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
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
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
Objective To develop and internally validate a prognostic model to predict chronic pain after a new episode of acute or subacute non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain in patients presenting to physiotherapy primary care, emphasising modifiable biomedical, psychological and social factors. Design A prospective cohort study with a 6-month follow-up between January 2020 and March 2023. Setting 30 physiotherapy primary care practices. Participants Patients with a new presentation of non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain, with a duration lasting no longer than 12 weeks from onset. Baseline measures Candidate prognostic variables collected from participants included age and sex, neck pain symptoms, work-related factors, general factors, psychological and behavioural factors and the remaining factors: therapeutic relation and healthcare provider attitude. Outcome measures Pain intensity at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months on a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) after inclusion. An NPRS score of ≥3 at each time point was used to define chronic neck pain. Results 62 (10%) of the 603 participants developed chronic neck pain. The prognostic factors in the final model were sex, pain intensity, reported pain in different body regions, headache since and before the neck pain, posture during work, employment status, illness beliefs about pain identity and recovery, treatment beliefs, distress and self-efficacy. The model demonstrated an optimism-corrected area under the curve of 0.83 and a corrected R2 of 0.24. Calibration was deemed acceptable to good, as indicated by the calibration curve. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test yielded a p-value of 0.7167, indicating a good model fit. Conclusion This model has the potential to obtain a valid prognosis for developing chronic pain after a new episode of acute and subacute non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain. It includes mostly potentially modifiable factors for physiotherapy practice. External validation of this model is recommended.
LINK
Objective: We aimed to identify published classification systems with a targeted treatment approach (treatment-based classification systems (TBCSs)) for patients with non-specific neck pain, and assess their quality and effectiveness. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and the grey literature were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Study appraisal and synthesis: The main selection criterium was a TBCS for patients with non-specific neck pain with physiotherapeutic interventions. For data extraction of descriptive data and quality assessment we used the framework developed by Buchbinder et al. We considered as score of ≤3 as low quality, a score between 3 and 5 as moderate quality and a score ≥5 as good quality. To assess the risk of bias of studies concerning the effectiveness of TBCSs (only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included) we used the PEDro scale. We considered a score of ≥ six points on this scale as low risk of bias. Results: Out of 7664 initial references we included 13 studies. The overall quality of the TBCSs ranged from low to moderate. We found two RCTs, both with low risk of bias, evaluating the effectiveness of two TBCSs compared to alternative treatments. The results showed that both TBCSs were not superior to alternative treatments. Conclusion: Existing TBCSs are, at best, of moderate quality. In addition, TBCSs were not shown to be more effective than alternatives. Therefore using these TBCSs in daily practice is not recommended.
LINK
Background: Neck pain is the fourth major cause of disability worldwide but sufficient evidence regarding treatment is not available. This study is a first exploratory attempt to gain insight into and consensus on the clinical reasoning of experts in patients with non-specific neck pain. Objective: First, we aimed to inventory expert opinions regarding the indication for physiotherapy when, other than neck pain, no positive signs and symptoms and no positive diagnostic tests are present. Secondly, we aimed to determine which measurement instruments are being used and when they are used to support and objectify the clinical reasoning process. Finally, we wanted to establish consensus among experts regarding the use of unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain, i.e. their sequential linear clinical reasoning. Study design: A Delphi study.Methods:A Web-based Delphi study was conducted. Fifteen experts (teachers and researchers) participated. Results: Pain alone was deemed not be an indication for physiotherapy treatment. PROMs are mainly used for evaluative purposes and physical tests for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. Eighteen different variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning were investigated within our Delphi study. Only 6 out of 18 variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning reached more than 50% consensus. Conclusion: Pain alone is not an indication for physiotherapy. Insight has been obtained into which measurement instruments are used and when they are used. Consensus about sequential linear lines of clinical reasoning was poor.
