Understanding Injury and Injury Prevention in Para Sport Athletes.

CONTEXT: Training loads, injury, and injury prevention in the Para sports population has not been well established. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to survey elite-level swimming, cycling, and athletic Para sport athletes in the United States who were competing in the 2016 US Paralympic trials to better understand common injuries among athletes in each sport and to determine whether injury prevention programs were being utilized. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, survey study. SETTING: The 2016 US Paralympic trials for swimming, cycling, and athletics. PARTICIPANTS: Athletes who competed in swimming, cycling, and/or athletics at the 2016 US Paralympic trials (N = 144; 83 males and 61 females). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed electronic survey using Qualtrics XM (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) with questions pertaining to average number of hours trained per week, number of cross-training hours performed each week, descriptive information regarding sport-related injuries, pain, whether athletes received treatment for injuries, and descriptive information regarding whether the athletes had participated in an injury prevention program. RESULTS: Over 64% of respondents reported training greater than or equal to 11 hours per week, and 45% of athletes reported spending greater than or equal to 6 hours per week cross-training. Forty-two percent of athletes reported currently having pain with 34% reporting missing a competition because of injury. Only 24% of respondents reported having participated in an injury prevention program. CONCLUSIONS: Many Para sport athletes train at similar durations as able-bodied counterparts and have pain that interferes with their ability to train and compete, however, only a small percentage consistently perform injury prevention programs.

Current State of Entry-level Physical Therapy Oncology Curricula in the United States: A Faculty Survey.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of oncology rehabilitation education in current physical therapist educational programs in the United States, including oncology rehabilitation content characteristics, delivery, and instructional resources. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: By 2030, more than 21 million survivors of cancer in the United States (US) will be living with multisystem side effects depending on the treatment delivered. In addition, the sociopsychological factors associated with cancer treatment require that physical therapists are equipped with a unique body of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Insufficient cancer rehabilitation education is problematic across the health care spectrum. SUBJECTS: Program directors at 235 US physical therapist educational programs. METHODS: An online survey was developed in REDCap using the American Board of Physical Therapy Specialist's Description of Specialty Practice: Oncology Physical Therapy as a guide. An electronic link to the survey was sent to the email of the chair/program director at 235 Commission for the Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education-accredited programs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 40.4% (95/235) and represented 36 of the 50 states. Private universities represented 54.3% of the responses, and 65% of the surveys were completed by core faculty. Four programs reported having an independent oncology course, ranging from 1 to 3 credit hours. Integrated content hours averaged 14.8 contact hours (range: 1-60) in the 69 reporting programs. Fifty-four percent of respondents were aware of published rehabilitation cancer guidelines. The majority of respondents (62%) felt their students received adequate instruction related to oncology rehabilitation. Certified lymphedema therapists (68%) were primarily responsible for teaching the oncology content. Goodmans' Pathophysiology text was most reported (87%), whereas 38% used evidence-based research in Rehabilitation Oncology Journal. About half of the respondents (52%) reported offering students full-time clinical experiences in oncology rehabilitation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated how oncology rehabilitation education is incorporated into physical therapist educational programs and highlights areas for improvement. The results from this study lay the groundwork for developing core competencies for prelicensure education in oncology rehabilitation.

Knowledge regarding cancer-related fatigue: a survey of physical therapists and individuals diagnosed with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common side effect and remains under-diagnosed. Screening of CRF by physical therapists (PTs) and patient perspectives of their experiences has not been comprehensively examined. PURPOSE: To survey PTs to understand the frequency of CRF screening, and to assess the knowledge and experiences of survivors as it relates to CRF. METHODS: Two separate electronic surveys developed by the authors were distributed. One targeted oncology PTs, the other for adult survivors of cancer. RESULTS: Of the 199 PT respondents, 36% reported screening for CRF at every encounter. Screening included interviews (46%) and/or standardized questionnaires (37%). The most common barriers to receiving treatment for CRF was lack of physician referrals and time constraints. Of patient responses (n = 61), 84% reported CRF as an important ongoing issue; 77% reported that they initiated the discussion about CRF with their provider, and 23% reported being told there were treatment options for CRF. CONCLUSION: CRF is common among cancer survivors. However, consistent screening by PTs is lacking. Patients with CRF frequently initiated the conversation with their providers because of symptoms and many patients were not told of treatment options. These findings represent a substantial gap in clinical practice regarding CRF screening and management.

