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
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
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
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
No summary available
DOCUMENT
Daily wheelchair ambulation is seen as a risk factor for shoulder problems, which are prevalent in manual wheelchair users. To examine the long-term effect of shoulder load from daily wheelchair ambulation on shoulder problems, quantification is required in real-life settings. In this study, we describe and validate a comprehensive and unobtrusive methodology to derive clinically relevant wheelchair mobility metrics (WCMMs) from inertial measurement systems (IMUs) placed on the wheelchair frame and wheel in real-life settings. The set of WCMMs includes distance covered by the wheelchair, linear velocity of the wheelchair, number and duration of pushes, number and magnitude of turns and inclination of the wheelchair when on a slope. Data are collected from ten able-bodied participants, trained in wheelchair-related activities, who followed a 40 min course over the campus. The IMU-derived WCMMs are validated against accepted reference methods such as Smartwheel and video analysis. Intraclass correlation (ICC) is applied to test the reliability of the IMU method. IMU-derived push duration appeared to be less comparable with Smartwheel estimates, as it measures the effect of all energy applied to the wheelchair (including thorax and upper extremity movements), whereas the Smartwheel only measures forces and torques applied by the hand at the rim. All other WCMMs can be reliably estimated from real-life IMU data, with small errors and high ICCs, which opens the way to further examine real-life behavior in wheelchair ambulation with respect to shoulder loading. Moreover, WCMMs can be applied to other applications, including health tracking for individual interest or in therapy settings.
DOCUMENT
Background. Deviant shoulder girdle movement is suggested as an eminent factor in the etiology of shoulder pain. Reliable measurements of shoulder girdle kinematics are a prerequisite for optimizing clinical management strategies. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, measurement error, and internal consistency of measurements with performance-based clinical tests for shoulder girdle kinematics and positioning in patients with shoulder pain. Data Sources. The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2015. Study Selection. Articles published in Dutch, English, or German were included if they involved the evaluation of at least one of the measurement properties of interest. Data Extraction. Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality per studied measurement property with the 4-point-rating scale of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) checklist, extracted data, and assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties. Data Synthesis. Forty studies comprising more than 30 clinical tests were included. Actual reported measurements of the tests were categorized into: (1) positional measurement methods, (2) measurement methods to determine dynamic characteristics, and (3) tests to diagnose impairments of shoulder girdle function. Best evidence synthesis of the tests was performed per measurement for each measurement property. Limitations. All studies had significant limitations, including incongruence between test description and actual reported measurements and a lack of reporting on minimal important change. In general, the methodological quality of the selected studies was fair to poor. Conclusions. High-quality evidence indicates that measurements obtained with the Modified Scapular Assistance Test are not reliable for clinical use. Sound recommendations for the use of other tests could not be made due to inadequate evidence. Across studies, diversity in description, performance, and interpretation of similar tests was present, and different criteria were used to establish similar diagnoses, mostly without taking into account a clinically meaningful context. Consequently, these tests lack face validity, which hampers their clinical use. Further research on validity and how to integrate a clinically meaningful context of movement into clinical tests is warranted.
LINK
Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. Methods Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0–12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months. Results In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10–4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11–12.98) for the highrisk group. Conclusion The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (�50) is recommended.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs) are used to quantify physical aspects of work capacity. Safety is a critical issue for clinical use of an FCE. Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) are known to report a temporary increase in pain following an FCE, but it is not known whether this increase is a normal pain response to FCE. It is currently unknown how healthy subjects respond to an FCE and whether this should be interpreted as a normal reaction after physical exercise. This study was performed to quantify the intensity, duration, location and nature of the pain response following an FCE in healthy subjects and to compare this pain response with the pain response of patients with CLBP from a previous study.METHODS: A total of 197 healthy working subjects between 20 and 60 years of age volunteered to participate in this study. All subjects performed a 12-item FCE. Pain response was measured by a self-constructed Pain Response Questionnaire (PRQ). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the pain response following an FCE. Mann-Whitney and t-tests were performed to compare the data from this study with data of patients with CLBP from a previous study.RESULTS: About 82% of all subjects reported a pain response following the FCE. The intensity of the pain response after 24 h post FCE was a median of 3.0 on a numeric rating scale (0-10). About 78% of all pain was reducible to muscle soreness. Pain was most often reported in the upper legs (51%), the lower back (38%) the shoulders (37%) and upper arms (36%). Symptoms decreased to pre-FCE levels in a mean of 3 days. The pain response of 2 subjects (1%) lasted for 3 weeks. The intensity and duration of the pain response of healthy subjects was not significantly different from the response of patients with CLBP.CONCLUSION: Pain response of 99% of all subjects who reported a pain response was interpreted as normal. It was concluded that a pain response following an FCE can be expected in healthy subjects and that this pain response is a normal musculoskeletal reaction. The pain response of patients with CLBP resembles the pain response of healthy subjects.
DOCUMENT
