United Kingdom physiotherapists injection therapy practice for musculoskeletal complaints: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists in the United Kingdom (UK), who have received additional training can adopt injection therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this practice survey was to explore (i) the frequency of use of injection therapy by UK physiotherapists for MSK disorders; and (ii) the clinical reasoning for selection of injectate, dose and pre/post injection practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: The online survey was disseminated via social media and professional networks over a 3-month period. Responses to closed multiple choice survey questions were analysed with descriptive data, with reporting of confidence intervals at 95%. Open questions were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The survey received 320 responses. The majority (86.6%, n = 277) used landmark guided approaches. The highest frequency of injections administered were for trigger digits, sub acromial pain and the knee joint. Corticosteroid drugs were widely used (99.7%, n = 319, CI 95% 98 to 100) with Triamcinolone (Kenalog) being the most frequently utilised for both joints (58.8%, n = 160, 53 to 65) and soft tissues (46.3%, n = 126, 40 to 52). Drug choice was largely based on availability in clinic (47.1%, n = 128, 41 to 53). Drug doses for common injection sites varied among the respondents with variation also evident in pre and post-injection practice. CONCLUSION: Marked variation across some elements of injection therapy practice was evident. Notable differences in corticosteroid preparation used, the doses of drug injected, and the use of local anaesthetic were reported by respondents. Injecting physiotherapists should endeavour to ensure practice is aligned to best available evidence.

We Are All in This Together-Whole of Community Pain Science Education Campaigns to Promote Better Management of Persistent Pain.

Persistent pain is a major public health issue-estimated to affect a quarter of the world's population. Public understanding of persistent pain is based on outdated biomedical models, laden with misconceptions that are contrary to best evidence. This understanding is a barrier to effective pain management. Thus, there have been calls for public health-based interventions to address these misconceptions. Previous pain-focussed public education campaigns have targeted pain beliefs and behaviours that are thought to promote recovery, such as staying active. However, prevailing pain-related misconceptions render many of these approaches counter-intuitive, at best. Pain Science Education improves understanding of 'how pain works' and has been demonstrated to improve pain and disability outcomes. Extending Pain Science Education beyond the clinic to the wider community seems warranted. Learning from previous back pain-focussed and other public health educational campaigns could optimise the potential benefit of such a Pain Science Education campaign. Pain Science Education-grounded campaigns have been delivered in Australia and the UK and show promise, but robust evaluations are needed before any firm conclusions on their population impact can be made. Several challenges exist going forward. Not least is the need to ensure all stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of Pain Science Education public messaging campaigns. Furthermore, it is crucial that campaigns are undertaken through a health equity lens, incorporating underrepresented communities to ensure that any intervention does not widen existing health inequalities associated with persistent pain. PERSPECTIVE: Public misconceptions about pain are a significant public health challenge and a viable intervention target to reduce the personal, social, and economic burden of persistent pain. Adaptation of Pain Science Education, which improves misconceptions in a clinical setting, into the public health setting seems a promising approach to explore.

Sensory discrimination training for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sensory discrimination training (SDT) is a form of feedback guided sensory training used in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of SDT for CMP. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, OT Seeker, PEDro, ETHOS, Web of Science, and Open Grey were searched for appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included papers were assessed for risk of bias, and evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. The protocol was published on PROSPERO (anonymized). RESULTS: Ten RCTs met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was conflicting evidence from seven RCTs for the efficacy of SDT for chronic low back pain (CLBP). There was very low-quality evidence from two studies supporting the efficacy of SDT for phantom limb pain (PLP). There was very low-quality evidence from one RCT for the efficacy of SDT for Fibromyalgia. No adverse effects of SDT were identified. CONCLUSIONS: SDT has been delivered in multiple forms in the literature. SDT does not appear to be associated with any adverse effects and shows potential regarding its clinical efficacy. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence upon which to make any firm clinical recommendations.

Time-course changes associated with PA lumbar mobilizations on lumbar and hamstring range of motion: a randomized controlled crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the post-intervention time-course changes in active knee extension (AKE) and active lumbar flexion (ALF) range of motion in response to unilateral posterior-anterior (UPA) mobilizations of the lumbar spine (L4/5 zygapophyseal). METHODS: Twenty-four asymptomatic participants (maleness: 0.58, age [mean ± standard deviation]: 32 ± 8 years, body mass index 25.9 ± 2.6 kg m2) were recruited to a fully controlled crossover trial. Following either the intervention (L4/5 zygapophyseal mobilizations) or control, participants immediately performed the AKE and ALF tests, which were also performed at baseline. Subsequent tests were made at intervals of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45 and 60 min. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline (mean AKE: 37.2° from full extension, mean ALF: 14.37 cm), sex and age, UPA lumbar mobilizations had a most likely moderate effect on AKE (9.8° closer to full extension; ±1.9) and a likely moderate effect on ALF (1.34 cm; ±90% confidence limits 0.43). The magnitude of the AKE effect became most likely small 20-min posttreatment (5.3; ±1.7) and possibly small/possibly trivial 60-min posttreatment (2.1; ±1.4). For ALF, the magnitude of the effect became most likely small 15-min posttreatment (0.76; ±0.25), possibly small/possibly trivial 25-min posttreatment (0.38; ±0.18) and likely trivial 60-min posttreatment (0.26; ±1.8). DISCUSSION: UPA lumbar mobilizations increased lumbar Range of Motion and hamstring extensibility by a moderate magnitude, with the effect reducing after 10-20-min posttreatment. Clinicians should consider these time-course changes when applying UPA lumbar mobilizations. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT03273400 Evidence Level: 2b.