A qualitative study of influences on older women's practitioner choices for back pain care

Background: Back pain is an increasingly prevalent health concern amongst Australian women for which a wide range of treatment options are available, offered by biomedical, allied health and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers. Although there is an emerging literature on patterns of provider utilisation, less is known about the reasons why women with back pain select their chosen practitioner. In this paper we explore the influences on back pain sufferers' decision-making about treatment seeking with practitioners for their most recent episode of back pain. Methods. Drawing on 50 semi-structured interviews with women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) who have chronic back pain, we focus on the factors which influence their choice of practitioner. Analysis followed a framework approach to qualitative content analysis, augmented by NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Key themes were identified and tested for rigour through inter-rater reliability and constant comparison. Results: The women identified four predominant influences on their choice of practitioner for back pain: familiarity with treatment or experiences with individual practitioners; recommendations from social networks; geographical proximity of practitioners; and, qualifications and credentials of practitioners. The therapeutic approach or evidence-base of the practices being utilised was not reported by the women as central to their back pain treatment decision making. Conclusions: Choice of practitioner appears to be unrelated to the therapeutic approaches, treatment practices or the scientific basis of therapeutic practices. Moreover, anecdotal lay reports of effectiveness and the 'treatment experience' may be more influential than formal qualifications in guiding women's choice of practitioner for their back pain. Further work is needed on the interpersonal, collective and subjective underpinnings of practitioner choice, particularly over time, in order to better understand why women utilise certain practitioners for back pain. © 2014 Kirby et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Does progressive resistance and balance exercise reduce falls in residential aged care? Randomized controlled trial protocol for the SUNBEAM program

Introduction: Falls are common among older adults. It is reported that approximately 60% of residents of aged care facilities fall each year. This is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and a significant burden for health care providers and the health system. Among community dwelling older adults, exercise appears to be an effective countermeasure, but data are limited and inconsistent among studies in residents of aged care communities. This trial has been designed to evaluate whether the SUNBEAM program (Strength and Balance Exercise in Aged Care) reduces falls in residents of aged care facilities. Research question: Is the program more effective and cost-effective than usual care for the prevention of falls? Design: Single-blinded, two group, cluster randomized trial. Participants and setting: 300 residents, living in 20 aged care facilities. Intervention: Progressive resistance and balance training under the guidance of a physiotherapist for 6 months, then facility-guided maintenance training for 6 months. Control: Usual care. Measurements: Number of falls, number of fallers, quality of life, mobility, balance, fear of falling, cognitive well-being, resource use, and cost-effectiveness. Measurements will be taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Analysis: The number of falls will be analyzed using a Poisson mixed model. A logistic mixed model will be used to analyze the number of residents who fall during the study period. Intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Discussion: This study addresses a significant shortcoming in aged care research, and has potential to impact upon a substantial health care problem. Outcomes will be used to inform care providers, and guide health care policies. © 2014 Hewitt et al

Manual therapy in addition to physiotherapy does not improve clinical or economic outcomes after ankle fracture

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding manual therapy to a physiotherapy programme for ankle fracture. Design: Assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. Participants: Ninety-four adults were recruited within one week of cast removal for isolated ankle fracture. Inclusion criteria were: they were able to weight-bear as tolerated or partial weight-bear, were referred for physiotherapy, and experienced pain. Ninety-one participants completed the study. Methods: Participants were randomly allocated to receive manual therapy (anterior-posterior joint mobilization over the talus) plus a standard physiotherapy programme (experimental), or the standard physiotherapy programme only (control). They were assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, and at 4, 12 and 24 weeks. The main outcomes were activity limitation and quality of life. Information on costs and healthcare utilization was collected every 4 weeks up to 24 weeks. Results: There were no clinically worthwhile differences in activity limitation or quality of life between groups at any time-point. There was also no between-group difference in quality-adjusted life-years, but the experimental group incurred higher out-of-pocket costs (mean between-group difference = AU$200, 95% confidence interval 26-432). Conclusion: When provided in addition to a physiotherapy programme, manual therapy did not enhance outcome in adults after ankle fracture. © 2008 Foundation of Rehabilitation Information

Effect of Intensive Patient Education vs Placebo Patient Education on Outcomes in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

