Effectiveness of deep tissue massage therapy, and supervised strengthening and stretching exercises for subacute or persistent disabling neck pain. The Stockholm Neck (STONE) randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of deep tissue massage, supervised strengthening and stretching exercises, and a combined therapy (exercise followed by massage) (index groups), with advice to stay active (control group). METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of 619 adults with subacute or persistent neck pain allocated to massage (n = 145), exercise (n = 160), combined therapy (n = 169) or advice (n = 147). Primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvements in neck pain intensity and pain-related disability based on adapted questions from the Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were perceived recovery and sickness absence. Outcomes were measured at seven, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. RESULTS: We found improvement in pain intensity favouring massage and combined therapy compared to advice; at seven weeks (RR = 1.36; 95%CI:1.04-1.77) and 26 weeks (RR = 1.23; 95%CI:0.97-1.56); and seven (RR = 1.39; 95%CI:1.08-1.81) and 12 weeks (RR = 1.28; 95%CI:1.02-1.60) respectively, but not at later follow-ups. Exercise showed higher improvement of pain intensity at 26 weeks (RR = 1.31; 95%CI:1.04-1.65). Perceived recovery was higher in the index groups than in the advice group at all follow-ups. We found no consistent differences in pain related disability or sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, at 12-months follow-up, none of the index therapies were more effective than advice in terms of pain intensity in the long term or in terms of pain-related disability in the short or long term. However, the index therapies led to higher incidence of improvement in pain intensity in the short term, and higher incidence of favorable perceived recovery in the short and in the long term than advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01453590. Registered 3 July 2014.

Negotiating consent: exploring ethical issues when therapeutic massage bodywork practitioners are trained in multiple therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Obtaining informed consent from competent patients is essential to the ethical delivery of health care, including therapeutic massage and bodywork (TMB). The informed consent process used by TMB practitioners has not been previously studied. Little information is available about the practice of informed consent in a treatment-focused environment that may involve multiple decision points, use of multiple TMB therapies, or both. METHODS: As part of a larger study on the process of providing TMB therapy, 19 practitioners were asked about obtaining informed consent during practice. Qualitative description was used to analyze discussions of the consent process generally, and about its application when practitioners use multiple TMB therapies. RESULTS: Two main consent approaches emerged, one based on a general consent early in the treatment process, and a second ongoing consent process undertaken throughout the course of treatment. Both processes are constrained by how engaged a patient wants to be, and the amount of information and time needed to develop a truly informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding-based consent process that accommodates an acknowledged information differential between the patient and practitioner, and that is guided by clearly delineated goals within a trust-based relationship, may be the most effective consent process under the conditions of real practice conditions.

Exploring the nature of therapeutic massage bodywork practice.

BACKGROUND: Research on therapeutic massage bodywork (TMB) continues to expand, but few studies consider how research or knowledge translation may be affected by the lack of uniformly standardized competencies for most TMB therapies, by practitioner variability from training in different forms of TMB, or from the effects of experience on practice. PURPOSE: This study explores and describes how TMB practitioners practice, for the purpose of improving TMB training, practice, and research. PARTICIPANTS SETTING: 19 TMB practitioners trained in multiple TMB therapies, in Alberta, Canada. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive sub-analysis of interviews from a comprehensive project on the training and practice of TMB, focused on the delivery of TMB therapies in practice. RESULTS: TWO BROAD THEMES EMERGED FROM THE DATA: (1) every treatment is individualized, and (2) each practitioner's practice of TMB therapies evolves. Individualization involves adapting treatment to the needs of the patient in the moment, based on deliberate and unconscious responses to verbal and nonverbal cues. Individualization starts with initial assessment and continues throughout the treatment encounter. Expertise is depicted as more nuanced and skilful individualization and treatment, evolved through experience, ongoing training, and spontaneous technique exploration. Practitioners consider such individualization and development of experience desirable. Furthermore, ongoing training and experience result in therapy application unique to each practitioner. Most practitioners believed they could not apply a TMB therapy without influence from other TMB therapies they had learned. CONCLUSIONS: There are ramifications for research design, knowledge translation, and education. Few practitioners are likely able to administer treatments in the same way, and most would not like to practice without being able to individualize treatment. TMB clinical studies need to employ research methods that accommodate the complexity of clinical practice. TMB education should facilitate the maturation of practice skills and self-reflection, including the mindful integration of multiple TMB therapies.

The integrated taxonomy of health care: classifying both complementary and biomedical practices using a uniform classification protocol.

BACKGROUND: Since the late 1980s, several taxonomies have been developed to help map and describe the interrelationships of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities. In these taxonomies, several issues are often incompletely addressed: A simple categorization process that clearly isolates a modality to a single conceptual categoryClear delineation of verticality-that is, a differentiation of scale being observed from individually applied techniques, through modalities (therapies), to whole medical systemsRecognition of CAM as part of the general field of health care METHODS: DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATED TAXONOMY OF HEALTH CARE (ITHC) INVOLVED THREE STAGES: Development of a precise, uniform health glossaryAnalysis of the extant taxonomiesUse of an iterative process of classifying modalities and medical systems into categories until a failure to singularly classify a modality occurred, requiring a return to the glossary and adjustment of the classifying protocol RESULTS: A full vertical taxonomy was developed that includes and clearly differentiates between techniques, modalities, domains (clusters of similar modalities), systems of health care (coordinated care system involving multiple modalities), and integrative health care. Domains are the classical primary focus of taxonomies. The ITHC has eleven domains: chemical/substance-based work, device-based work, soft tissue-focused manipulation, skeletal manipulation, fitness/movement instruction, mind-body integration/classical somatics work, mental/emotional-based work, bio-energy work based on physical manipulation, bio-energy modulation, spiritual-based work, unique assessments. Modalities are assigned to the domains based on the primary mode of interaction with the client, according the literature of the practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: THE ITHC HAS SEVERAL STRENGTHS: little interpretation is used while successfully assigning modalities to single domains; the issue of taxonomic verticality is fully resolved; and the design fully integrates the complementary health care fields of biomedicine and CAM.