A cross-sectional postal survey of musculoskeletal physiotherapists’ current practice of cervical pain assessment in relation to vertebrobasilar artery insufficiency, attitudes toward guidelines, and manual therapy practice

I. Kennedy, K. Caldwell
{"title":"A cross-sectional postal survey of musculoskeletal physiotherapists’ current practice of cervical pain assessment in relation to vertebrobasilar artery insufficiency, attitudes toward guidelines, and manual therapy practice","authors":"I. Kennedy, K. Caldwell","doi":"10.1179/1753615414Y.0000000037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose To survey the current practice of cervical spine pain assessment in relation to vertebrobasilar artery insufficiency (VBI), attitudes toward guidelines, and the practice of achieving informed consent in advance of planned orthopaedic manual therapy interventions. Method A self-administered postal survey was validated and sent to 325 physiotherapists working in the National Health Service (NHS) and private musculoskeletal practices in the Dorset and Hampshire region. Results The response rate was 53% from NHS physiotherapists and 20% from private practice, overall 34% (n = 111). Compliance rates with published guidelines were 50.4%; the sample holds them in neutral opinion (51.4%), and also holds cervical manipulation in neutral opinion (n = 50; 45.5%). Of these, 30.4% of respondents use cervical manipulation; a practice more closely associated with male practitioners (Φ = 0.35 P < 0.001), most use non-manipulative techniques such as manual traction (86.3%) or mobilizations (96.1%) with exercise (99%) as these are believed to be just as effective. Conclusions Physiotherapists in this sample do not appear to be adopting the VBI guidelines out of confidence or acknowledgment of their validity, but as a means to satisfy legality (76%) and enjoy that security (57.7%). Cervical spine assessment by a physiotherapist may be reliant on detailed subjective assessment that lacks objective testing, which could limit the scope of clinical reasoning between diagnoses of vascular (VBI, arterial dissection) and vestibular sources of symptoms. Those physiotherapists who had not attended postgraduate cervical manual therapy courses were associated with not practicing in agreement with the published evidence base; this finding lends support to the argument for a formal restriction of cervical manipulation by physiotherapists until a minimal requirement of postgraduate training is completed.","PeriodicalId":88907,"journal":{"name":"International musculoskeletal medicine","volume":"36 1","pages":"137 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753615414Y.0000000037","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International musculoskeletal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753615414Y.0000000037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To survey the current practice of cervical spine pain assessment in relation to vertebrobasilar artery insufficiency (VBI), attitudes toward guidelines, and the practice of achieving informed consent in advance of planned orthopaedic manual therapy interventions. Method A self-administered postal survey was validated and sent to 325 physiotherapists working in the National Health Service (NHS) and private musculoskeletal practices in the Dorset and Hampshire region. Results The response rate was 53% from NHS physiotherapists and 20% from private practice, overall 34% (n = 111). Compliance rates with published guidelines were 50.4%; the sample holds them in neutral opinion (51.4%), and also holds cervical manipulation in neutral opinion (n = 50; 45.5%). Of these, 30.4% of respondents use cervical manipulation; a practice more closely associated with male practitioners (Φ = 0.35 P < 0.001), most use non-manipulative techniques such as manual traction (86.3%) or mobilizations (96.1%) with exercise (99%) as these are believed to be just as effective. Conclusions Physiotherapists in this sample do not appear to be adopting the VBI guidelines out of confidence or acknowledgment of their validity, but as a means to satisfy legality (76%) and enjoy that security (57.7%). Cervical spine assessment by a physiotherapist may be reliant on detailed subjective assessment that lacks objective testing, which could limit the scope of clinical reasoning between diagnoses of vascular (VBI, arterial dissection) and vestibular sources of symptoms. Those physiotherapists who had not attended postgraduate cervical manual therapy courses were associated with not practicing in agreement with the published evidence base; this finding lends support to the argument for a formal restriction of cervical manipulation by physiotherapists until a minimal requirement of postgraduate training is completed.
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
一项关于肌肉骨骼物理治疗师目前与椎基底动脉功能不全有关的颈椎疼痛评估实践、对指南的态度和手工治疗实践的横断面邮政调查
目的调查椎基底动脉功能不全(VBI)相关颈椎疼痛评估的现状,对指南的态度,以及在计划的骨科手工治疗干预措施前获得知情同意的做法。方法对325名在多塞特郡和汉普郡国家医疗服务体系(NHS)和私人肌肉骨骼诊所工作的物理治疗师进行邮寄调查。结果NHS物理治疗师的有效率为53%,私人诊所的有效率为20%,总体有效率为34% (n = 111)。对已公布指南的遵守率为50.4%;样本对其持中立态度(51.4%),对颈椎手法持中立态度(n = 50;45.5%)。其中,30.4%的应答者使用颈椎手法;一种与男性从业者更密切相关的做法(Φ = 0.35 P < 0.001),大多数使用非操纵性技术,如手动牵引(86.3%)或动员(96.1%)结合运动(99%),因为这些被认为同样有效。本样本中的物理治疗师似乎不是出于信心或承认其有效性而采用VBI指南,而是作为满足合法性(76%)和享受安全性(57.7%)的一种手段。物理治疗师对颈椎的评估可能依赖于详细的主观评估,缺乏客观测试,这可能会限制血管(VBI,动脉夹层)和前庭症状来源诊断之间的临床推理范围。未参加过颈椎手工疗法研究生课程的物理治疗师与未执业有关,这与已公布的证据基础一致;这一发现为物理治疗师在完成最低要求的研究生培训之前正式限制颈椎推拿的观点提供了支持。
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