RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: To systematically compare the global prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and care-seeking in rural and urban populations. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies reporting a direct comparison of rural and urban populations was conducted worldwide and included back, knee, hip, shoulder, neck pain and a broad diagnosis of 'musculoskeletal pain'. A search strategy combining terms related to 'prevalence', 'musculoskeletal pain' and 'rural' was used on the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and rural and remote health from their inception to 1 June 2022. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the data. Results were presented as odds ratios (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: A total of 42 studies from 24 countries were included with a total population of 489 439 participants. The quality scores for the included studies, using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale tool, showed an average score of 0.78/1, which represents an overall good quality. The pooled analysis showed statistically greater odds of hip (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.23-2.15), shoulder (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.06-1.90) and overall musculoskeletal pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.08-1.47) in rural populations compared to urban populations. Although the odds of seeking treatment were higher in rural populations this relationship was not statistically significant (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.55-1.03). CONCLUSION: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that musculoskeletal, hip and shoulder pain are more prevalent in rural than urban areas, although neck, back and knee pain, along with care-seeking, showed no significant difference between these populations. Strategies aimed to reduce the burden of musculoskeletal pain should consider the specific needs and limited access to quality evidence-based care for musculoskeletal pain of rural populations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are major contributors to disability worldwide. These conditions result in a significant burden at both individual and societal levels. Engagement in regular physical activity and exercise programs are known to improve physical function in both chronic LBP and knee OA populations. For people residing in rural areas, musculoskeletal conditions are often more frequent and disabling compared to urban populations, which could be the result of reduced access to appropriate health services and resources in rural settings. EHealth is an innovative solution to help provide equitable access to treatment for people with musculoskeletal pain living in rural settings. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a randomised clinical trial investigating the effects of an eHealth intervention compared to usual care, for people with chronic non-specific LBP or knee OA in rural Australia. We will recruit 156 participants with non-specific chronic LBP or knee OA. Following the completion of baseline questionnaires, participants will be randomly allocated to either the eHealth intervention group, involving a tailored physical activity and progressive resistance exercise program remotely delivered by a physiotherapist (n = 78), or usual care (n = 78) involving referral to a range of care practices in the community. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be physical function assessed by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity levels, activity limitations, quality of life, pain coping. We will also collect process evaluation data such as recruitment rate, attendance and adherence, follow-up rate, participants' opinions and any barriers encountered throughout the trial. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will establish the effectiveness of eHealth-delivered interventions that are known to be beneficial for people with LBP and knee OA when delivered in person. As a result, this trial will help to inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia and beyond for those living in non-urban areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12618001494224 ) registered 09.05.2018.
Assuntos
Dor Musculoesquelética , Osteoartrite do Joelho , Telemedicina , Austrália/epidemiologia , Terapia por Exercício , Humanos , Dor Musculoesquelética/diagnóstico , Dor Musculoesquelética/epidemiologia , Dor Musculoesquelética/terapia , Osteoartrite do Joelho/diagnóstico , Osteoartrite do Joelho/epidemiologia , Osteoartrite do Joelho/terapia , Medição da Dor , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Hand-held dynamometry (HHD) is commonly used to measure ankle plantarflexion strength but has variable reliability measuring higher forces. Fixed HHD is suggested to improve reliability. We, therefore, compared the reliability, consistency, and accuracy of measuring plantarflexion strength. METHODS: Plantarflexion strength was measured in 25 healthy individuals with fixed HHD and HHD alone. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,2 ), SEM, minimal detectable change, and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess inter-trial repeatability, consistency, agreement, and accuracy. RESULTS: Both methods were repeatable (ICC2,2 0.96 to 0.98) and highly correlated (Spearman rho = 0.815; P < 0.01). Fixed HHD produced significantly higher force outputs. HHD alone provided more consistent force values. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of measuring ankle plantarflexion force were reliable. Force measured with fixed HHD will likely be more accurate for adults and individuals with greater strength, while HHD alone will be more consistent for individuals with lower strength. Muscle Nerve 56: 896-900, 2017.