to measure the burden of neck pain.
DOCUMENT
The general aim of this dissertation is to gain insight into the physiotherapeutic validity of physiotherapy research in subjects with non-specific neck pain. Chapter 1 describes the background of the research and the research questions and gives an overview of the studies performed. Chapter 2 presents the results of a systematic review (SR) of the completeness of the clinical reasoning process within the methodology of the RCT in patients with non-specific neck pain. For the SR analysis 122 studies were included. In the majority of studies (70%) the described clinical reasoning process was incomplete. There was scarcely any association between the degree of risk of bias and the completeness of the clinical reasoning process, indicating that better methodological quality does not necessarily imply a better description of clinical reasoning process. Chapter 3 presents the results of a SR in which we sought to identify published classification systems with a targeted treatment approach (treatment-based classification systems (TBCSs)) for patients with non-specific neck pain. Thirteen TBCSs were identified. In conclusion, existing treatment-based classification systems are of moderate quality at best. Moreover, these systems were not more effective than alternative treatments. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of these systems in daily physiotherapy practice. Chapter 4 describes a Delphi study of the clinical reasoning process of physiotherapy experts in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain. This study had three goals. First, we aimed explore the expert opinions on the indication for physiotherapy when, other than neck pain, there are no positive signs and symptoms, no positive diagnostic tests or complaints of limitations in functioning or restrictions in participation. Second, we focused on the experts' use of measurement tools and when they are used to support and objectify the clinical reasoning process. Finally, we wanted to reach consensus among experts on the use of unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain. According to all experts, pain alone was not considered to be an indication for physiotherapy. Patient reported outcome measures were mainly used for evaluative purposes and physical tests for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. Only 6 of the 18 variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning reached a consensus of more than 50%. Chapter 5 describes a review that examined the completeness of the description of manipulation and mobilization interventions in randomized controlled trials of subjects with non-specific neck pain. In conclusion, mobilization or manipulation interventions are poorly reported in RCTs, compromising the external validity of RCTs, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to replicate these interventions. Chapter 6 investigated the diagnostic physiotherapeutic process regarding limited ROM of the neck. It can be concluded that the overall diagnostic accuracy of physical examination is limited (compared to the CROM measurement). Therefore, a measurement device should be used in daily physical therapy practice to assess if a movement direction is restricted. Chapter 7 describes an exploratory, practice-oriented study into matched treatments in patients with non-specific neck pain. The objective of this study was 1) to establish the measurement error of the used accelerometer; 2) To determine which different treatments are used; 3) To explore if the cervical ROM, pain, (perceived) disability and motor control improved after one treatment. The SCT is a reliable accelerometer for measuring neck ROM, with a small measurement error. Eight different treatments were carried out. Pain, disability and left and right rotation showed a clinically relevant improvements (exceeded the measurement error). Chapter 8 comprises the general discussion. The general discussion presents an overview of this dissertation and discusses the strengths and limitations of the studies and possible implications of the results and recommendations for future research.
LINK
Meestal is er geen specifieke oorzaak te vinden voor nekpijn. Fysiotherapie richt zich daarom op algemene zaken, zoals spierkracht en beweeglijkheid. We onderzoeken of er effectieve behandelingen zijn voor subgroepen met niet-specifieke nekpijn. Met deze inzichten kunnen we fysiotherapie verbeteren.Doel We willen inzicht krijgen in effectieve behandelingen bij subgroepen patiënten met niet-specifieke nekpijn. Dit leidt uiteindelijk tot kostenvermindering voor de maatschappij en een sneller en beter herstel van de patiënten. Resultaten Dit onderzoek loopt nog. Na afronding vind je hier een samenvatting van alle resultaten. Tot nu toe is duidelijk geworden dat de volgende behandelingen effectief kunnen zijn bij patiënten met niet-specifieke nekpijn: Behandelingen gericht op kracht en uithoudingsvermogen. Behandelingen gericht op coördinatie met gebruik van visuele feedback. Een voorbeeld hiervan is patiënten met een laserlamp een parcours laten uitvoeren op een scherm. De resultaten van het onderzoek worden verwerkt in het bachelor- en masteronderwijs en cursussen binnen het werkveld. Looptijd 01 december 2015 - 01 december 2020 Aanpak Dit onderzoek bestaat uit verschillende delen: We onderzoeken wat er vanuit wetenschappelijk onderzoek al bekend is over de relatie tussen beperking in activiteit en een passende behandeling. We voeren een Delphi-studie uit onder deskundigen naar het behandelen van mensen met niet-specifieke nekpijn. We vragen ze naar een overeenstemming over de relatie tussen beperking in activiteit en een algemene behandeling, zoals het trainen van spierkracht. We onderzoeken of beweegoefeningen en/of manipulaties, als meest onderzochte behandelingen bij mensen met nekpijn, zo zijn beschreven dat we het kunnen hergebruiken. In de laatste studie onderzoeken we of beweegoefeningen en/of manipulaties effectief zijn in het herstellen van de beweeglijkheid. Het gaat hierbij om een subgroep van mensen met nekpijn die ook beperkt zijn in hun beweeglijkheid. Rapporten tot nu toe: The clinical reasoning process in randomized clinical trials with patients with non-specific neck pain is incomplete: A systematic review. Maissan F, Pool J, de Raaij E, Mollema J, Ostelo R, Wittink H. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Jun;35:8-17 Clinical reasoning in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily physiotherapy practice, a Delphi study. Maissan F, Pool J, Stutterheim E, Wittink H, Ostelo R., Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Oct;37:8-16
