How do manual handling advisors and physiotherapists construct their back beliefs, and do safe lifting posture beliefs influence them?

Can we enable individuals to reach further down without rounding their backs before beginning a lift? Examining the influence of starting foot and trunk position on reach depth

There is disagreement regarding the efficacy of 'safe' lifting recommendations for reducing low back disorder risk. These recommendations commonly focus on minimising lumbar spine flexion, which limits the range of allowable starting lift positions for that person. This study evaluated whether starting postural adaptations could allow a person to reach down further without rounding their lumbar spine before beginning a lift. Reach displacement was measured as participants performed a series of maximal reach tasks under different combinations of stance width, foot orientation and trunk inclination, with their lumbar spine motion restricted. There were no interactions between any of the three postural adaptations or any effect of stance width or trunk inclination. Seventy-nine percent of participants achieved their greatest reach displacement with their feet externally rotated, which contributed to a 4 cm greater reach displacement compared to a neutral foot orientation (p < 0.001).Practitioner summary: This study examined whether aspects of initial posture could influence the ability to adhere to 'safe' lifting recommendations across a range of lift heights. As a component of lifting (re)training interventions, practitioners should consider starting lift posture adaptations (e.g. manipulating foot external rotation) to improve capacity to adhere to recommendations.

The Effect of Cautionary Versus Resiliency Spine Education on Maximum Deadlift Performance and Back Beliefs: A Randomized Control Trial

ABSTRACT

Scott, KM, Kreisel, BR, Florkiewicz, EM, Crowell, MS, Morris, JB, McHenry, PA, and Benedict, TM. The effect of cautionary versus resiliency spine education on maximum deadlift performance and back beliefs: A randomized control trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e341-e348, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of cautionary information about the spine vs. a message of spine resiliency on maximum deadlift (MDL) performance and beliefs regarding the vulnerability of the spine. This cluster randomized control trial involved 903 military new cadets (n = 903) during their mandatory fitness test in cadet basic training (mean age 18.3 years, body mass index 23.8 kg·m-2, 22% female). Subjects were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The cautionary group received a message warning them to protect their backs while deadlifting, the resiliency group received a message encouraging confidence while deadlifting, and the control group received the standardized Army deadlift education only. The outcome measures were MDL weight lifted and perceived spine vulnerability. Significance was set at alpha ≤0.05. There were no between-group differences in weight lifted (p=0.40). Most subjects believed that the spine is vulnerable to injury. Three times as many subjects who received the resiliency education improved their beliefs about the vulnerability of their spines compared with those receiving the cautionary education (p<0.001). This study demonstrated the potential for brief resiliency education to positively influence beliefs about spine vulnerability, whereas cautionary education did not impair performance.

CLINICIANS' PERCEPTIONS OF MANUAL HANDLING POLICIES IN STROKE REHABILITATION: A QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUP STUDY

Objectives

The professional literature guides manual handling in numerous health care settings. The effects of these guidelines on stroke rehabilitation and the clinical communication of health care professionals are unknown. This paper aims to investigate the perspectives of nurses and physiotherapists on handling guidelines in their professions to identify conflicts in opinions to provide optimum care to people with stroke.

Design

A qualitative focus group study.

Methods

Three focus groups were conducted. The participants were physiotherapists or nurses with 1 year of stroke care experience. The data were thematically analysed.

Results

Nineteen participants (12 physiotherapists and 7 nurses) were interviewed. The data analysis revealed 3 themes. First, "The application of handling in stroke rehabilitation" includes clinical reasoning and real-world handling practices. The second theme, "Physical Effects on Therapists," examines the long-term effects of manual handling on therapists, including work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The final theme, "Conflicts among health care professionals," investigates stroke rehabilitation equipment conflicts between nurses and physiotherapists.

Conclusion

The study concludes that stroke transfer guidelines in the specialised literature may impact health care professionals' perspectives. Conflicts among health care professionals can impair teamwork. Thus, health care professionals should work together as stroke rehabilitation teams to develop unified transfer guidelines that aid rehabilitation and avoid work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

An exploration of low back pain beliefs held by health care professionals in Northern America

BACKGROUND

Prior research demonstrated that people in the United States and Canada (Northern America) hold predominantly biomedical beliefs about Low back pain (LBP); such beliefs were attributed to healthcare professionals (HCP). Further investigation is needed to understand HCP' LBP beliefs, preferred management strategies, and sources of beliefs.

METHODS

Participants were recruited via social media to complete a qualitative cross-sectional online survey. The survey was distributed to assess LBP beliefs in a U.S. and Canadian-based clinician population. Participants answered questions about the cause of LBP, reasons for recurrence or persistence, use of imaging, management strategies, and sources of beliefs. Responses were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty three participants were included, reporting multiple causes for LBP. However, many references were anchored to biological problems. When psychological variables were mentioned, it typically involved patient blaming. Like prior research studies, minimal attention was given to societal and environmental influences. Management strategies often aligned with guideline care except for the recommendation of inappropriate imaging and a reliance on passive interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings align with prior research studies on general population beliefs, demonstrating a preference for biological causes of LBP. Further updates are needed for clinical education, while future studies should seek to assess the translation of clinician beliefs into clinical practice and health system constraints.

Adding Brief Pain Science or Ergonomics Messages to Guideline Advice Did Not Increase Feelings of Reassurance in People With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Experiment

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.

An Exploration of the Influence of Non-Biomechanical Factors on Lifting-Related LBP

Objective: The primary objective was to compare non-biomechanical factors between manual workers with and without a history of LBP related to lifting. A secondary objective was to investigate associations between the change in pain intensity during repeated lifting (termed pain ramp) and non-biomechanical factors tested in the LBP group. Methods: Manual workers currently in lifting occupations with and without a history of lifting-related LBP were recruited (21 LBP and 20 noLBP) and took part in a repeated (100) lift task. A series of non-biomechanical factors, including psychological, work-related, lifestyle, whole health and psychophysical factors, were collected. Psychophysical factors (pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and fatigue) were also measured at different time points. Associations between pain ramp during lifting and non-biomechanical factors were investigated with linear regression. Results: The LBP group reported worse perceived sleep quality, more musculoskeletal pain sites other than LBP and greater symptoms related to gastrointestinal complaints and pseudo-neurology compared to the group with no history of LBP. The group with LBP were also slightly more worried about the lifting task and felt more fatigued at the end of the lifting task. The feeling of fatigue during lifting was positively associated with pain ramp in the LBP group. Anxiety and gastrointestinal complaints were weakly negatively associated with pain ramp during lifting. Conclusions: The group differences of poorer perceived sleep, greater non-specific health complaints, slightly more worry about the lifting task and more perceived fatigue in the LBP group highlight the complex and multi-factorial nature of LBP related to lifting. The feeling of fatigue was positively associated with pain ramp in the LBP group, suggesting a close relationship with pain and fatigue during lifting that requires further exploration.

Patient's perception of exercise for management of chronic low back pain: A qualitative study exercise for the management of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

Pathoanatomical beliefs about the cause of low back pain may negatively influence patients' perceptions of 'best care', such as the inclusion of exercise for low back pain (LBP) management. The aims of this study were to explore what patients receiving manual therapy are told and understand about their LBP diagnosis, and how this affects their perceptions regarding the role of exercise in the management of their LBP.

DESIGN

An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) study design was utilised using semi-structured telephone interviews of patients who experience persistent LBP and seek care at an outpatient clinic at the University of South Wales. Ten participants were interviewed for the study (six male). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an IPA approach.

RESULTS

Three main themes were generated: (1) Constructing explanation of pain. (2) Expectations of exercise within care seeking behaviours. (3) Resolving conflict between exercise and back pain narratives. Participants linked their pain to a pathoanatomical cause, impacting their beliefs on exercise as a treatment approach.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic models used by clinicians which are grounded within a pathoanatomical framework influence patients' perceptions and rationale for exercise. Exercise prescription using contemporary pain science and biopsychosocial approaches should be emphasised in practice and education.

From protection to non-protection: A mixed methods study investigating movement, posture and recovery from disabling low back pain

BACKGROUND

Movement and posture are commonly believed to relate to low back pain (LBP). Yet, we know little about how people make sense of the relationship between their LBP, movement and posture, particularly after recovery. We aimed to qualitatively explore this understanding, how it changes and how it relates to quantitative changes.

METHODS

A mixed method study in the context of an existing single-case design involving 12 people with disabling non-specific LBP. Interviews were conducted before and after a 12-week physiotherapy-led Cognitive Functional Therapy intervention, and qualitative findings from these were integrated with individualized, quantitative measures of movement, posture, psychological factors, pain and activity limitation.

RESULTS

Strong beliefs about movement and posture were identified during the baseline interviews. Lived experiences of tension and stiffness characterized the embodiment of 'nonconscious protection', while healthcare and societal messages prompted pain-related fear and 'conscious protection'. Through varied journeys, most participants reported improvements over time with less protective movement and postural strategies. For some, being less protective required focused attention ('conscious non-protection'), but most returned to automatic, normal and fearless patterns ('nonconscious non-protection'), forgetting about their LBP. One participant reported no meaningful shift, remaining protective. Greater spinal range, faster movement, more relaxed postures and less back muscle EMG accompanied positive changes in self-report factors.

CONCLUSION

The findings offer a framework for understanding how people make sense of movement and posture during the process of recovery from persistent, disabling non-specific LBP. This involved a re-conceptualisation of movement and posture, from threatening, to therapeutic.

