Management of work-related low back pain: a population-based survey of physical therapists

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physical therapy often is used in the management of work-related low back pain (LBP). Little information, however, is known about the types of interventions used by physical therapists in the management of this condition. The objective of this study was to describe the interventions used by physical therapists in the treatment of workers with acute or subacute LBP, with or without radiating pain below the knee. SUBJECTS: Clinical management questionnaires for workers without and with radiating pain were returned by 190 and 139 physical therapists, respectively. METHODS: For each treatment session, therapists recorded treatment objectives, interventions, and education provided to 2 workers with LBP, 1 with radiating pain and 1 without radiating pain. RESULTS: The majority of physical therapists used stretching and strengthening exercises, spinal mobilization, soft tissue mobilization and massage, manual traction, posture correction, interferential current, ultrasound, heat, and functional activities education. With radiating pain, the majority of the therapists also used cold and the McKenzie approach. Treatment objectives pursued by the majority of the therapists were decrease of pain, increase of range of motion, increase of muscle strength (force-generating capacity of muscle), decrease of muscle tension, and worker education. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapists use an array of interventions with workers with LBP. The effectiveness of most interventions reported has not been well studied.     

Characterization of tissue resistance during a dorsally directed translational mobilization of the glenohumeral joint

OBJECTIVES: To quantify forces applied by therapists during dorsal glide translational mobilization of the glenohumeral joint, to determine the relationship of tissue resistance to the load-displacement relation of the glenohumeral joint, and to determine the safety of the forces applied by the therapists during dorsal glide translational mobilization. DESIGN: A fresh cadaver shoulder specimen mounted on a 6-axis load cell was used to register forces applied by therapists during dorsal glide translational mobilization of the glenohumeral joint in a test-retest pattern. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve experienced orthopedic physical therapists. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Forces exerted by therapists during passive dorsal glide translational mobilization in the loose-packed position and in the end range of abduction, with different grades of movements. The movements did not include any manipulation or thrust-type procedures. Simulated dorsal glide procedures were performed by the material testing system to construct the load-displacement curve of the glenohumeral specimen. The corresponding locations of the forces applied by therapists were interpolated and plotted on the load-displacement curve. RESULTS: The peak force values measured during mobilization were characterized by large intertherapist variability: coefficients of variation ranged from 40.97% to 77.49%. Test-retest reliability for intrasession measures was high (ICC(2,1) range,.90-.94); intersession reliability was poor (ICC(2,1) range,.01-.54). The mean forces ranged from 18.36 to 38.76N. When interpolated to the load-displacement curve, the mean peak forces obtained fell mostly in the toe and the linear elastic regions of the load-displacement curve. CONCLUSION: Force parameters measured during dorsal glide mobilization were characterized by large intertherapist variability with high intrasession and poor intersession test-retest reliability. The mobilization forces applied by experienced orthopedic physical therapists fall safely in the toe and the linear elastic regions of the load-displacement curve.     

Reliability of clinical measurements of lumbar lordosis taken with a flexible rule

The purpose of this study was to examine the intratester and intertester reliability of lumbar lordosis measurements taken with a flexible rule. Two physical therapists (Tester 1 and Tester 2) took measurements on 40 subjects without low back pain (LBP) and on 40 subjects with LBP. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine the degree of agreement between repeated measurements taken by the same therapist and between measurements taken by the two therapists. The ICC values for intratester reliability of Tester 1 were .84 for subjects without LBP and .94 for subjects with LBP. The ICC values of Tester 2 were .73 for subjects without LBP and .83 for subjects with LBP. Intertester reliability generally was poor, with ICC values of .41 for subjects without LBP and .50 for subjects with LBP. The results suggest that measurements of lumbar lordosis with a flexible rule may be reliable if taken by the same physical therapist. The degree of reliability, however, may vary from therapist to therapist. The intertester reliability of these measurements appears to be poor, but these conclusions must be interpreted carefully because of the limited number of therapists participating in this study.     

