Society of Musculoskeletal Medicine Conference, London, March 2014

A. Clough, J. Horne, F. Earle, P. Clough
{"title":"Society of Musculoskeletal Medicine Conference, London, March 2014","authors":"A. Clough, J. Horne, F. Earle, P. Clough","doi":"10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessment and management of WAD in the whiplash capital of Europe: are U.K. physiotherapists divided? Angela Clough1, J. Horne2, F. Earle2, P. Clough3 Clinical Lead Physiotherapist. Hull & East Yorkshire NHS Trust, Dept of Psychology, University of Hull, Dept of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University Method: A multi method approach was adopted: An empirical case study design was adopted to investigate the impact of context on diagnosis and classification (n= 182). ‘Almost’ identical case studies were assessed by physiotherapists. Only the cause of the injury was different (sport vs. RTA).An epidemiological approach, examining whiplash reporting. General RTA statistics were compared to collision injuries in Rugby where the impact forces were recorded. In depth interviews were carried out with a range of practitioners (n= 9) focusing on the causes and treatments of whiplash. Specific objective: To investigate variations in the diagnosis and treatment of WAD within the UK physiotherapy community. Results: 1. The case studies showed that physiotherapists were significantly more likely (p< 0.05) to report that an injury was whiplash if it was apparently related to an RTA rather than a sports context. 2. The epidemiological approach showed that WAD could be significantly under reported in contact sports. 3. The interviews showed different treatment approaches were adopted by physiotherapists from differing specialist areas. Conclusions: The present series of studies show that: The context of the injury significantly influences the diagnosis., Whiplash injuries appear to be over reported in RTAs and under reported in sports., The WAD guidelines are available, but do not appear to prevent some of this variation., Practitioners from different domains agree on the causation of whiplash and core principles of clinical problem solving but have differing views on classification and intervention.","PeriodicalId":88907,"journal":{"name":"International musculoskeletal medicine","volume":"36 1","pages":"38 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000065","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International musculoskeletal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessment and management of WAD in the whiplash capital of Europe: are U.K. physiotherapists divided? Angela Clough1, J. Horne2, F. Earle2, P. Clough3 Clinical Lead Physiotherapist. Hull & East Yorkshire NHS Trust, Dept of Psychology, University of Hull, Dept of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University Method: A multi method approach was adopted: An empirical case study design was adopted to investigate the impact of context on diagnosis and classification (n= 182). ‘Almost’ identical case studies were assessed by physiotherapists. Only the cause of the injury was different (sport vs. RTA).An epidemiological approach, examining whiplash reporting. General RTA statistics were compared to collision injuries in Rugby where the impact forces were recorded. In depth interviews were carried out with a range of practitioners (n= 9) focusing on the causes and treatments of whiplash. Specific objective: To investigate variations in the diagnosis and treatment of WAD within the UK physiotherapy community. Results: 1. The case studies showed that physiotherapists were significantly more likely (p< 0.05) to report that an injury was whiplash if it was apparently related to an RTA rather than a sports context. 2. The epidemiological approach showed that WAD could be significantly under reported in contact sports. 3. The interviews showed different treatment approaches were adopted by physiotherapists from differing specialist areas. Conclusions: The present series of studies show that: The context of the injury significantly influences the diagnosis., Whiplash injuries appear to be over reported in RTAs and under reported in sports., The WAD guidelines are available, but do not appear to prevent some of this variation., Practitioners from different domains agree on the causation of whiplash and core principles of clinical problem solving but have differing views on classification and intervention.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肌肉骨骼医学学会会议,伦敦,2014年3月
欧洲鞭打之都WAD的评估和管理:英国物理治疗师是否存在分歧?Angela Clough1, J. Horne2, F. Earle2, P. Clough3临床首席物理治疗师。方法:采用多方法方法:采用实证案例研究设计,研究情境对诊断和分类的影响(n= 182)。物理治疗师评估了“几乎”相同的案例研究。只是受伤的原因不同(运动与RTA)。流行病学方法,检查鞭打报告。一般的RTA统计数据与橄榄球的碰撞伤害进行了比较,其中记录了冲击力。对一系列从业人员(n= 9)进行了深入访谈,重点是颈椎扭伤的原因和治疗。具体目的:调查在英国物理治疗界WAD的诊断和治疗的变化。结果:1。病例研究表明,如果损伤明显与RTA而非运动相关,物理治疗师更有可能(p< 0.05)报告为颈椎扭伤。2. 流行病学方法表明,在接触性运动中,WAD可能明显少报。3.访谈显示,来自不同专业领域的物理治疗师采用了不同的治疗方法。结论:目前的一系列研究表明:损伤的背景显著影响诊断。在rta中,鞭状损伤的报道似乎过多,而在体育运动中则少报。WAD的指导方针是可用的,但似乎并不能阻止这种变化。不同领域的医生对鞭打的病因和临床解决问题的核心原则是一致的,但对鞭打的分类和干预有不同的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Musculo-skeletal and neurological aspects of Lyme disease Lyme disease: A patient's journey The effectiveness of scapular taping on pain and function in people with subacromial impingement syndrome: A systematic review A pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare a novel group physiotherapy programme with a standard group exercise programme for managing chronic low back pain in primary care End of an era
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1