RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the number one cause of disability worldwide; however, it is not clear how social determinants of health (SDOH) impact care management and outcomes related to physical therapy (PT) services for patients with LBP. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this scoping review are to examine and assimilate the literature on how SDOH and PT care relate to non-specific LBP outcomes and identify gaps in the literature to target for future research. METHODS: Data were extracted from eight electronic databases from January 2011 to February 2022. Reviewers independently screened all studies using the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. Data related to study design, type of PT, type of non-specific LBP, patient demographics, PT intervention, SDOH, and PT outcomes were extracted from the articles. RESULTS: A total of 30,523 studies were screened, with 1961 articles undergoing full text review. Ultimately, 76 articles were identified for inclusion. Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined (88% and 78% respectively) followed by education level (18%). Approximately half of the studies that examined age, sex, and education level identified no effect on outcomes. The number of studies examining other factors was small and the types of outcomes evaluated were variable, which limited the ability to pool results. CONCLUSIONS: Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined followed by education level. Other factors were evaluated less frequently, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Study design and heterogeneity of determinants and outcomes were barriers to examining the potential impact on patients with LBP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and correlation meta-analysis was to identify factors associated with kinesiophobia in individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP) and to identify interventions that may reduce kinesiophobia in individuals with PFP. METHODS: Seven databases were searched for articles including clinical factors associated with kinesiophobia or interventions that may reduce kinesiophobia in individuals with PFP. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and quality, and extracted data from each study. A mixed-effects model was used to calculate correlations of function and pain with kinesiophobia using individual participant data. Meta-analyses were performed on interventional articles; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to evaluate certainty of evidence. Results were reported narratively when pooling was not possible. RESULTS: Forty-one articles involving 2712 individuals were included. Correlation meta-analyses using individual participant data indicated a moderate association between self-reported function and kinesiophobia (n = 499; r = -0.440) and a weak association between pain and kinesiophobia (n = 644; r = 0.162). Low-certainty evidence from 2 articles indicated that passive treatment techniques were more effective than minimal intervention in reducing kinesiophobia (standardized mean difference = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.49). Very low-certainty evidence from 5 articles indicated that interventions to target kinesiophobia (psychobehavioral interventions, education, and self-managed exercise) were better in reducing kinesiophobia than physical therapist treatment approaches not specifically targeting kinesiophobia (standardized mean difference = 1.64; 95% CI = 0.14 to 3.15). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of kinesiophobia were moderately associated with poorer function and weakly associated with higher pain in individuals with PFP. Taping and bracing may reduce kinesiophobia immediately after use, and specific kinesiophobia-targeted interventions may reduce kinesiophobia following the full intervention; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. IMPACT: Assessment of kinesiophobia in clinical practice is recommended, on the basis of the relationships identified between kinesiophobia and other important factors that predict outcomes in individuals with PFP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate how Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) may be used in those with knee pain, if individuals with knee pain present with a central nervous system (CNS) processing deficit, and if GMI is associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted of PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINHAL, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Sports Medicine Education Index using keywords related to GMI and knee pain. This review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Out of the 13,224 studies reviewed, 14 studies were included that used GMI for knee pain. Effect sizes were reported with standardized mean differences (SMD). RESULTS: Individuals with knee osteoarthritis demonstrated poor performance with correctly identifying images of left or right knees, and GMI improved performance. In contrast, individuals with an anterior cruciate ligament injury demonstrated no evidence of CNS processing deficit and mixed outcomes with GMI. Meta-analysis was limited to individuals post total knee arthroplasty showing low certainty that GMI can improve quadriceps force production [SMD 0.64 (0.07,1.22)], but evidence of no effect to reduce pain or improve Timed up and Go performance and self-reported function. CONCLUSIONS: Graded motor imagery may be an effective intervention for individuals with knee osteoarthritis. However, there was limited evidence that GMI was effective for an anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION: The lateral step-down test is used to appraise movement quality in patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP), however, it is unclear if reliability of the test is affected by physical therapist experience. OBJECTIVE: Determine if there is a difference in reliability between 'experienced' and 'novice' physical therapists appraising movement quality of patients with PFP during the lateral step-down test. METHODS: Three 'experienced' and 3 'novice' physical therapists analyzed movement quality of 22 participants [mean age (SD) 28.25 (6.5) years] with PFP. Physical therapists viewed two-dimensional videos of participants performing the lateral step-down test and appraised the quality with a score (0-1 = 'good'; 2-3 = 'fair', and 4-5 = 'poor') at baseline and 1 week. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were calculated with kappa and percent agreement. Differences between the groups were assessed with the chi-square test with an a priori alpha level of < 0.05. RESULTS: Inter- and intra-rater reliability ranged from fair to moderate (ĸ = 0.40-0.65). There was no difference in reliability between 'experienced' and 'novice' physical therapists at baseline (p = .13) or 1 week post testing (p = .94). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in reliability between 'experienced' and 'novice' physical therapists using categories to appraise movement quality during the lateral step-down test for patients with chronic PFP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of evidence describing how physical therapists use data from clinical examinations to inform the treatment of runners with knee pain. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to examine the between physical therapist agreement on the selection of perceived impairments in runners with knee pain. METHODS: Twelve physical therapists reviewed two cases of runners with knee pain. The cases included clinical subjective information, objective data, and review of videos of each participant running. Each rater selected up to three perceived impairments (from a list of eight) that each physical therapist would address at the next physical therapy session. Percent agreement was calculated to determine the between rater agreement on each individual perceived impairment selection and Fleiss Kappa was calculated for each unique combination of three perceived impairments per case. RESULTS: Twelve raters with 51 (18-156) months of clinical experience participated. Percent agreement ranged from 8%-100% for both cases for individual impairments. When assessing the unique combination of three impairments selected, inter-rater agreement was less than what is expected due to chance alone (κ = -0.09, p = .92; κ = -0.09, p = .98) for both cases. CONCLUSION: The 12 physical therapists demonstrated poor to excellent levels of agreement when selecting an individual perceived impairment. Agreement was worse than chance when selecting a combination of three unique impairments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the facilitators and barriers to the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in outpatient rehabilitation settings and provides strategies to improve care to maximize patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Eleven databases were systematically searched from November 2018 to May 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently assessed articles based on the following inclusion criteria: English text, evaluate barriers and facilitators, include PROMs, and occur in an outpatient rehabilitation setting (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech language pathology, or athletic training). Of the 10,164 articles initially screened, 15 articles were included in this study. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from the selected articles by 2 independent reviewers and put into an extraction template and into the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) was conducted on each study to assess study design, risk of bias, and reporting quality of the eligible studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were identified as high quality, according to the AXIS. Based on the CFIR model, the top barriers identified focused on clinician training and time in the implementation process, lack of recognized value and knowledge at the individual level, lack of access and support in the inner setting, and inability of patients to complete PROMs in the intervention process. Facilitators were identified as education in the implementation process, support and availability of PROMs in the inner setting, and recognized value at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: More barriers than facilitators have been identified, which is consistent with PROM underuse. Clinicians and administrators should find opportunities to overcome the barriers identified and leverage the facilitators to improve routine PROM use and maximize patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiating between cervical nerve root and peripheral nerve injuries can be challenging. A phenomenon known as double crush syndrome may increase the susceptibility to injury and symptoms at other locations along the course of the nerve. The purpose of this case report is to describe the physical therapy differential diagnosis and management of a cyclist with upper extremity pain, weakness, and paresthesia. CASE DESCRIPTION: The subject was referred to physical therapy with a diagnosis of cervical disc disease. His chief complaints were chronic neck and right shoulder pain as well as a recent onset of right hand numbness and weakness following 100-mile bike ride one month prior. Diagnostic imaging revealed multi-level degenerative changes of the cervical spine. Initial electromyography and nerve conduction studies (EMG/NCS) indicated right ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. The ultimate incorporation of ulnar nerve mobilizations in various positions immediately decreased symptoms. In light of the subject's improvement after ulnar nerve mobilizations, imaging findings, and EMG/NCS findings, the subject's presentation was consistent with a double crush syndrome with C8 nerve root compression and distal ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. OUTCOMES: The subject demonstrated full resolution of all symptoms, 0% disability on the Neck Disability Index, 8.3% disability of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, normal EMG/NCV findings, and unrestricted return to work and endurance cycling at three months and maintained at one year. He did not require hand surgery. DISCUSSION: This case report highlights the importance of continual clinical re-examination and re-assessment with ancillary diagnostic testing, especially if chosen interventions are not eliciting desired responses. The identification of key risk factors, such as occupation and recreational activities is imperative in achieving the most efficacious clinical treatment. In this case, the recognition of a double crush syndrome assisted in optimizing the physical therapy plan of care and the subject ultimately achieving full recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.