RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Firefighting is among the most dangerous professions and requires exceptional physical fitness and focus while working. Patient-reported outcomes are a commonly used method to evaluate subjective health information and may be utilized by fire departments to identify the health status of firefighters and provide insight to promote their health and wellness. OBJECTIVE: This study is a novel analysis of firefighters' self-reported health to potentially identify musculoskeletal dysfunction, assist in therapeutic intervention, and improve overall health and wellness. METHODS: Firefighters were evaluated using seven different self-reported health surveys to assess various physical capabilities and quality of life. The questionnaires were delivered via online format and administered once to provide a snapshot of a suburban Oklahoma fire department. RESULTS: Using the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale, 14 of the 35 firefighters answered "slight, moderate, or severe" for the pain and motion variables. Only two of the firefighters indicated no stiffness or soreness after activity on the Nirschl Phase Rating Scale. The firefighters mean rating for "energy/fatigue" via the RAND-36 was 54.14 out of 100. CONCLUSION: Firefighters frequently report pain, impaired motion, and soreness, indicating areas in which health and wellness interventions may be helpful. The incorporation of periodic health surveys into firefighter health and wellness programming can highlight the presence of concerns, as well as intervention effectiveness by subjective health status reporting. By combining the health surveys with aerobic and core strength exercises, fire departments may be able to monitor and improve firefighter health.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Myofascial decompression (MFD), or cupping, and self-myofascial release (SMR) are common techniques utilized to treat soft tissue injuries and increase flexibility. MFD is a negative pressure soft tissue treatment technique using suction to manipulate the skin and underlying soft tissues. One method of SMR is a foam roller, where a patient rolls his/her bodyweight over a dense foam cylinder in a self-massaging fashion to mobilize soft tissues for the body part treated. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the acute effects on hamstring flexibility and patient-rated outcome measures comparing two soft tissue treatments, 1) MFD, and 2) a moist heat pack with SMR using a foam roller in patients with diagnosed hamstring pathology. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial study. METHODS: Seventeen collegiate athletes [13 males (20.6+/- years; 184.9+/-cm; 90.8+/-kg) and 4 females (20.5+/-years; 167.1+/-cm; 62.7+/-kg)] with diagnosed hamstring pathology (mild strain and/or symptoms of tightness, pain, decreased strength, and decreased flexibility) were randomly assigned to receive MFD or SMR. The MFD group (n = 9) received three minutes of static treatment using six plastic-valve suction cups along the hamstrings followed by 20 repetitions of active movement with cups in place. SMR (n = 8) received 10 minutes of heat treatment over the hamstrings followed by 60 seconds of general mobilization over the entire hamstring area, and 90 seconds of targeted foam rolling on the area of most perceived tightness. Passive hamstring flexibility (ROM) and a patient-rated outcome measure [Perceived Functional Ability Questionnaire (PFAQ)] were assessed before and immediately after treatment. The Global Rating of Change measure (GROC) was administered post-intervention. RESULTS: Passive ROM and subjective PFAQ measures for overall flexibility and flexibility of the hamstrings were significantly different from pre- to post-intervention measurements regardless of the treatment received. A significant difference was found in favor of the MFD group for the GROC values. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that both treatments are beneficial in increasing hamstring length. Patients though felt an enhanced treatment effect using MFD over SMR for perceived benefits to hamstring flexibility. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.