Chiropractic & Manual Therapies最新文献

Background: Despite the well-known benefits of physical activity, physical inactivity is presently a global health pandemic. Allied healthcare providers, such as chiropractors, knowingly recognise the importance of physical activity and are prepared to routinely discuss and/or counsel patients on this topic; however, little is known about Australian chiropractors in the physical activity setting. Our aim was to explore and identify factors associated with physical activity promotion among Australian chiropractors, including their knowledge of the physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and their own levels of physical activity.

Methods: From February to May 2021, a convenience sample of Australian chiropractors completed an online survey. Items assessed by Likert scale included: physical activity promotion frequency, with the type, quantity, barriers, perceptions, and feasibility. We asked questions about their familiarity with, and knowledge of, Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines, chiropractors' own physical activity, and whether the chiropractors met activity guidelines. Survey responses were descriptively reported. Univariable logistic regression models explored factors explaining frequent physical activity promotion.

Results: Of 217 respondents, 64% reported that they frequently (≥ 70%) recommended a more physically active lifestyle. Only 15% often performed pre-exercise screening, 73% frequently prescribed resistance exercise, 19% reported time as the most frequent barrier, while 37% reported being not at all familiar with the guidelines. Univariable logistic regression models found male chiropractors were more likely to promote physical activity, [odds ratio (OR) = 2.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-4.12)], while chiropractors who frequently treat children 0-3 years (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.28-0.87), children 4-18 years (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21-0.86), and pregnant women (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.26-0.94) were less likely. Chiropractors were more likely to promote physical activity if they were familiar with the activity guidelines (OR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.32-6.41), were confident promoting (OR = 11.6; 95% CI: 1.37-98.71) and prescribing physical activity programs (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 2.03-9.99).

Conclusion: Most chiropractors confidently and regularly integrate physical activity into practice. Yet, despite acknowledging its importance, one third of chiropractors reported poor knowledge of the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines. Identifying barriers to the awareness, and implementation of physical activity guidelines should be further explored within chiropractic clinical settings.

Objectives: To assess the concurrent validity and inter-rater agreement of the diagnosis of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions using synchronous telehealth compared to standard in-person clinical diagnosis.

Methods: We searched five electronic databases for cross-sectional studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from inception to 28 September 2023. We included studies of participants presenting to a healthcare provider with an undiagnosed MSK complaint. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the QUADAS-2 and QAREL criteria. Studies rated as overall low risk of bias were synthesized descriptively following best-evidence synthesis principles.

Results: We retrieved 6835 records and 16 full-text articles. Nine studies and 321 patients were included. Participants had MSK conditions involving the shoulder, elbow, low back, knee, lower limb, ankle, and multiple conditions. Comparing telehealth versus in-person clinical assessments, inter-rater agreement ranged from 40.7% agreement for people with shoulder pain to 100% agreement for people with lower limb MSK disorders. Concurrent validity ranged from 36% agreement for people with elbow pain to 95.1% agreement for people with lower limb MSK conditions.

Discussion: In cases when access to in-person care is constrained, our study implies that telehealth might be a feasible approach for the diagnosis of MSK conditions. These conclusions are based on small cross-sectional studies carried out by similar research teams with similar participant demographics. Additional research is required to improve the diagnostic precision of telehealth evaluations across a larger range of patient groups, MSK conditions, and diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity.

Methods: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes.

Results: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes.

Conclusion: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Background: Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT.

Methods: A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori.

Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0).

Conclusion: A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings.

Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

Scope of practice has been defined as the activities that an individual health care practitioner is allowed to undertake within a specific profession. The chiropractic profession in Australia does not currently have a documented scope of practice. Informed discussions around scope of practice are hampered by a paucity of literature in this area. Acknowledging this void in the literature, we chose to investigate the factors that influence scope of practice of the chiropractic profession. A knowledge of the factors will facilitate discussion on the topic and help the profession to work towards establishing a scope of practice.Aim The aim of this study was to identify the factors that influence scope of practice of chiropractic in Australia from the perspective of 4 stakeholder groups within the profession.Methods This study employed semi-structured, online-interviews. Open-ended questions, guided by a flexible interview protocol, and augmented by supplemental questions, probes and comments, were used to gather data on the research question. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results Six factors that influenced scope of practice of chiropractic were identified in this study: education, evidence (research-derived and practice-based), political influence, community expectations, entrepreneurial business models, and geographical location.Conclusion Knowledge of the factors that influence scope of practice of chiropractic in Australia is important for establishing a scope of practice for the profession. This knowledge is also of value to a range of stakeholders including patients, health care providers (within and outside the profession), professional associations, and policymakers.

Background: Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributor to global disability and health burden. Manual therapy (MT) interventions are commonly recommended in clinical guidelines and used in the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Traditional systems of manual therapy (TMT), including physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, and soft tissue therapy have been built on principles such as clinician-centred assessment, patho-anatomical reasoning, and technique specificity. These historical principles are not supported by current evidence. However, data from clinical trials support the clinical and cost effectiveness of manual therapy as an intervention for musculoskeletal conditions, when used as part of a package of care.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to propose a modern evidence-guided framework for the teaching and practice of MT which avoids reference to and reliance on the outdated principles of TMT. This framework is based on three fundamental humanistic dimensions common in all aspects of healthcare: safety, comfort, and efficiency. These practical elements are contextualised by positive communication, a collaborative context, and person-centred care. The framework facilitates best-practice, reasoning, and communication and is exemplified here with two case studies.

Methods: A literature review stimulated by a new method of teaching manual therapy, reflecting contemporary evidence, being trialled at a United Kingdom education institute. A group of experienced, internationally-based academics, clinicians, and researchers from across the spectrum of manual therapy was convened. Perspectives were elicited through reviews of contemporary literature and discussions in an iterative process. Public presentations were made to multidisciplinary groups and feedback was incorporated. Consensus was achieved through repeated discussion of relevant elements.

Conclusions: Manual therapy interventions should include both passive and active, person-empowering interventions such as exercise, education, and lifestyle adaptations. These should be delivered in a contextualised healing environment with a well-developed person-practitioner therapeutic alliance. Teaching manual therapy should follow this model.

Background: Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

Main text: This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

Conclusions: This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Background: The Global Patient Safety Action Plan, an initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO), draws attention to patient safety as being an issue of utmost importance in healthcare. In response, the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) has established a Global Patient Safety Task Force to advance a patient safety culture across all facets of the chiropractic profession. This commentary aims to introduce principles and call upon the chiropractic profession to actively engage with the Global Patient Safety Action Plan beginning immediately and over the coming decade.

Main text: This commentary addresses why the chiropractic profession should pay attention to the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan, and what actions the chiropractic profession should take to advance these objectives. Each strategic objective identified by WHO serves as a focal point for reflection and action. Objective 1 emphasizes the need to view each clinical interaction as a chance to improve patient safety through learning. Objective 2 urges the implementation of frameworks that dismantle systemic obstacles, minimizing human errors and strengthening patient safety procedures. Objective 3 supports the optimization of clinical process safety. Objective 4 recognizes the need for patient and family engagement. Objective 5 describes the need for integrated patient safety competencies in training programs. Objective 6 explains the need for foundational data infrastructure, ecosystem, and culture. Objective 7 emphasizes that patient safety is optimized when healthcare professionals cultivate synergy and partnerships.

Conclusions: The WFC Global Patient Safety Task Force provides a structured framework for aligning essential considerations for patient safety in chiropractic care with WHO strategic objectives. Embracing the prescribed action steps offers a roadmap for the chiropractic profession to nurture an inclusive and dedicated culture, placing patient safety at its core. This commentary advocates for a concerted effort within the chiropractic community to commit to and implement these principles for the collective advancement of patient safety.

Background: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking.

Objectives: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population.

Methods: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach.

Results: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified.

Conclusions: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed.

Trial registration: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).