Development of an instrumented couch to measure forces during manual physiotherapy treatment

This paper reports on an instrumented couch developed to measure the forces applied during posteroanterior (PA) mobilization to the lumbar spine. The couch was evaluated for reliability by applying known weights to the empty couch, while accuracy was investigated by applying weights both to the empty couch and to a human subject lying on the couch. The equipment appears highly reliable when measuring forces in three directions (ICC(2,1); 99% CI=0.99-1.00) and also demonstrates acceptable accuracy; a maximum error of less than 2% being obtained when measuring forces applied to human subjects. The results demonstrate a highly linear relationship (r2=0.99) between the force readings and the known weights. In conclusion, the instrumented couch demonstrates suitable accuracy and reliability for measuring the force applied to a subject during the application of PA mobilization to the lumbar spine.     

An Exploration of Maitland's Concept of Pain Irritability in Patients with Low Back Pain

Abstract

Maitland's construct of musculoskeletal pain irritability is widely used by physical therapists for making decisions about the vigor of examination and treatment, but this construct has not been defined to the extent that its measurement properties can be tested. The purposes of this study were to 1) determine if physical therapists utilize low back pain (LBP) irritability judgments to make treatment decisions, 2) identify LBP characteristics appropriate for an LBP irritability construct, and 3) develop a measurement construct of LBP irritability. Physical therapists evaluated and treated 183 subjects with LBP. The therapists judged the subjects' LBP as irritable or non-irritable, and recorded treatments provided at the initial visit. A principal-components analysis (PCA) was performed on 14 patient-reported LBP characteristics to identify potential components of a measurement construct of LBP irritability. The therapists' irritability judgments were found to be associated with the types of treatments prescribed. Five dimensions of LBP irritability were identified by the PCA from the 14 LBP characteristics considered. Four of these dimensions were associated with the therapists' LBP irritability judgments. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, presence of distal symptoms, and forward bending tolerance were found to have a stronger association with the irritability judgments than the dimensions of irritability identified in this study. Validated measures of LBP characteristics in current clinical use may adequately capture Maitland's concept of irritability.     

An Exploration of Maitland's Concept of Pain Irritability in Patients with Low Back Pain

Maitland''s construct of musculoskeletal pain irritability is widely used by physical therapists for making decisions about the vigor of examination and treatment, but this construct has not been defined to the extent that its measurement properties can be tested. The purposes of this study were to 1) determine if physical therapists utilize low back pain (LBP) irritability judgments to make treatment decisions, 2) identify LBP characteristics appropriate for an LBP irritability construct, and 3) develop a measurement construct of LBP irritability. Physical therapists evaluated and treated 183 subjects with LBP. The therapists judged the subjects'' LBP as irritable or non-irritable, and recorded treatments provided at the initial visit. A principal-components analysis (PCA) was performed on 14 patient-reported LBP characteristics to identify potential components of a measurement construct of LBP irritability. The therapists'' irritability judgments were found to be associated with the types of treatments prescribed. Five dimensions of LBP irritability were identified by the PCA from the 14 LBP characteristics considered. Four of these dimensions were associated with the therapists'' LBP irritability judgments. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, presence of distal symptoms, and forward bending tolerance were found to have a stronger association with the irritability judgments than the dimensions of irritability identified in this study. Validated measures of LBP characteristics in current clinical use may adequately capture Maitland''s concept of irritability.     

Effects of patient--clinician disagreement in occupational low back pain: a pilot study

PURPOSE: To determine (1) patient--physical therapist and patient--physician agreement on clinical management of LBP, (2) patient perception of agreement between physical therapist and physician, (3) association between agreement and outcome (return to work, self-perceived disability). METHOD: Thirty-five workers compensated for LBP responded to a telephone interview within 1 week of referral to physical therapy. They were asked about agreement with the physical therapist and the physician regarding the clinical management of their LBP and whether they thought the physical therapist was providing the treatment the physician would have thought appropriate. They completed a second interview upon returning to work or after 3 months. They answered questionnaires on self-perceived disability, psychological distress, coping strategies, and job satisfaction at both baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Nearly all patients (97.1%) agreed with the physical therapist and all believed the physical therapist was providing the treatment the physician would have thought appropriate. The 10 (28.6%) patients who disagreed with their physician on medical management of their LBP were less satisfied with the medical care (P=0.05), technical quality of the visit (P=0.01), and catastrophized more about their pain (P=0.03) than those who agreed. Disagreement was not associated with greater time off-work or greater self-perceived disability. CONCLUSION: Patients who disagreed with their physician were less satisfied with their medical management, and catastrophized more about their pain than those who agreed, but disagreement was not associated with chronicity or disability. Studies with larger sample sizes should investigate the role of other factors, such as patient expectations, in the transition to chronicity.     