© 2018 2018 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Importance: Many patients with acute low back pain do not recover with basic first-line care (advice, reassurance, and simple analgesia, if necessary). It is unclear whether intensive patient education improves clinical outcomes for those patients already receiving first-line care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive patient education for patients with acute low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients from general practices, physiotherapy clinics, and a research center in Sydney, Australia, between September 10, 2013, and December 2, 2015. Trial follow-up was completed in December 17, 2016. Primary care practitioners invited 618 patients presenting with acute low back pain to participate. Researchers excluded 416 potential participants. All of the 202 eligible participants had low back pain of fewer than 6 weeks' duration and a high risk of developing chronic low back pain according to Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain (PICKUP) Tool, a validated prognostic model. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either patient education or placebo patient education. Interventions: All participants received recommended first-line care for acute low back pain from their usual practitioner. Participants received additional 2 × 1-hour sessions of patient education (information on pain and biopsychosocial contributors plus self-management techniques, such as remaining active and pacing) or placebo patient education (active listening, without information or advice). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included disability (24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 1 week, and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 202 participants randomized for the trial, the mean (SD) age of participants was 45 (14.5) years and 103 (51.0%) were female. Retention rates were greater than 90% at all time points. Intensive patient education was not more effective than placebo patient education at reducing pain intensity (3-month mean [SD] pain intensity: 2.1 [2.4] vs 2.4 [2.2]; mean difference at 3 months, -0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.3]). There was a small effect of intensive patient education on the secondary outcome of disability at 1 week (mean difference, -1.6 points on a 24-point scale [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1]) and 3 months (mean difference, -1.7 points, [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]) but not at 6 or 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: Adding 2 hours of patient education to recommended first-line care for patients with acute low back pain did not improve pain outcomes. Clinical guideline recommendations to provide complex and intensive support to high-risk patients with acute low back pain may have been premature. Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trial Registration Number: 12612001180808

Partial tetraplegic syndrome as a complication of a mobilizing/manipulating procedure of the cervical spine in a man with Forestier's disease: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Even if performed by qualified physical therapists, spinal manipulation and mobilization can cause adverse events. This holds true particularly for the cervical spine. In light of the substantial risks, the benefits of cervical spine manipulation may be outweighed by the possibility of further injury.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We present the case of a 56-year-old Caucasian man with Forestier's disease who went to see a physiotherapist to relieve his aching neck while on a holiday trip. Following the procedure, he was transferred to a local hospital with a partial tetraplegic syndrome due to a cervical 6/7 luxation fracture. Reportedly, the physiotherapist took neither a detailed history, nor adequate diagnostic measures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This case highlights the potentially dangerous complications associated with cervical spine mobilization/manipulation. If guidelines concerning cervical spine mobilization and manipulation practices had been followed, this adverse event could have been avoided.</p

Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Manipulation is a common treatment for non-specific neck pain. Neck manipulation, unlike gentler forms of manual therapy such as mobilisation, is associated with a small risk of serious neurovascular injury and can result in stroke or death. It is thought however, that neck manipulation provides better results than mobilisation where clinically indicated. There is long standing and vigorous debate both within and between the professions that use neck manipulation as well as the wider scientific community as to whether neck manipulation potentially does more harm than good. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether neck manipulation provides more rapid resolution of an episode of neck pain than mobilisation. METHODS/DESIGN: 182 participants with acute and sub-acute neck pain will be recruited from physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathy practices in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either manipulation or mobilisation. Randomisation will occur after the treating practitioner decides that manipulation is an appropriate treatment for the individual participant. Both groups will receive at least 4 treatments over 2 weeks. The primary outcome is number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. Cox regression will be used to compare survival curves for time to recovery for the manipulation and mobilisation treatment groups. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of neck manipulation and neck mobilisation for acute and subacute neck pain

Comparative effectiveness of manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument in treatment of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a common problem and different forms of manual therapy are used in its treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise the literature that directly compared manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MANTIS and CINAHL) were searched from their inception to October 2005 for all English language randomised clinical trials that directly compared manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select the studies and these studies were then evaluated using validated criteria. RESULTS: Five such studies were identified. The methodological quality was mostly poor. Findings from the studies were mixed and no one therapy was shown to be more effective than the others. CONCLUSION: Further high quality research has to be done before a recommendation can be made as to the most effective manual method for non-specific neck pain

Effectiveness of joint mobilisation after cast immobilisation for ankle fracture: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial [ACTRN012605000143628]

BACKGROUND: Passive joint mobilisation is a technique frequently used by physiotherapists to reduce pain, improve joint movement and facilitate a return to activities after injury, but its use after ankle fracture is currently based on limited evidence. The primary aim of this trial is to determine if adding joint mobilisation to a standard exercise programme is effective and cost-effective after cast immobilisation for ankle fracture in adults. METHODS/DESIGN: Ninety participants will be recruited from the physiotherapy departments of three teaching hospitals and randomly allocated to treatment or control groups using a concealed procedure. All participants will perform an exercise programme. Participants in the treatment group will also receive joint mobilisation twice a week for four weeks. Blinded follow-up assessments will be conducted four, 12 and 24 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome measures will be the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and the Assessment of Quality of Life. Secondary outcomes will include measures of impairments, activity limitation and participation. Data on the use of physiotherapy services and participants' out-of-pocket costs will be collected for the cost-effective and cost-utility analyses. To test the effects of treatment, between-group differences will be examined with analysis of covariance using a regression approach. The primary conclusions will be based on the four-week follow-up data. DISCUSSION: This trial incorporates features known to minimise bias. It uses a pragmatic design to reflect clinical practice and maximise generalisability. Results from this trial will contribute to an evidence-based approach for rehabilitation after ankle fracture

Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?

The understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and vertebral artery dissection and stroke (VADS) has evolved considerably over the years. In the beginning the relationship was seen as simple cause-effect, in which CMT was seen to cause VADS in certain susceptible individuals. This was perceived as extremely rare by chiropractic physicians, but as far more common by neurologists and others. Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit