Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause—eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem.

Despite the high frequency of inguinal hernia repair (IHR) surgery, there is little research investigating pre- or post-operative exercise and education in this population. Recommendations regarding perioperative physical activity are inconsistent and largely based on clinical opinion. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to examine the feasibility of perioperative rehabilitation for inguinal hernia repair surgery in terms of recruitment rate, assessment, and protocol implementation. Participants were randomized into an intervention group and control group. Descriptive and patient-reported data were collected through online surveys at baseline, post-prehabilitation (prehab), 1-week post-operative (post-op), and 12-week post-op. Eligible participants completed a performance-based modified Short Form Functional Capacity Evaluation conducted by a masked observer at baseline, after 6 weeks of exercise and/or education, and at 12-week post-op. Participants in the intervention group received 6 weeks of exercise and education prior to and then after surgery. The control group received care as usual. Thirty-one participants awaiting IHR with a mean age of 49 years were recruited (recruitment rate of 51.7%). Thirty participants were randomized into control (n = 16) and intervention groups (n = 14), while 1 dropped out prior to beginning the study due to being unable to take time off work for assessment. Twenty-four participants completed the final 12-week post-op follow-ups. Twenty-one participants returned to work by the 12-week post-op follow-up. Sixty-seven percent of participants in the intervention group exercised at least 3 times per week post-operatively. One participant in each group experienced exacerbations of hernia symptoms that were unrelated to study activities. Functional testing resulted in minimal symptom exacerbation in either group, but the intervention group reported less pain at 12-week post-op than controls. A randomized trial of perioperative rehabilitation for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair appears feasible, but protocol adjustments are needed to improve recruitment rate, assessment, and participant retention. Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05069142.

Background Understanding the factors influencing surgical decisions specific to symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (SLSS) can help healthcare providers support patients, set expectations and improve health literacy. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the experiences and perspectives of Canadian patients who choose to undergo surgery for SLSS. Methods We used qualitative interpretive phenomenology to understand the surgical decision-making process from individuals with lived experience of SLSS. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews that lasted between 30 and 90 min. Inclusion criteria were individuals 55 or older, diagnosed with SLSS, scheduled for or have undergone lumbar spine surgery, and able to speak English. Participants were recruited between October 2019 and September 2021. Results A total of 32 participants (Men: n  = 18; Women: n  = 14) were included in this study. Among those participants, 15 were interviewed preoperatively and 17 postoperatively, and all were over 55 years. We identified 5 themes that were woven through the decision-making of respondents, beginning with the experience with healthcare systems and building outwards to the broader social context: (1) Previous experience with non-surgical management, (2) Worrisome symptoms impacting functionality, (3) Perception of surgery as a final course of action, (4) Post-surgical hopes/expectations (i.e., hope that they will be pain-free after surgery), and (5) Having a social support network (i.e., advice and support from family/friends). Conclusion Several experiences may influence an individual’s decision to undergo spine surgery, highlighting the importance of integrating a biopsychosocial model in managing SLSS. For chiropractors and manual therapists, these indicators are particularly important, as they often represent a first point of contact for patients with SLSS. Clinicians must maintainperson-centric communication to help patients understand their condition and the clinical treatment pathway for SLSS and develop post-surgical expectations. Key points 1) Surgical decision-making is a complex experience that requires both a biomedical and psychosocial approach. 2) Improved shared decision-making among patients and healthcare providers may improve patient expectations. 3) There is a need to develop resources and standardize pathways related to managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Introduction Occupational rehabilitation often involves functional capacity evaluations (FCE) that use simulated work tasks to assess work ability. Currently, there exists no single, streamlined solution to simulate all or a large number of standard work tasks. Such a system would improve FCE and functional rehabilitation through simulating reaching maneuvers and more dexterous functional tasks that are typical of workplace activities. This paper reviews efforts to develop robotic FCE solutions that incorporate machine learning algorithms. Methods We reviewed the literature regarding rehabilitation robotics, with an emphasis on novel techniques incorporating robotics and machine learning into FCE. Results Rehabilitation robotics aims to improve the assessment and rehabilitation of injured workers by providing methods for easily simulating workplace tasks using intelligent robotic systems. Machine learning-based approaches combine the benefits of robotic systems with the expertise and experience of human therapists. These innovations have the potential to improve the quantification of function as well as learn the haptic interactions provided by therapists to assist patients during assessment and rehabilitation. This is done by allowing a robot to learn based on a therapist’s motions (“demonstrations”) what the desired workplace activity (“task”) is and how to recreate it for a worker with an injury (“patient”). Through Telerehabilitation and internet connectivity, these robotic assessment techniques can be used over a distance to reach rural and remote locations. Conclusions While the research is in the early stages, robotics with integrated machine learning algorithms have great potential for improving traditional FCE practice.