SIGNIFICANCE

Findings from qualitative interviews before and after a Cognitive Functional Therapy intervention in 12 people with disabling low back pain highlighted an individualized recovery journey from conscious and nonconscious protection to conscious non-protection for some, and nonconscious non-protection for many. Pre and post-quantitative measures of movement, posture, psychological factors, pain and activity limitation integrated well with the qualitative findings. The findings suggest movement and posture may form part of a multidimensional pain schema.

An exploration of low back pain beliefs in a Northern America based general population

BACKGROUND

Prior research has demonstrated that people across different populations hold beliefs about low back pain (LBP) that are inconsistent with current evidence. Qualitative research is needed to explore current LBP beliefs in Northern America (NA).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a primarily qualitative cross-sectional online survey to assess LBP beliefs in a NA population (USA and Canada).

METHODS

Participants were recruited online using social media advertisements targeting individuals in NA over the age of 18 with English speaking and reading comprehension. Participants answered questions regarding the cause of LBP, reasons for reoccurrence or persistence of LBP, and sources of these beliefs. Responses were analyzed using conventional (inductive) content analysis.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

62 participants were included with a mean age of 47.6 years. Most participants reported multiple causes for LBP as well as its persistence and reoccurrence, however, these were biomedically focused with minimal to no regard for psychological or environmental influences. The primary cited source of participants' beliefs was healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings align with prior research from other regions, demonstrating a need for updating clinical education and public messaging about the biopsychosocial nature of LBP.

Does intra-lumbar flexion during lifting differ in manual workers with and without a history of low back pain? A cross-sectional laboratory study

Advice to limit or avoid a flexed lumbar curvature during lifting is widely promoted to reduce the risk of low back pain (LBP), yet there is very limited evidence to support this relationship. To provide higher quality evidence this study compared intra-lumbar flexion in manual workers with (n = 21) and without a history of LBP (n = 21) during a repeated lifting task. In contrast to common expectations, the LBP group demonstrated less peak absolute intra-lumbar flexion during lifting than the noLBP group [adjusted difference -3.7° (95%CI -6.9 to -0.6)]. The LBP group was also further from the end of range intra-lumbar flexion and did not use more intra-lumbar range of motion during any lift condition (both symmetrical and asymmetrical lifts and different box loads). Peak absolute intra-lumbar flexion was more variable in the LBP group during lifting and both groups increased their peak absolute intra-lumbar flexion over the lift repetitions. This high-quality capture of intra-lumbar spine flexion during repeated lifting in a clinically relevant cohort questions dominant safe lifting advice.Practitioner summary: Lifting remains a common trigger for low back pain (LBP). This study demonstrated that people with LBP, lift with less intra-lumbar flexion than those without LBP. Providing the best quality in-vivo laboratory evidence, that greater intra-lumbar flexion is not associated with LBP in manual workers, raising questions about lifting advice.

"Doing our best for patient safety": An international and interprofessional qualitative study with spinal manipulative therapy providers in community-based settings

BACKGROUND

Patient safety research is expanding from hospitals to community-based healthcare settings. Knowledge gaps persist among manual therapy professions that may impede patient safety initiatives within musculoskeletal care settings.

OBJECTIVES

To describe perceptions of patient safety among chiropractors and physiotherapists who provide spinal manipulation therapy (SMT).

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive study.

METHOD

Cross-sectional data were collected using the SafetyNET Survey to Support Quality Improvement. SMT providers (n = 705) in 3 countries completed surveys, with 84 providing written responses to an open-ended question about patient safety. Qualitative thematic analysis described providers' perceptions about patient safety within their practice.

RESULTS

SMT providers' perceptions were influenced by professional, patient, and practice setting factors. Five themes and 10 supporting categories were developed. Doing Our Best for Patient Safety concerned Avoiding Mistakes and Prioritizing Safety.Putting Patients First focused on Developing Relationships and Individualizing Care.Working and Learning Together advocated for Interprofessional Communication and Collaborative Learning. Organizing Practice Processes emphasized Standardizing Procedures and Benchmarking Progress.Considering Practitioner Identity highlighted how Recognizing Difference among SMT providers and Challenging Fears of other healthcare professionals and patients about SMT were important for enhancing patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Findings align with World Health Organization guiding principles that the nature of healthcare settings influence patient safety strategies. Most responses focused on individual strategies to prevent adverse events. However, this approach may overlook the benefits of identifying and documenting adverse events, setting time to discuss adverse events with clinic members, standardizing clinical practices, and building transparent patient safety cultures across healthcare professions and settings.

