Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, Umut Varol, Ricardo Ortega-Santiago, Marcos José Navarro-Santana, María José Díaz-Arribas, Jorge Buffet-García, Gustavo Plaza-Manzano
{"title":"MyofAPPcial: Construct validity of a novel technological aid for improving clinical reasoning in the management of myofascial pain syndrome.","authors":"Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, Umut Varol, Ricardo Ortega-Santiago, Marcos José Navarro-Santana, María José Díaz-Arribas, Jorge Buffet-García, Gustavo Plaza-Manzano","doi":"10.1111/eci.14313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physiotherapists encounter challenges in diagnosing myofascial trigger points (MTrPs), which are crucial for managing myofascial pain but difficult due to their complex referred pain patterns. We aimed to assess if an interactive software (MyofAPPcial) can enhance the ability of physical therapists specialized in musculoskeletal disorders (as clinicians and as researchers and educators) to identify referred pain patterns associated with specific MTrPs and to explore their opinion about incorporating this technology regularly into their professional setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After developing the app, a descriptive cross-sectional survey study was conducted. Participants were asked about their demographic characteristics, professional experience, two knowledge tests (first without and later with MyofAPPcial support) and the 18-item mHealth app usability questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-nine participants completed the survey (47.5% clinicians and 62.5% researchers/educators). Groups were comparable in terms of age, gender and professional experience (p > .05). However, clinicians coursed shorter specific MPS trainings (p = .007) and handle more cases a week (p < .001). In the first knowledge test, participants in both the groups were more accurate in identifying pain maps of highly prevalent MTrPs than those with a moderate or low prevalence (p < .001), with no differences between the groups for individual items (all, p > .05) nor the total score (p > .05). In the second knowledge test, perfect scores were obtained for all items in both the groups. Finally, MyofAPPcial scored high satisfaction and app usefulness, with no difference between clinicians and researchers/educators (except greater convenience of use for researchers/educators p = .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MyofAPPcial enhances physiotherapists' ability to accurately identify MTrPs, with a good acceptation among clinicians and researchers/educators.</p>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14313","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Physiotherapists encounter challenges in diagnosing myofascial trigger points (MTrPs), which are crucial for managing myofascial pain but difficult due to their complex referred pain patterns. We aimed to assess if an interactive software (MyofAPPcial) can enhance the ability of physical therapists specialized in musculoskeletal disorders (as clinicians and as researchers and educators) to identify referred pain patterns associated with specific MTrPs and to explore their opinion about incorporating this technology regularly into their professional setting.
Methods: After developing the app, a descriptive cross-sectional survey study was conducted. Participants were asked about their demographic characteristics, professional experience, two knowledge tests (first without and later with MyofAPPcial support) and the 18-item mHealth app usability questionnaire.
Results: Fifty-nine participants completed the survey (47.5% clinicians and 62.5% researchers/educators). Groups were comparable in terms of age, gender and professional experience (p > .05). However, clinicians coursed shorter specific MPS trainings (p = .007) and handle more cases a week (p < .001). In the first knowledge test, participants in both the groups were more accurate in identifying pain maps of highly prevalent MTrPs than those with a moderate or low prevalence (p < .001), with no differences between the groups for individual items (all, p > .05) nor the total score (p > .05). In the second knowledge test, perfect scores were obtained for all items in both the groups. Finally, MyofAPPcial scored high satisfaction and app usefulness, with no difference between clinicians and researchers/educators (except greater convenience of use for researchers/educators p = .02).
Conclusions: MyofAPPcial enhances physiotherapists' ability to accurately identify MTrPs, with a good acceptation among clinicians and researchers/educators.
期刊介绍:
EJCI considers any original contribution from the most sophisticated basic molecular sciences to applied clinical and translational research and evidence-based medicine across a broad range of subspecialties. The EJCI publishes reports of high-quality research that pertain to the genetic, molecular, cellular, or physiological basis of human biology and disease, as well as research that addresses prevalence, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of disease. We are primarily interested in studies directly pertinent to humans, but submission of robust in vitro and animal work is also encouraged. Interdisciplinary work and research using innovative methods and combinations of laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Several categories of manuscripts (for detailed description see below) are considered: editorials, original articles (also including randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses), reviews (narrative reviews), opinion articles (including debates, perspectives and commentaries); and letters to the Editor.