Long COVID is characterized by the presence of new onset or persistent symptoms 3 months after a suspected or confirmed history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is a complex and multi-faceted condition that affects people in different ways. Long COVID affects individuals' labour market participation. While some cannot work, others may return to work (RTW) in a limited capacity. Determining what rehabilitation or related strategies are safe and effective for facilitating RTW is necessary. To synthesize evidence on RTW interventions for people living with Long COVID and to identify 'promising' interventions for enhancing work ability and RTW. We followed Arksey & O'Malley's methodology and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Five electronic bibliographic databases and grey literature were searched. The literature search included various study designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental designs, and observational studies as well as clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction, with disagreements resolved through consensus. Intervention studies were categorized as promising (statistically significant RTW outcomes or ≥ 50% RTW), somewhat promising (20% to < 50% RTW), not promising (non-statistically significant RTW outcomes or < 20% RTW), or uncertain (did not specify proportion of RTW). Twelve CPGs and nineteen intervention studies were identified. Of the intervention studies, 5 were cohort studies, 3 quasi-experimental studies, 4 observational, 2 interventional, 3 RCTs, and 2 case reports. Promising interventions included multimodal and interdisciplinary work-focused rehabilitation, multidisciplinary inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, psychoeducation, pacing, and breathing strategies, shifting focus from symptom monitoring to optimizing functional outcomes, enhanced external counterpulsation inflatable pressure to improve blood flow, and constraint-induced cognitive therapy. Many uncertainties remain regarding which RTW interventions are effective or the optimal characteristics of these interventions.

The current study aimed to explore patient and provider perspectives of the impact of the pandemic on cystic fibrosis healthcare access and service delivery. We used Interpretive Description, a qualitative approach with the end-goal of informing decisions and actions in clinical practice by generating findings that are clinically meaningful and useful. Levesque et al.'s \"Conceptual framework of access to health care\" informed the development of our interview guides. Interviews were conducted via telephone or Zoom and confidentially transcribed verbatim. Data generation and analysis occurred concurrently to allow for iterative refinements of the interview guides. Analysis was informed by Braun and Clarke's six phases of reflexive thematic analysis. Strategies to enhance rigour and trustworthiness of the findings were utilized. We completed 13 interviews: 8 with patients and 5 with providers. Three key themes were generated: (a) Tensions due to infection prevention at micro- meso-, and macro- levels; (b) Modifying aspects of person-focused care can bolster perceived quality of clinical encounters; and (c) Accessibility of appropriate healthcare services could improve efficiency of service delivery. Infection prevention at the individual level was not found to be burdensome. Society's compliance with public health measures, or lack thereof, impacted the level of stigma and anxiety experienced by patients with cystic fibrosis. A changed model of care reliant on patient self-report instead of clinician-led testing and in-person assessment due to the transition to virtual care was associated with mixed perceptions since patients with cystic fibrosis were comfortable making care decisions but many participants (patient and provider) felt challenged by the lack of objective data for decision-making. It was essential for patients with cystic fibrosis to feel known, heard, and seen by their providers in order to feel the care was effective. Finally, critical insights around the need for a balance of in-person and virtual care as well as the need for mental health supports were offered. The learnings from this study could be translated into practical strategies for improving cystic fibrosis care during the pandemic and beyond. We recommend: (1) a hybrid approach to care moving forward, (2) each patient having a lead physician with others filling in as necessary when scheduling demands, and (3) a reallocation of resources to fund a mental health practitioner position.

Background The therapeutic relationship between patient and physiotherapist is a central component of patient-centred care and has been positively associated with better physiotherapy clinical outcomes. Despite its influence, we do not know what conditions enable a physiotherapist and patient to establish and maintain a therapeutic relationship. This knowledge has implications for how clinicians approach their interactions with patients and for the development of an assessment tool that accurately reflects the nature of the therapeutic relationship. Therefore, this study’s aim was to identify and provide in-depth descriptions of the necessary conditions of engagement of the therapeutic relationship between physiotherapists and patients. Methods Interpretive description was the qualitative methodological orientation used to identify and describe the conditions that reflect and are practically relevant to clinical practice. Eleven physiotherapists with a minimum 5 years of clinical experience and seven adult patients with musculoskeletal disorders were purposively sampled from private practice clinics in Edmonton, Canada. The in-person, semi-structured interviews were completed in a location of the participant’s choice and were audio recorded and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the textual data and constant comparison techniques were integrated to refine the categories and sub-categories. Rigour strategies used throughout the study were peer debrief, interview notes, reflexive journaling, memoing, member reflections, audit trail, and external audit. Results Four conditions were identified as necessary for establishing a therapeutic relationship: present , receptive , genuine , and committed . These conditions represent the intentions and attitudes of physiotherapists and patients engaging in the clinical interaction. Although distinct, the conditions appear related as being present and receptive create a foundation for being genuine and committed. Conclusions These conditions of engagement are needed for physiotherapist and patient to “be” in a therapeutic relationship. Although communication skills are important for advancing therapists’ relational abilities, awareness and integration of intentions and attitudes are essential for shaping behaviors that develop the therapeutic relationship. These findings also suggest there are characteristics of the therapeutic relationship specific to physiotherapy. Therefore, theories from other contexts (e.g., psychotherapy) should be used judiciously to guide physiotherapy practice and research.

Purpose To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I–III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). Methods This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I–III NAD <6 months duration. Recommendation 1 Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III. Recommendation 2 Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD. Recommendation 3 Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I–III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care. Recommendation 4 For NAD grades I–II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat. Recommendation 5 For NAD grades I–II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections. Recommendation 6 For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. Recommendation 7 For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. Recommendation 8 Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

Background Understanding of Long COVID has advanced through patient-led initiatives. However, research about barriers to accessing Long COVID services is limited. This study aimed to better understand the need for, access to, and quality of, Long COVID services. We explored health needs and experiences of services, including ability of services to address needs. Methods Our study was informed by the Levesque et al.’s (2013) “conceptual framework of access to health care.” We used Interpretive Description, a qualitative approach partly aimed at informing clinical decisions. We recruited participants across five settings. Participants engaged in one-time, semi-structured, virtual interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. We used reflexive thematic analysis. Best practice to ensure methodological rigour was employed. Results Three key themes were generated from 56 interviews. The first theme illustrated the rollercoaster-like nature of participants’ Long COVID symptoms and the resulting impact on function and health. The second theme highlighted participants’ attempts to access Long COVID services. Guidance received from healthcare professionals and self-advocacy impacted initial access. When navigating Long COVID services within the broader system, participants encountered barriers to access around stigma; appointment logistics; testing and ‘normal’ results; and financial precarity and affordability of services. The third theme illuminated common factors participants liked and disliked about Long COVID services. We framed each sub-theme as the key lesson (stemming from all likes and dislikes) that, if acted upon, the health system can use to improve the quality of Long COVID services. This provides tangible ways to improve the system based directly on what we heard from participants. Conclusion With Long COVID services continuously evolving, our findings can inform decision makers within the health system to better understand the lived experiences of Long COVID and tailor services and policies appropriately.