Prevalence of low back pain among physical therapists in Edmonton,Canada

Questionnaires were sent to 462 physical therapists in Edmonton, Canada, to determine the prevalence of work-related low back pain (LBP) and to characterize those who reported pain. Of the 311 (67·3%) valid questionnaires returned, 49·2% reported back pain due to work. The occurrence rates of work-related LBP among physical therapists in Edmonton was higher than that of the general population reported in Canada (27%), Great Britain (27%), and the United States (26·29%). There was no significant difference (p ≤ 005) between those with and without work-related LBP. The initial onset of work-related LBP frequently occurred within the first 5 years of practice as a physical therapist, and before the age of 30. Hospitals and private practices were the most prevalent work settings in which injury occurred. Patient handling, bending, stooping, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling were the commonly described activities causing precipitation of injury. The severity of back discomfort had been sufficient to require 13·7% of therapists to stop their work. Despite LBP, 35·3% of the pain sufferers continued to work. Over half (55·4%) of the respondents with current work-related LBP demonstrated little or no disability.     

Posteroanterior spinal mobilization: state of the art review and discussion

Posteroanterior spinal mobilization is a commonly used technique among physical therapists to diagnose and treat lower back pain patients. Human subjects and instruments have been used to test for the reliability of physical therapists' ability to detect intervertebral motion, but studies confirm unreliable testing. Despite documented efficacy of manual treatment the mechanical response to posteroanterior spinal mobilization is not well understood, and this has been emphasized in recent studies. Various modes of instrumental methodology have been used for objective measurements of force application and joint displacement. Some instruments serve to mobilize the spine others serve as measurement tools for mobilization. The literature does not provide a gold standard for the ideal magnitude of force applied or joint displacement. The terminology used in the field of manual therapy is often confusing, and terms need to be defined. A review and discussion is presented here to highlight the issues and gaps.     

Posteroanterior motion test of a lumbar vertebra: accuracy of perception

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of perception of forces applied to and displacement produced in an electromechanical one vertebral spinal model, among inexperienced and experienced physical, therapists performing posteroanterior pressure on a lumbar vertebra, before and after a training session. METHODS: Ten relatively inexperienced physical therapists and ten experienced manual therapists participated. An electromechanical single level spinal model was used for applying oscillatory posteroanterior pressure and measuring the forces on and displacement of the vertebra. A digital oscilloscope was used to give direct feedback to the therapists while performing mobilization to discern the magnitude of these two variables. RESULTS: The inexperienced group estimated the displacement accurately but the experienced group was significantly inaccurate (p<0.02), and both groups were inaccurate in estimating the force (p<0.001), before training. Following training, the inexperienced group maintained their accuracy on displacement and the experienced group improved their accuracy significantly (p<0.001). Both groups approached significance in improving their accuracy of force estimation. CONCLUSION: An electromechanical spinal model can be used as training tool along with an oscilloscope. Longer training may be needed for the force than the displacement for accurate perception.     

Physical therapists' use of interventions with high evidence of effectiveness in the management of a hypothetical typical patient with acute low back pain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence-based practice aims to improve patient care and service delivery, particularly in the management of individuals with low back pain (LBP), the largest client group seen by outpatient physical therapists. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of use of interventions with evidence of effectiveness in the management of acute nonspecific LBP by physical therapists. SUBJECTS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 physical therapists working with patients with LBP. METHODS: Using a telephone-administered interview, therapists described their current and desired treatment practices for a typical case of LBP. Each intervention reported was coded according to its evidence of effectiveness (strong, moderate, limited, or none). Information on clinician, workplace, and client characteristics also was obtained. RESULTS: The prevalence of use of interventions with strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness was 68%. However, 90% to 96% of therapists also used interventions for which research evidence was limited or absent. Users of interventions with high evidence of effectiveness, as compared with nonusers, had graduated more recently and had taken a higher number of postgraduate clinical courses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although most therapists use interventions with high evidence of effectiveness, much of their patient time is spent on interventions that are not well reported in the literature. The results indicate the need for improvement in the quality of clinical research as well as its dissemination and implementation in a way that is appealing to therapists, such as through practice-related courses.     

The knowledge of low back pain management between physical therapists and family practice physicians

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare knowledge in managing patients with low back pain (LBP) between physical therapists and family practice physicians.

