BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) may be a relevant comorbidity when managing people with low back or pelvic girdle pain. It is unknown how often physiotherapists inquire about LUTS, and what the potential barriers and facilitators are to inquire about LUTS in this patient population.OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency of inquiring about LUTS, and to identify the barriers and facilitators among physiotherapists with and without additional pelvic health training to ask for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic girdle pain.DESIGN: A qualitative study using thematic analysis.METHODS: Through purposeful sampling, 29 primary care physiotherapists were interviewed (16 physiotherapists and 13 physiotherapists with additional pelvic health training). Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding facilitators and barriers.FINDINGS: The frequency of inquiring about LUTS was: 'never': 10%, 'sometimes': 38%, and 'always': 52%. Four barriers were identified: (1) lack of knowledge of the physiotherapist, (2) a standardised assessment approach which did not include LUTS, (3) patient expectations assumed by the physiotherapist, and (4) social, cultural and personal barriers. Three facilitators were identified: (1) communication skills and experience of the physiotherapist, (2) education and knowledge, and (3) interprofessional consultation and referral.CONCLUSION: The majority of physiotherapists surveyed in this study regularly asked for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic pain. For when not asked, the identified barriers seem modifiable with adequate training, knowledge and skill acquisition, and sound clinical reasoning.
Purpose: To systematically review the literature on effectiveness of remote physiotherapeutic e-Health interventions on pain in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Materials and methods: Using online data sources PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane in adults with musculoskeletal disorders with a pain-related complaint. Remote physiotherapeutic e-Health interventions were analysed. Control interventions were not specified. Outcomes on effect of remote e-Health interventions in terms of pain intensity. Results: From 11,811 studies identified, 27 studies were included. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness for remote e-Health for patients with back pain based on five articles. Twelve articles studied chronic pain and the effectiveness was dependent on the control group and involvement of healthcare providers. In patients with osteoarthritis (five articles), total knee surgery (two articles), and knee pain (three articles) no significant effects were found for remote e-Health compared to control groups. Conclusions: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of remote physiotherapeutic e-Health interventions to decrease pain intensity in patients with back pain. There is some evidence for effectiveness of remote e-Health in patients with chronic pain. For patients with osteoarthritis, after total knee surgery and knee pain, there appears to be no effect of e-Health when solely looking at reduction of pain. Implications for rehabilitation This review shows that e-Health can be an effective way of reducing pain in some populations. Remote physiotherapeutic e-Health interventions may decrease pain intensity in patients with back pain. Autonomous e-Health is more effective than no treatment in patients with chronic pain. There is no effect of e-Health in reduction of pain for patients with osteoarthritis, after total knee surgery and knee pain.Implications for rehabilitation* This review shows that e-Health can be an effective way of reducing pain in some populations.* Remote physiotherapeutic e-Health interventions may decrease pain intensity in patients with back pain.* Autonomous e-Health is more effective than no treatment in patients with chronic pain.* There is no effect of e-Health in reduction of pain for patients with osteoarthritis, after total knee surgery and knee pain.
Background: Previous systematic reviews revealed poor reliability and validity for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mobility tests. However, these reviews were published nearly 20 years ago and recent evidence has not yet been summarised. Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date systematic review to verify whether recommendations regarding the clinical use of SIJ mobility tests should be revised. Study design: Systematic review. Method: The literature was searched for relevant articles via 5 electronic databases. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality. Studies were included if they had at least fair methodology and reported clinimetric properties of SIJ mobility tests performed in adult patients with non-specific low back pain, pelvic (girdle) pain and/or SIJ pain. Only tests that can be performed in a clinical setting were considered. Results: Twelve relevant articles were identified, of which three were of sufficient methodological quality. These three studies evaluated the reliability of eight SIJ mobility tests and one test cluster. For the majority of individual tests, the intertester reliability showed slight to fair agreement. Although some tests and one test cluster had higher reliability, the confidence intervals around most reliability estimates were large. Furthermore, there were no validity studies of sufficient methodological quality. Conclusion: Considering the low and/or imprecise reliability estimates, the absence of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies, and the uncertainty regarding the construct these tests aim to measure, this review supports the previous recommendations that the use of SIJ mobility tests in clinical practice is problematic.
LINK