Implementation of a Cancer Rehabilitation Navigation Program: a qualitative analysis of implementation determinants and strategies.

BACKGROUND: Cancer rehabilitation navigation (CRNav) is a care delivery model that expedites identification and management of symptom-related functional morbidity for individuals undergoing cancer treatment. A CRNav program is unique in that it embeds a cancer rehabilitation professional in the cancer center for patient screening and assessment. The implementation of CRNav programs has not been studied and doing so could facilitate greater uptake of these programs. METHODS: Using implementation science frameworks, we conducted a qualitative, post-implementation analysis of a CRNav program that was implemented in 2019. Semi-structured, 1:1 interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a combination of deductive and inductive analyses, using a priori established codes, was used to assess the implementation context, and identify emergent themes of barriers and facilitators to implementation. Participant described implementation strategies were characterized and defined using the Expert Consensus Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. RESULTS: Eleven stakeholders including physicians, administrators, clinical staff, and patients, involved with program development and the implementation effort, participated in interviews. Predominant barriers to implementation included developing the program infrastructure, and lack of awareness of rehabilitation services among oncology professionals, predominant facilitators of implementation included; physical co-location of the navigator in the cancer center, individual characteristics of the navigator, and unique characteristics of the program. Strategies described that supported implementation included developing stakeholder interrelationships, evaluating and iteratively adapting the program, creating infrastructure, training and education, and supporting clinicians. CONCLUSION: This analysis uses implementation science to methodically analyze and characterize factors that may contribute to successful implementation of a CRNav program. These findings could be used alongside a prospective context-specific analysis to tailor future implementation efforts. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Implementing a CRNav program expedites a patient's direct contact with a rehabilitation provider complementing the cancer care delivery team, and providing an additive and often missing service.

Screening and Assessment of Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Providers.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common side effect of cancer treatment. Regular surveillance is recommended, but few clinical practice guidelines transparently assess study bias, quality, and clinical utility in deriving recommendations of screening and assessment methods. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for the screening and assessment of CRF for health care professions treating individuals with cancer. Following best practices for development of a CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Statement and Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) Guidelines Trust Scorecard, this CPG included a systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of included evidence, and stakeholder input from diverse health care fields to derive the final CPG. Ten screening and 15 assessment tools supported by 114 articles were reviewed. One screen (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 Core Questionnaire) and 3 assessments (Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Fatigue-SF) received an A recommendation ("should be used in clinical practice"), and 1 screen and 5 assessments received a B recommendation ("may be used in clinical practice"). Health care providers have choice in determining appropriate screening and assessment tools to be used across the survivorship care continuum. The large number of tools available to screen for or assess CRF may result in a lack of comprehensive research evidence, leaving gaps in the body of evidence for measurement tools. More research into the responsiveness of these tools is needed in order to adopt their use as outcome measures. IMPACT: Health care providers should screen for and assess CRF using one of the tools recommended by this CPG.

A comparison of treatment signatures of high and low performing physical therapists for patients with lower back pain: analysis of spine care from a physical therapy outcomes registry.

INTRODUCTION: Lower back pain (LBP) is the most common orthopedic complaint in the United States. Physical therapy is recommended as a conservative, non-pharmacological intervention for LBP. While it is thought that skill level and effectiveness of physical therapists differ, there is little understanding regarding characteristics that distinguish high and low performing physical therapists. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in care delivery, termed treatment signatures, between high and low performing physical therapists previously differentiated by a risk-adjusted performance measure. METHODS: Using previously published methodology, 1,240 physical therapists were classified as "outperforming", "meeting expectations", or "underperforming" relative to predicted change in Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) across patients receiving care for LBP. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline disability per initial MDQ. Two-way analyses of variance were used to compare billed (1) active, exercise-based units per visit (UPV), (2) manual therapy UPV, (3) modality UPV, and (4) the combination of active and manual therapy UPV (broadly termed skilled UPV) by performance cohort and baseline patient disability quartile among physical therapists deemed "outperforming" and "underperforming". Tukey's post hoc tests established mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Physical therapists that "outperformed" (n=120; 17,404 patients) used more active UPV (mean difference (diff) = 0.1, p<.001), manual therapy UPV (mean diff = 0.2, p<.001), and skilled UPV (mean diff = 0.3, p<.001), and less modality UPV (mean diff = 0.1, P < 0.001) than those that "underperformed" (n=139; 21,800 patients). Tukey's post hoc tests showed that while differences in care were negligible in patients with low baseline disability, the highest performing PT cohort delivered skilled (0.4 UPV), active (0.2 UPV), and manual therapy (0.2 UPV) UPV at a significantly higher mean rate in patients with the highest baseline disability. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically effective physical therapists incorporated a treatment signature that included a consistent blend of skilled active and manual therapy interventions that was distinct from lower performing physical therapists. While group mean differences were relatively small, a consistent pattern emerged in which high performing physical therapists maintained a high level of skilled, one-on-one interventions across their entire caseload-while their lower performing counterparts significantly decreased use of the same interventions as baseline disability increased. These differences highlighted a treatment signature that was associated with clinically important improvements for patients with greater baseline disability. Future guideline recommendations should consider the importance of baseline disability and the consistent application of skilled active and manual therapy interventions.

We Don't Know Our Own Strength: A Survey of Strength Training Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge in Physical Therapists and Physical Therapist Students.

OBJECTIVE: Strength training is frequently utilized by physical therapists; however, there has been discussion about whether physical therapists utilize strength training adequately. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the strength training attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge of physical therapists and physical therapy students and to determine how participant characteristics influenced knowledge scores. METHODS: An anonymous survey was created in 3 rounds. For round 1, researchers used textbooks to create items assessing demographics, attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge regarding strength training. Rounds 2 and 3 consisted of feedback from 7 content experts until 80% consensus was reached; items were added, removed, or edited based on feedback. The final survey was distributed through social media, list servs, and email targeting physical therapists and students based in the United States. Response frequencies for all items were reported. Overall knowledge scores were calculated by summing correct responses for each item, with a maximum score of 13; scores <70% were considered low. Binomial logistic regression determined which characteristics (demographics, attitudes, or behaviors) influenced whether participants adequately utilized strength training principles (scored ≥70% on knowledge items). RESULTS: There were 777 physical therapist and 648 student participants. Nearly 90% of therapists and students reported frequently prescribing strength training. Over 48% of therapists felt their professional education did not prepare them to apply strength training (compared with 24% of students), and 68% believed that strength training is inadequately applied in physical therapy (compared with 40% of students). Sixty-two percent of therapists and 55% of students scored ≥70% for knowledge items. Additional strength training education and regular participation in strength training increased the odds of scoring ≥70% on knowledge items. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists and physical therapy students frequently prescribe strength training despite similarly low knowledge scores. To increase knowledge, greater emphasis on strength training in professional education, continuing education, participation in strength training, or all 3 is warranted. IMPACT: Strength training is an important intervention used in physical therapy and must be used appropriately to improve the health of patients. According to these findings, strength training education may not currently be optimal, as demonstrated by low knowledge scores by both therapists and students. Further work is needed to determine how knowledge of strength training relates to patient outcomes and also how best to implement strength training in physical therapy education and practice.

Measurement of Pectoralis Minor Muscle Length in Women Diagnosed With Breast Cancer: Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Application.