Methods: Seventy-three physical therapists and 30 family practice physicians completed standardized examinations assessing knowledge, attitudes, the usefulness of clinical practice guidelines, and management strategies for patients with LBP. Beliefs of physical therapists and family practice physicians about LBP were compared using relative risks and independent t-tests.

Results: Scores related to knowledge, attitudes, and the usefulness of clinical practice guidelines were generally similar between the groups. In addition, there was no difference between the groups for knowledge regarding optimal management strategies for patients with LBP. However, physical therapists were less likely to have difficulty assessing motivation levels of patients with LBP compared to family practice physicians (64.6% vs 26.7%; relative risk: 2.41 [95% confidence interval: 1.30–4.48] and physical therapists were less likely to agree that interventions by health care providers have little positive effect on the natural history of acute LBP (17.8% vs. 50.0%; relative risk: 0.36 [95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.66]).

Discussion: The results of this study may have implications for third-party payers and health care administrators regarding the utilization of physical therapists in the management of patients with LBP in expanded scopes of practice, including direct access and potential placement in primary care clinics.     

Management of back and neck pain: who seeks care from physical therapists?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little information is available on factors associated with physical therapist use by people with back or neck pain. Identifying the characteristics of people who seek care from physical therapists is a useful first step in determining whether there is appropriate use of physical therapy services. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with physical therapist use by people with back or neck pain. SUBJECTS: The subjects were 29,049 people who had back pain or neck pain, or both, and who were seen for an initial evaluation at 1 of 21 US spine care centers. Each subject and evaluating physician completed a written survey at the time of the initial evaluation. METHODS: Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with physical therapist use. RESULTS: Several measures of health and illness severity were associated with physical therapist use. Age and being male were negatively associated with physical therapist use. Education level, having workers' compensation coverage, and being in litigation were positively associated with physical therapist use. Physical therapist use also varied by previous physician use and census region. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results suggest that variations in physical therapist use are associated with factors other than health and illness severity. The results also suggest that people who would benefit from physical therapy may not be receiving it or that people who would not benefit from physical therapy are receiving it, or both.     

The relationship of lumbar flexion to disability in patients with low back pain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physical therapists routinely assess spinal active range of motion (AROM) in patients with low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to use 2 approaches to examine the relationship between impairment of lumbar spine flexion AROM and disability. One approach relied on the use of normative data to determine when an impairment in flexion AROM was present. The other approach required therapists to make judgments of whether the flexion AROM impairment was relevant to the patient's disability. SUBJECTS: Fifteen physical therapists and 81 patients with LBP completed in the study. METHODS: Patients completed the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire (RMQ), and the therapists assessed lumbar spine flexion AROM using a dual-inclinometer technique at the initial visit and again at discharge. RESULTS: Correlations between the lumbar flexion AROM measure and disability were low and did not vary appreciably for the 2 approaches tested. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Measures of lumbar flexion AROM should not be used as surrogate measures of disability. Lumbar spine flexion AROM and disability are weakly correlated, suggesting that flexion AROM measures should not be used as treatment goals.     

Screening for symptoms of depression by physical therapists managing low back pain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Depression is a condition that worsens the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) and is under-recognized and undertreated in primary care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy with which physical therapists screen for depressive symptoms among their patients with LBP. SUBJECTS: Sixty-eight physical therapists and 232 patients with nonspecific LBP from 40 physical therapy clinics participated. METHODS: Patients completed the reference standard (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales [DASS]) and a 2-item screening test for depression taken from the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure (PRIME-MD). Treating physical therapists used a 0 to 10 scale to judge whether each patient was depressed. Based on the short-form Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) depression scale score, each patient was categorized as exhibiting normal, mild, moderate, severe, or extremely severe depression symptoms, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to describe test accuracy. RESULTS: The 2-item screening test was more accurate in screening for depressive symptoms than the physical therapists' ratings were; for example, in detecting moderate depressive symptoms in the 2 areas under the ROC curve, values were 0.66 versus 0.79. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Because the therapists did not accurately identify symptoms of depression, even symptoms of severe depression, despite the common presentation in their clinics, we recommend that physical therapists managing patients with LBP use the 2-item depression screening test. Administration of this screening test would improve physical therapists' ability to screen for symptoms of depression and would enable referral for appropriate management.     

