Effect of a Consumer-Focused Website for Low Back Pain on Health Literacy, Treatment Choices, and Clinical Outcomes: Randomized Controlled Trial

Telerehabilitation in Physiotherapy Science: A Scoping Review

The advancement of computer science technologies and telemedical devices has led to an increase in the use of telerehabilitation (TR) as a therapeutic intervention. In our days, TR interventions can be considered as alternative solutions to face-to-face therapy. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether TR can be effective in physiotherapy. This can be adjudicated by investigating the use of the TR applications, their cost effect, and the level of effectiveness each one of them can provide. Randomized controlled trials that were published between 2003 and 2023 in the English language and used TR as the intervention were collected from online databases (MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane) to be reviewed. Twenty of them met the criteria and were included in the study. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were categorized by the body system investigated. Out of the 20 studies that met the inclusive criteria, five are related to the musculoskeletal system, six are related to the nervous system, two are related to proprioception and balance, one is related to the respiratory system, one is related to the cardiovascular system, two are related to pelvic floor control, and three are related to autoimmune disorders. Studies have shown that implementing TR has resulted in significant improvements in terms of functionality, muscle strength, endurance, and self-improvement. Proprioception, autoimmune diseases, and cardiovascular health have shown the most improvement. The most commonly used tools for implementing TR are gamified virtual reality (VR) and digital apps. However, there are some disadvantages, such as the lack of personal contact and the cost involved. We found that TR has the potential to positively impact various health disorders, making it a suitable form of therapy for people who can't receive in-person treatment. Nonetheless, it cannot replace traditional physiotherapy, nor does it hold the same value as it.

Digital self-care in the management of spine musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

to analyze the effectiveness of digital self-care in the management of pain and functional disability among people with spine musculoskeletal disorders. a systematic literature review, developed with the PRISMA checklist, of randomized clinical trials of people with spine musculoskeletal disorders and digital interventions accessed by means of computers, smartphones or other portable devices. Databases researched: National Library of Medicine, Excerpta Médica dataBASE, SciVerse Scopus, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, Science Citation Indexes, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The descriptive synthesis of the results and by means of meta-analyses (fixed-effects model) was performed with the Review Manager software. The methodological quality was evaluated with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. a total of 25 trials were selected (5,142 participants), which showed statistically significant improvements (p <0.05) in 54% (12/22) in the pain levels and 47% (10/21) in functional disability in the Intervention Group. The meta-analyses showed moderate effects on pain intensity and small effects on functional disability. There was a predominance of medium quality studies. the digital care interventions showed a beneficial result in pain intensity and in functional disability, mainly for chronic low back pain. Digital care emerges as promising to support self-management of the spine musculoskeletal conditions. PROSPERO registry number CRD42021282102.

Avoiding nocebo and other undesirable effects in chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy: An invitation to reflect

INTRODUCTION

While the placebo effect is increasingly recognised as a contributor to treatment effects in clinical practice, the nocebo and other undesirable effects are less well explored and likely underestimated. In the chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions, some aspects of historical models of care may arguably increase the risk of nocebo effects.

PURPOSE

In this masterclass article, clinicians, researchers, and educators are invited to reflect on such possibilities, in an attempt to stimulate research and raise awareness for the mitigation of such undesirable effects.

IMPLICATIONS

This masterclass briefly introduces the nocebo effect and its underlying mechanisms. It then traces the historical development of chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy, arguing that there was and continues to be an excessive focus on the patient's body. Next, aspects of clinical practice, including communication, the therapeutic relationship, clinical rituals, and the wider social and economic context of practice are examined for their potential to generate nocebo and other undesirable effects. To aid reflection, a model to reflect on clinical practice and individual professions through the 'prism' of nocebo and other undesirable effects is introduced and illustrated. Finally, steps are proposed for how researchers, educators, and practitioners can maximise positive and minimise negative clinical context.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively).

Results

27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP.

Conclusions

There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.