BACKGROUND: Decreased pectoralis minor muscle length is common after primary breast cancer treatment and can result in an abnormal position of the scapula. This position can contribute to shoulder pain and pathomechanics and can lead to problems such as impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tears, and frozen shoulder. Currently, there are limited reliable methods for measuring pectoralis minor length. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of measuring pectoralis minor length in women diagnosed with breast cancer. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional reliability and validity study. METHODS: Bilateral pectoralis minor length (in centimeters) was assessed using a palpation meter in women (N = 29) diagnosed with breast cancer by 2 licensed physical therapists who were masked to the measures. Bilateral pectoralis minor length was also measured using a motion capture system to assess validity. RESULTS: Intratester reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC [3,k] = 0.971; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.939-0.986; standard error of measurement [SEM] = 0.16 cm) and intertester reliability (ICC[3,k] = 0.915; 95% CI = 0.81-0.962; SEM = 0.31 cm) were excellent for the palpation meter on the affected side and the unaffected side (intratester reliability: ICC[3,k] = 0.951; 95% CI = 0.897-0.977; SEM = 0.19 cm; intertester reliability: ICC[3,k] = 0.945; 95% CI = 0.877-0.975; SEM = 0.22 cm). Significant correlations were found between the motion capture system and the palpation meter on the affected side (r = 0.87) and the unaffected side (r = 0.81). Bland-Altman plots between the palpation meter and the motion capture system demonstrated that all the measures fell within the limits of agreement. LIMITATIONS: This study encountered possible errors with the accuracy of the motion capture system tracking because of the proximity of the markers and inherent volumetric restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The palpation meter is a reliable, valid, easily administered, and cost-effective tool for assessing pectoralis minor length in women with breast cancer.

Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) With a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated over the last decade. However, closer examination of the published literature reveals that the majority of this work has focused on psychological interventions and cognitive and behavioral therapies. Recent initiatives have aggregated expert consensus around research priorities, highlighting a dearth in research regarding measurement of and interventions for physical function. Increasingly loud calls for the need to address the myriad of physical functional impairments that develop in people living with and beyond cancer have been published in the literature. A detailed survey of the landscape of published research has not been reported to our knowledge. PURPOSE: This scoping review systematically identified literature published between 2008 and 2018 related to the screening, assessment, and interventions associated with physical function in people living with and beyond cancer. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to September 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Study selection included articles of all levels of evidence on any disease stage and population. A total of 11,483 articles were screened for eligibility, 2507 full-text articles were reviewed, and 1055 articles were selected for final inclusion and extraction. DATA EXTRACTION: Seven reviewers recorded type of cancer, disease stage, age of participants, phase of treatment, time since diagnosis, application to physical function, study design, impairments related to physical function, and measurement instruments used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Approximately one-third of the articles included patients with various cancer diagnoses (30.3%), whereas the rest focused on a single cancer, most commonly breast (24.8%). Most articles (77%) measured physical function following the completion of active cancer treatment with 64% representing the assessment domain. The most commonly used measures of physical function were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Health Survey Questionnaire (29%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (21.5%). LIMITATIONS: Studies not written in English, study protocols, conference abstracts, and unpublished data were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This review elucidated significant inconsistencies in the literature regarding language used to define physical function, measurement tools used to characterize function, and the use of those tools across the cancer treatment and survivorship trajectory. The findings suggested that physical function in cancer research is predominantly measured using general health-related quality-of-life tools rather than more precise functional assessment tools. Interdisciplinary and clinician-researcher collaborative efforts should be directed toward a unified definition and assessment of physical function.

