The Needs and Experiences of Patients on Pain Education and the Clinical Reasoning of Physical Therapists Regarding Cancer-Related Pain. A Qualitative Study.

Objective: This study offers direction for interaction between physical therapists and patients about cancer-related pain during physical training. The study may increase awareness of rehabilitation strategies for cancer-related pain during and after cancer treatment. Methods: Qualitative study, evaluating results of two qualitative studies. Data has been collected using semi-structured interviews, in which topics were discussed with patients and physical therapists. Respondents were adult patients with cancer in the Northern Netherlands with moderate to severe pain who followed physical training with a (oncologic) physical therapist. The physical therapists were respondents specialized in oncology and working with patients with cancer in a primary care setting in in the Netherlands. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Eighteen patients and fifteen physical therapists were interviewed. Data was categorized in statements regarding "patients' needs", "patients' experiences" and "clinical reasoning of the physical therapist". "Patients' needs" for education were personal and included needs for information about the cause, course and effect of pain in relation to cancer and/or medical treatment, needs for practical tools for reducing pain, needs for strategies dealing with pain in daily activities, and needs for information about additional treatment and care options. When discussing 'patients' experiences', patients mentioned that physical therapists are cautious to express their expectations of the progress of pain and to offer pain education with respect to the cause of pain, dealing with pain and limitations in daily life, exercising, posture, learning self-care and information about additional treatment and care options in cancer-related pain. Patients provided insight into their educational, mental, and social support relative to experiences with physical therapists. Additionally, when discussing the communication they experienced with physical therapists, patients used descriptors such as accessibility, empathy, trust, knowledge and eliminating uncertainties. Interviews with physical therapists regarding their clinical reasoning process in cancer-related pain described that they identified pain from anamnesis (medical history review) and performed screening and analysis for pain secondary to cancer (treatment), as type of pain and pain influencing factors. Thoughts and experiences about pain, the use of pain clinometry, the establishment of objectives and interventions for physical therapy and multidisciplinary treatment of cancer-related pain were also described. Conclusion: Patients with cancer-related pain during physical training have personal needs regarding pain education and experience that specialized oncologic physical therapists focus on patient-centered information and self-management support. Specialized oncologic physical therapists analyze pain in the anamnesis and keep in mind the origin and impact of pain for the patient during screening and treatment. Different methods of pain management are used. It is recommended that physical therapists who give physical training take the initiative to repeatedly discuss pain.

Assessment of cam morphology of the hip with ultra sound imaging by physical therapists is reliable and valid.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is considered present when a combination of clinical symptoms, signs and morphological features of the hip co-exist. Imaging is increasingly popular in primary health care settings with physical therapists performing ultrasound (US). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability of ultrasound in determining presence of cam morphology. DESIGN: A concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability study. METHODS: The presence of cam morphology of the hip was determined by α angle measures using Kinovea software. A cam was defined present when the α angle >60°. The index test was US and radiographs served as a gold standard. RESULTS: Correlation between the radiographic α angle and ultrasound measures was r = 0.82 (p < 0.01). Inter-rater reliability was high with an ICC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.61-0.84). The predictive value for presence of cam morphology had a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 94%. The positive predictive value was 79% whereas the negative predictive value was 94%. Total accuracy was 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound conducted by trained physical therapists is a valid, reliable, specific and sensitive diagnostic tool to assess the presence of cam morphology.

Treatment success in neck pain: The added predictive value of psychosocial variables in addition to clinical variables.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Identification of psychosocial variables may influence treatment outcome. The objective of this study was to prospectively examine whether psychosocial variables, in addition to clinical variables (pain, functioning, general health, previous neck pain, comorbidity), are predictive factors for treatment outcome (i.e. global perceived effect, functioning and pain) in patients with sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain undergoing physical therapy or manual therapy. Psychosocial factors included treatment outcome expectancy and treatment credibility, health locus of control, and fear avoidance beliefs. METHODS: This study reports a secondary analysis of a primary care-based pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Potential predictors were measured at baseline and outcomes, in 181 patients, at 7 weeks and 26 weeks. RESULTS: Hierarchical logistic regression models showed that treatment outcome expectancy predicted outcome success, in addition to clinical and demographic variables. Expectancy explained additional variance, ranging from 6% (pain) to 17% (functioning) at 7 weeks, and 8% (pain) to 16% (functioning) at 26 weeks. Locus of control and fear avoidance beliefs did not add significantly to predicting outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study we conclude that outcome expectancy, in patients with non-specific sub-acute and chronic neck pain, has additional predictive value for treatment success above and beyond clinical and demographic variables. IMPLICATIONS: Psychological processes, health perceptions and how these factors relate to clinical variables may be important for treatment decision making regarding therapeutic options for individual patients.

