Healthcare professionals’ perceptions and experiences of physiotherapy for people with mental illness: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography

INTRODUCTION: There is a high global prevalence of patients presenting with physical and mental health comorbidities. Physiotherapeutic interventions, such as exercise, can have positive benefits for physical and mental health. However, poor accessibility and negative experiences of healthcare services for those with mental illness (MI) have been consistently observed within literature with recent research identifying poor experiences of physiotherapeutic interactions and processes such as referrals and discharges. One way to help improve physiotherapy services for this population is to understand the personal experiences and perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) toward physiotherapy for patients with MI. Qualitative-based evidence syntheses are suited to bring this data together with the aim of improving physiotherapy services for patients with MI. This review will systematically search and synthesise existing evidence around HCP experiences and perceptions of physiotherapy for people with MI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search and seven-phase meta-ethnography will be undertaken. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (CINAHL plus, MEDLINE, Pubmed, Embase and Psycinfo) and search engines as well as grey literature (unpublished primary research such as theses) will be completed. Searches are planned to take place in July 2022. Eligibility criteria include: (a) qualitative data, (b) perceptions identified from HCP, including physiotherapists, assistants and HCP referring into physiotherapy, about physiotherapy for patients with MI and (c) are primary studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work is exempt from requiring ethical approval due to review methodology with data accessed from published works. This systematic review is expected to provide insight into experiences and perceptions of HCP around benefits and barriers to accessing physiotherapy for patients with mental health illness. Findings will be used to inform further research and co-develop recommendations to overcome barriers and optimise facilitators to care for this population. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and to key stakeholder groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293035

Effectiveness of thoracic spine manipulation for upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders: protocol for a systematic review

Introduction Upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders (UQMD), comprising of cranial, cervical, shoulder and upper extremity disorders, are among the most frequently reported disorders in clinical practice. Thoracic high velocity low amplitude thrust (Tx-HVLAT) manipulation is a form of conservative management recommended in systematic reviews as an effective treatment option for aspects of UQMD disorders such headache, shoulder pain and lateral elbow pain. However, no recent systematic reviews have assessed the effectiveness across UQMD. Therefore, this systematic review aims to update the current evidence on the effectiveness of Tx-HVLAT for patients with UQMD on (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) performance measures or (3) psychosocial outcomes.Methods and analysis The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature will be searched from inception using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Thesaurus and/or free-text words. Combinations will be made based on localisation, disorder, intervention and design. Following guidelines as advised by the Cochrane Back Review Group, published randomised controlled trials will be included. Two review authors will independently assess the risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane Back Review Group’s recommended ROB2 tool and will independently extract the data using a standardised data extraction form. Overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. For continuous data, we will calculate standardised mean differences with 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks and 95% CIs will be calculated. Where possible we will present a subgroup analysis by disorder. For pooling, a random-effects model will be used.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The study findings will be submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed journal for dissemination and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023429996