Oncology Section EDGE Task Force on Cancer: A systematic review of patient-reported measures for sexual dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is an important and infrequently addressed issue in patients with cancer. PURPOSE: To identify self-report measures for assessing sexual dysfunction and to evaluate their psychometric properties and relevance to patients with cancer. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo) were reviewed using specific search terms to locate articles that identify self-report measures assessing sexual dysfunction. From the 1118 articles reviewed, 21 measures were selected for analysis. Each measure was independently reviewed and rated by two reviewers using the Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcome Measure Rating Form. Any discrepancies between reviewers were discussed and an overall recommendation for each measure was made using the 4-point Cancer EDGE Task Force Rating Scale. RESULTS: Based on the psychometric properties and relevance to patients with cancers, we highly recommend the following four measures: Sexual Function - Vaginal Changes Questionnaire; International Index of Erectile Function; Erection Hardness Score; Sexual Health Inventory for Men (aka International Index of Erectile Function-5). We recommend one measure, the Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory. We are unable to recommend eight measures based on limited psychometric information and/or clinical utility. Finally, we do not recommend an additional eight measures. CONCLUSIONS: Five of the 21 sexual dysfunction measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and application to the cancer population and are thereby recommended for clinical use in patients with cancer.

Oncology Section EDGE Task Force on Urogenital Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Measures for Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the general population, women and men with urogenital and colorectal cancer experience higher rates of urinary and fecal incontinence. Although a variety of measures exist to assess these areas, currently, there are no guidelines recommending which outcomes rehabilitation professionals should administer to examine these impairments in those with cancer. PURPOSE: To identify outcome measures for assessing urinary and fecal incontinence and evaluate their psychometric data and applicability to the cancer population. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo) were reviewed using specific search terms to locate articles that identify outcome measures assessing urinary and fecal incontinence. As part of a larger effort to identify outcome measures for both incontinence and sexual dysfunction, 1118 articles were initially identified, 228 articles were reviewed, and 37 outcome measures were selected for analysis, 13 of which were related to urinary and fecal incontinence. Each incontinence outcome measure was independently reviewed and rated by two reviewers using the Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcome Measure Rating Form. Any discrepancies between reviewers were discussed and an overall recommendation for each outcome measure was made using the 4-point Cancer EDGE Task Force Rating Scale. RESULTS: The Task Force was able to highly recommend 1 measure addressing urinary incontinence (American Urological Association Symptom Index) and 2 measures assessing both urinary and fecal incontinence (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory - Short Form, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire - Short Form). The Task Force also recommended two measures of urinary incontinence that demonstrated strong psychometric properties, but had not yet been evaluated in the cancer population (Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form). The Task Force was unable to recommend any measures that solely addressed fecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Five of the 13 outcome measures assessing urinary incontinence and two of the 13 measures assessing both urinary and fecal incontinence demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and application to the urogenital cancer population and are thereby recommended for use by the Task Force.

Scapular bracing and alteration of posture and muscle activity in overhead athletes with poor posture.

CONTEXT: Overhead athletes commonly have poor posture. Commercial braces are used to improve posture and function, but few researchers have examined the effects of shoulder or scapular bracing on posture and scapular muscle activity. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a scapular stabilization brace acutely alters posture and scapular muscle activity in healthy overhead athletes with forward-head, rounded-shoulder posture (FHRSP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Applied biomechanics laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight healthy overhead athletes with FHRSP. INTERVENTION(S): Participants were assigned randomly to 2 groups: compression shirt with no strap tension (S) and compression shirt with the straps fully tensioned (S + T). Posture was measured using lateral-view photography with retroreflective markers. Electromyography (EMG) of the upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and serratus anterior (SA) in the dominant upper extremity was measured during 4 exercises (scapular punches, W's, Y's, T's) and 2 glenohumeral motions (forward flexion, shoulder extension). Posture and exercise EMG measurements were taken with and without the brace applied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Head and shoulder angles were measured from lateral-view digital photographs. Normalized surface EMG was used to assess mean muscle activation of the UT, MT, LT, and SA. RESULTS: Application of the brace decreased forward shoulder angle in the S + T condition. Brace application also caused a small increase in LT EMG during forward flexion and Y's and a small decrease in UT and MT EMG during shoulder extension. Brace application in the S + T group decreased UT EMG during W's, whereas UT EMG increased during W's in the S group. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the scapular brace improved shoulder posture and scapular muscle activity, but EMG changes were highly variable. Use of a scapular brace might improve shoulder posture and muscle activity in overhead athletes with poor posture.