Puberty timing and relative age as predictors of physical activity discontinuation during adolescence.

Among same-age adolescents, those who enter puberty relatively later and those who are relatively younger (e.g., born later in the year) might be at greater risk of physical activity discontinuation. This study aimed to (1) describe gender-specific discontinuation, re-engagement, and uptake rates in various types of physical activities from the age of 11 to 17 years, and (2) assess puberty timing and relative age as predictors of discontinuation from organized, unorganized, individual, and group-based physical activities. Longitudinal data from 781 (56% girls, age 10-13 years at study baseline) Canadian participants who self-reported puberty status, birthdate, and involvement in 36 physical activities every four months from 2011 to 2018 was analyzed. The incidence of discontinuation, re-engagement, and uptake in organized/unorganized and individual/group activities from grade 6 until grade 12 was described and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate associations of puberty timing and relative age with organized/unorganized and individual/group activity discontinuation. Results demonstrate that individual and unorganized activities are maintained longer than group-based and organized activities. Girls who started puberty earlier were more likely to discontinue organized activities than girls with average-puberty timing [Hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) 1.68 (1.05-2.69)]. Compared to boys born in the 4th quarter of the year, boys born in the 2nd quarter of the year were less likely to discontinue organized [HR (95% CI) 0.41 (0.23-0.74)], unorganized [HR (95% CI) 0.33 (0.16-0.70)], group [HR (95% CI) 0.58 (0.34-0.98)], and individual activities[HR (95% CI) 0.46 (0.23-0.91)], and boys born in the 3rd quarter were less likely to discontinue unorganized activities[HR (95% CI) 0.41 (0.19-0.88)]. This study illustrates the patterns of physical activity participation throughout adolescence. However, the generalizability of findings may be limited due to participant representation.

Erratum to: Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s12998-016-0096-9.].

Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. No high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique® (GT), an instrument-assisted soft tissue therapy. The objective of this trial was to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to sham therapy for the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain. METHODS: People with non-specific thoracic pain were randomly allocated to one of three groups: SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each participant received up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at Murdoch University chiropractic student clinic over a 4 week period. The participants and treatment providers were not blinded to the treatment allocation as it was clear which therapy they were receiving, however outcome assessors were blinded and we attempted to blind the participants allocated to the placebo group. Treatment outcomes were measured at baseline, 1 week, and at one, three, six and 12 months. Primary outcome measures included a modified Oswestry Disability Index, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment effects were estimated with intention to treat analysis and linear mixed models. RESULTS: One hundred and forty three participants were randomly allocated to the three groups (SMT = 36, GT = 63 and Placebo = 44). Baseline data for the three groups did not show any meaningful differences. Results of the intention to treat analyses revealed no time by group interactions, indicating no statistically significant between-group differences in pain or disability at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months. There were significant main effects of time (p < 0.01) indicating improvements in pain and disability from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. No significant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there is no difference in outcome at any time point for pain or disability when comparing SMT, Graston Technique® or sham therapy for thoracic spine pain, however all groups improved with time. These results constitute the first from a fully powered randomised controlled trial comparing SMT, Graston technique® and a placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7(th) February, 2008. TRIAL NUMBER: ACTRN12608000070336.

A survey of Australian chiropractors' attitudes and beliefs about evidence-based practice and their use of research literature and clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Research into chiropractors' use of evidence in clinical practice appears limited to a single small qualitative study. The paucity of research in this area suggests that it is timely to undertake a more extensive study to build a more detailed understanding of the factors that influence chiropractors' adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) principles. This study aimed to identify Australian chiropractors' attitudes and beliefs towards EBP in clinical practice, and also examine their use of research literature and clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We used an online questionnaire about attitudes, beliefs and behaviours towards the use of EBP in clinical practice that had been developed to survey physiotherapists and modified it to ensure that it was relevant to chiropractic practice. We endeavoured to survey all registered Australian chiropractors (n = 4378) via email invitation distributed by Australian chiropractic professional organisations and the Chiropractic Board of Australia. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine univariate associations between responses to items measuring attitudes and beliefs with items measuring: age; years since registration; attention to literature; and use of clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 584 respondents (response rate approximately 13%). The respondents' perceptions of EBP were generally positive: most agreed that the application of EBP is necessary (77.9%), literature and research findings are useful (80.2%), EBP helps them make decisions about patient care (66.5%), and expressed an interest in learning or improving EBP skills (74.9%). Almost half of the respondents (45.1%) read between two to five articles a month. Close to half of the respondents (44.7%) used literature in the process of clinical decision making two to five times each month. About half of the respondents (52.4%) agreed that they used clinical practice guidelines, and around half (54.4%) agreed that they were able to incorporate patient preferences with clinical practice guidelines. The most common factor associated with increased research uptake was the perception that EBP helps make decisions about patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Most Australian chiropractors hold positive attitudes towards EBP, thought EBP was useful, and were interested in improving EBP skills. However, despite the favourable inclination towards EBP, many Australian chiropractors did not use clinical practice guidelines. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the low response rate.

Short-term usual chiropractic care for spinal pain: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: Establish the short-term effectiveness of chiropractic therapy for spinal pain compared with a sham intervention and explore the predictors of chiropractic treatment satisfaction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chiropractic treatment is widely used for spinal pain. However, a lack of sound evidence precludes conclusions about the effectiveness of chiropractic for spinal pain. METHODS: Participants were adults experiencing spinal pain, randomized to receive 2 treatments of chiropractic or sham therapy. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Primary outcomes at 2 weeks were pain intensity (0-10 scale) and function (0-40 Functional Rating Index). Secondary outcomes were global change, minimum acceptable outcome, and treatment satisfaction. Treatment effects were estimated with linear mixed models for the primary outcomes. We used logistic regression to identify differences in the secondary outcomes and explore for predictors of treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: One hundred eighty three participants (chiropractic, n = 92; sham, n = 91) were recruited and included in the analyses. Participants receiving chiropractic therapy reported greater improvements in pain (mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5 [0.1-0.9]), physical function (mean difference [95% CI] = 2.1 [0.3-4.0]), and were more likely to experience global improvement (48% vs. 24%, P = 0.01) and treatment satisfaction (78% vs. 56%, P < 0.01). There was no between-group difference in achieving a minimally acceptable outcome (34% sham vs. 29% chiropractic, P = 0.42). Awareness of treatment assignment and achieving minimally important improvement in pain intensity were associated with chiropractic treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Short-term chiropractic treatment was superior to sham; however, treatment effects were not clinically important. Awareness of treatment assignment and clinically important reductions in pain were associated with chiropractic treatment satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.