Predictive Factors in Poor Inter-Rater Reliability Among Physical Therapists

Abstract

Manual therapy is a widely used form of treatment among physical therapists and has been shown to be effective in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. In numerous studies, the reliability of clinicians performing the four grades of mobilization of manual therapy has been poor. A sample of 23 licensed physical therapists participated in quasi-experimental repeated measures designed to determine if predictive factors such as gender or years of experience contribute to inter-rater reliability variances. In this design, therapists performed Grade I, II, III and IV mobilizations on two asymptomatic volunteers at the level of L3, based on resistance defined Grades of Movement. The Kistler Force Plate ? was used to record mobilization forces for each physical therapist at a rate of 600 data-point measurements per second. Data were assessed to determine if poor inter-rater reliability is reflective of certain predictive variables. The results identified that the independent variables of age, years of experience, gender, frequency of use, education, and background of the rater did not contribute to the overall variance within the study. Further investigation is required as to what determines the poor inter-rater reliability of spinal accessory mobilizations by practicing clinicians.     

Patient- and Physical Therapist–Level Predictors of Patient-Reported Therapeutic Alliance: An Observational,Exploratory Study of Cohorts With Knee and Low Back Pain

ObjectiveTo identify patient- and physical therapist–level predictors for therapeutic alliance at the end of an episode of physical therapy for knee or low back pain (LBP).DesignSecondary analysis of observational cohort.SettingOutpatient physical therapy clinics.ParticipantsPatients receiving physical therapy for knee (n=189) or LBP (n=252) and physical therapists (n=19). Candidate predictor variables included demographics, patient clinical characteristics, and physical therapist attitudes and beliefs (Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists) and confidence in providing patient-centered care (Self-Efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire).InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresPatient-reported therapeutic alliance was measured using the 12-item Work Alliance Inventory–Short Revised (WAI-SR).ResultsFinal linear mixed models indicated different patient- and physical therapist–level factor contributions in predicting final WAI-SR scores across cohorts with knee and LBP. Female sex was a consistent patient-level predictor for both knee (estimated β=1.57, P<.05) and LBP (β=1.42, P<.05), with age (β=−0.07, P<.01) and baseline function (β=0.06, P<.01) contributing to cohorts with knee and LBP, respectively. Physical therapist–level predictors included female sex (β=6.04, P<.05), Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists behavioral (β=0.65, P<.01), and Self-Efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (SEPCQ) Exploring Patient Perspective (β=−0.75, P<.01) subscale scores for LBP, with SEPCQ Sharing Information and Power subscale scores (β=0.56, P<.05) contributing to both cohorts with knee (β=0.56, P<.05) and LBP (β=0.74, P<.01). Random effects for patients nested within physical therapists were observed for both cohorts.ConclusionsThese findings provide preliminary evidence for inconsistent relationships among patient- and physical therapist–level factors and therapeutic alliance across cohorts with knee and LBP.     

Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies of expert physical therapists have sampled therapists based on years of clinical experience or reputation, not on their patients' clinical outcomes. The purposes of this study were to identify expert physical therapists by using patient self-reported outcomes and to describe the characteristics of clinicians whose patients with lumbar spine syndromes reported higher health-related quality of life (HRQL) following rehabilitation. METHODS: Retrospective data were analyzed on 24276 patients (mean age=47.8 years, SD=16, range=14-97) with lumbar spine syndromes treated by 930 physical therapists participating in the Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes database in 1999-2000. Physical therapists and staff answered questions concerning years of experience and practice setting when starting their participation in the outcomes system. Patient self-report HRQL data were collected at intake and discharge from outpatient rehabilitation. Discharge HRQL data were risk adjusted using patient characteristics. Data were aggregated by physical therapist. Risk-adjusted discharge HRQL scores were used to classify physical therapists whose patients reported mean HRQL improvement above the 90th percentile as experts and physical therapists whose patients reported mean HRQL improvement between the 45th and 55th percentiles as average. RESULTS: Therapists classified as expert had fewer patients in the database than did therapists classified as average (mean SD) (19 +/-17 versus 29 +/-22). Mean treatment duration was different between groups (32 +/- 11 days for the expert group versus 31+/-8 days for the average group). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results challenge assumptions that extensive clinical experience is necessary to achieve superior patient outcomes, and they provide information about the relationship between therapist characteristics and patient outcomes.