Manual therapy compared with physical therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy according to the School of Manual Therapy Utrecht (MTU) is a specific type of passive manual joint mobilization. MTU has not yet been systematically compared to other manual therapies and physical therapy. In this study the effectiveness of MTU is compared to physical therapy, particularly active exercise therapy (PT) in patients with non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Patients neck pain, aged between 18-70 years, were included in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measures were global perceived effect and functioning (Neck Disability Index), the secondary outcome was pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale for Pain). Outcomes were measured at 3, 7, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Multilevel analyses (intention-to-treat) were the primary analyses for overall between-group differences. Additional to the primary and secondary outcomes the number of treatment sessions of the MTU group and PT group was analyzed. Data were collected from September 2008 to February 2011. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were included. Multilevel analyses showed no statistically significant overall differences at one year between the MTU and PT groups on any of the primary and secondary outcomes. The MTU group showed significantly lower treatment sessions compared to the PT group (respectively 3.1 vs. 5.9 after 7 weeks; 6.1 vs. 10.0 after 52 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with neck pain improved in both groups without statistical significantly or clinically relevant differences between the MTU and PT groups during one-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

Guideline for Reporting Interventions on Spinal Manipulative Therapy: Consensus on Interventions Reporting Criteria List for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (CIRCLe SMT).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Consensus on Interventions Reporting Criteria List for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (CIRCLe SMT) study was to develop a criteria list for reporting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: A Delphi procedure was conducted from September 2011 to April 2013 and consisted of international experts in the field of SMT. The authors formed a steering committee and invited participants, selected initial items, structured the comments of the participants after each Delphi round, and formulated the feedback. To ensure content validity, a large number of international experts from different SMT-related disciplines were invited to participate. A workshop was organized following the consensus phase, and it was used to discuss and refine the wording of the items. RESULTS: In total, 123 experts from 18 countries participated. These experts included clinicians (70%), researchers (93%), and academics working in the area of SMT (27%), as well as journal editors (14%). (Note: The total is more than 100% because most participants reported 2 jobs.) Three Delphi rounds were necessary to reach a consensus. The criteria list comprised 24 items under 5 domains, including (1) rationale of the therapy, (2) description of the intervention, (3) SMT techniques, (4) additional intervention/techniques, and (5) quantitative data. CONCLUSIONS: A valid criteria list was constructed with the aim of promoting consistency in reporting SMT intervention in scientific publications.

The effectiveness and cost-evaluation of manual therapy and physical therapy in patients with sub-acute and chronic non specific neck pain. Rationale and design of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Manual Therapy applied to patients with non specific neck pain has been investigated several times. In the Netherlands, manual therapy as applied according to the Utrecht School of Manual Therapy (MTU) has not been the subject of a randomized controlled trial. MTU differs in diagnoses and treatment from other forms of manual therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single blind randomized controlled trial in patients with sub-acute and chronic non specific neck pain. Patients with neck complaints existing for two weeks (minimum) till one year (maximum) will participate in the trial. 180 participants will be recruited in thirteen primary health care centres in the Netherlands.The experimental group will be treated with MTU during a six week period. The control group will be treated with physical therapy (standard care, mainly active exercise therapy), also for a period of six weeks.Primary outcomes are Global Perceived Effect (GPE) and functional status (Neck Disability Index (NDI-DV)). Secondary outcomes are neck pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)), Eurocol, costs and quality of life (SF36). DISCUSSION: This paper presents details on the rationale of MTU, design, methods and operational aspects of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.