The advice given by physiotherapists to people with back pain in primary care

BACKGROUND

Back pain guidelines endorse giving advice to enable people to self-manage and continue normal activities. Little is known however, about the content of advice that clinicians give and this project aimed to identify the advice given by clinicians to patients with back pain at their initial consultation.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was conducted with 25 audio-recordings and transcriptions of consultations between patients with back pain and physiotherapists in a primary care outpatients department. Using a Framework approach, the data were coded and analysed to identify the content of advice given and mode of delivery.

RESULTS

The mean duration of consultation was 38 min 59 s (range 26:21-53:16). Advice was given in 88% (n = 22/25) of consultations and 96% included additional exercise instruction. Cognitive reassurance was evident, focussing on getting people confident to 'move your back' despite pain and encouraging active lifestyle changes. Beyond reassurance and discussion to enhance confidence, the key topics of advice given were: activity promotion; postural changes; practical self-help advice regarding ways to sit; pain-management advice including medication and using heat. Gaps were identified in the advice given, most notably there was a lack of specificity relating to the frequency and duration of recommended tasks and activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Advice and reassurance are integral to enabling people to self-manage their back pain. It is important to avoid contradictory and unhelpful messages. Despite its importance, little is known about the advice offered by clinicians during initial back pain consultations highlighting the need for guidance to be patient-centred and tailored.

Exploring lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics for evidence that lifting technique is associated with LBP

Purpose

To investigate if lumbar and lower limb kinematics or kinetics are different between groups with and without a history of LBP during lifting. Secondly, to investigate relationships between biomechanical variables and pain ramp during repeated lifting.

Methods

21 LBP and 20 noLBP participants completed a 100-lift task, where lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics were measured during lifting, with a simultaneous report of LBP intensity every 10 lifts. Lifts were performed in a laboratory setting, limiting ecological validity.

Results

The LBP group used a different lifting technique to the noLBP group at the beginning of the task (slower and more squat-like). Kinetic differences at the beginning included less peak lumbar external anterior shear force and greater peak knee power demonstrated by the LBP group. However, at the end of the task, both groups lifted with a much more similar technique that could be classified as more stoop-like and faster. Peak knee power remained greater in the LBP group throughout and was the only kinetic difference between groups at the end of the lifting task. While both groups lifted using a more comparable technique at the end, the LBP group still demonstrated a tendency to perform a slower and more squat-like lift throughout the task. Only one of 21 variables (pelvic tilt at box lift-off), was associated with pain ramp in the LBP group. Conclusions: Workers with a history of LBP, lift with a style that is slower and more squat-like than workers without any history of LBP. Common assumptions that LBP is associated with lumbar kinematics or kinetics such as greater lumbar flexion or greater forces were not observed in this study, raising questions about the current paradigm around ‘safe lifting’.

January 2020 Letter to the Editor-in-Chief

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: "As If 'Sit Up Straight' Were the Only Strategy We Use" with Authors' Response J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):47-48. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0201.

Are there differences in lifting technique between those with and without low back pain? A systematic review

Background and aims

To systemically review the literature to compare freestyle lifting technique, by muscle activity and kinematics, between people with and without low back pain (LBP).

Methods

Five databases were searched along with manual searches of retrieved articles by a single reviewer. Studies were included if they compared a freestyle lifting activity between participants with and without LBP. Data were extracted by two reviewers, and studies were appraised using the CASP tool for case-control studies.

Results

Nine studies were eligible. Heterogeneity did not allow for meta-analysis. Most studies (n = 8 studies) reported that people with LBP lift differently to pain-free controls. Specifically, people with LBP lift more slowly (n = 6 studies), use their legs more than their back especially when initiating lifting (n = 3 studies), and jerk less during lifting (n = 1 studies). Furthermore, the four larger studies involving people with more severe LBP also showed that people with LBP lift with less spinal range of motion and greater trunk muscle activity for a longer period.

Conclusions

People with LBP move slower, stiffer, and with a deeper knee bend than pain-free people during freestyle lifting tasks. Interestingly, such a lifting style mirrors how people, with and without LBP, are often told how to lift during manual handling training. The cross-sectional nature of the comparisons does not allow for causation to be determined.

Implications

The changes described may show embodiment of cautious movement, and the drive to protect the back. There may be value in exploring whether adopting a lifting style closer to that of pain-free people could help reduce LBP.

"Sit Up Straight": Time to Re-evaluate

Posture is a frequent topic of discussion for patients, clinicians, the media, and society. A common belief is that spinal pain is caused by sitting, standing, or bending "incorrectly." Despite the absence of strong evidence to support these common beliefs, a large posture industry has flourished, with many interventions and products claiming to "correct" posture and prevent pain. Unfortunately, many health care professionals provide advice in line with this non-evidence-based perspective. In this Viewpoint, the authors reflect on common beliefs regarding posture and spinal health and why they are so widely held, and consider how clinicians can positively influence these beliefs. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(8):562-564. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.0610.