LINK
Background Identify and establish consensus regarding potential prognostic factors for the development of chronic pain after a first episode of idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain. Design This study used two consensus group methods: a modified Nominal Group (m-NGT) and a Delphi Technique. Methods The goal of the m-NGT was to obtain and categorize a list of potential modifiable prognostic factors. These factors were presented to a multidisciplinary panel in a two-round Delphi survey, which was conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. The participants were asked whether factors identified are of prognostic value, whether these factors are modifiable, and how to measure these factors in clinical practice. Consensus was a priori defined as 70% agreement among participants. Results Eighty-four factors were identified and grouped into seven categories during the expert meeting using the modified NGT. A workgroup reduced the list to 47 factors and grouped them into 12 categories. Of these factors, 26 were found to be potentially prognostic for chronification of neck pain (> 70% agreement). Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be potentially modifiable by physiotherapists based on a two-round Delphi survey. Conclusion Based on an expert meeting (m-NGT) and a two-round Delphi survey, our study documents consensus (> 70%) on 26 prognostic factors. Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be modifiable, and most factors were psychological in nature.
DOCUMENT
Background: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient’s suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. Methods: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient’s suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. Discussion: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints.
DOCUMENT
A wide variety of risk factors for the occurrence and prognostic factors for persistence of non-specific musculoskeletal pain (MSP) are mentioned in the literature. A systematic review of all these factors is not available. Thus a systematic review was conducted to evaluate MSP risk factors and prognostic factors, classified according to the dimensions of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Candidate systematic reviews were identified in electronic medical journal databases, including the articles published between January 2000 and January 2008 that employed longitudinal cohort designs. The GRADE Working Group's criteria for assessing the overall level of evidence were used to evaluate the reviews. Nine systematic reviews were included, addressing a total of 67 factors. High evidence supported increased mobility of the lumbar spine and poor job satisfaction as risk factors for low back pain. There was also high evidence for intense pain during the onset of shoulder and neck pain and being middle aged as risk factors for shoulder pain. High evidence was also found for several factors that were not prognostic factors. For whiplash-associated disorders these factors were older age, being female, having angular deformity of the neck, and having an acute psychological response. Similarly, for persistence of low back pain, high evidence was found for having fear-avoidance beliefs and meagre social support at work. For low back pain, high evidence was found for meagre social support and poor job content at work as not being risk factors.
LINK
Background Providing individualized care based on the context and preferences of the patient is important. Knowledge on both prognostic risk stratification and blended eHealth care in musculoskeletal conditions is increasing and seems promising. Stratification can be used to match patients to the most optimal content and intensity of treatment as well as mode of treatment delivery (i.e. face-to-face or blended with eHealth). However, research on the integration of stratified and blended eHealth care with corresponding matched treatment options for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints is lacking. Methods This study was a mixed methods study comprising the development of matched treatment options, followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of the developed Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach. In the first phase, three focus groups with physiotherapists and physiotherapy experts were conducted. The second phase investigated the feasibility (i.e. satisfaction, usability and experiences) of the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for both physiotherapists and patients in a multicenter single-arm convergent parallel mixed methods feasibility study. Results In the first phase, matched treatment options were developed for six patient subgroups. Recommendations for content and intensity of physiotherapy were matched to the patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool: low/medium/high risk). In addition, selection of mode of treatment delivery was matched to the patient’s suitability for blended care (using the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist: yes/no). A paperbased workbook and e-Exercise app modules were developed as two different mode of treatment delivery options, to support physiotherapists. Feasibility was evaluated in the second phase. Physiotherapists and patients were mildly satisfied with the new approach. Usability of the physiotherapist dashboard to set up the e-Exercise app was considered ‘OK’ by physiotherapists. Patients considered the e-Exercise app to be of ‘best imaginable’ usability. The paper-based workbook was not used. Conclusion Results of the focus groups led to the development of matched treatment options. Results of the feasibility study showed experiences with integrating stratified and blended eHealth care and have informed amendments to the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints ready to use within a future cluster randomized trial.
DOCUMENT
