"I Don't Want to Go to Work": A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Healthcare Worker Experiences from the Front- and Side-Lines of COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCW) were categorized as "essential" and "non-essential", creating a division where some were "locked-in" a system with little ability to prepare for or control the oncoming crisis. Others were "locked-out" regardless of whether their skills might be useful. The purpose of this study was to systematically gather data over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic from HCW through an interprofessional lens to examine experiences of locked-out HCW. This convergent parallel mixed-methods study captured perspectives representing nearly two dozen professions through a survey, administered via social media, and video blogs. Analysis included logistic regression models of differences in outcome measures by professional category and Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings (RITA) of video blogs. We collected 1299 baseline responses from 15 April 2020 to 16 March 2021. Of those responses, 12.1% reported no signs of burnout, while 21.9% reported four or more signs. Qualitative analysis identified four themes: (1) professional identity, (2) intrinsic stressors, (3) extrinsic factors, and (4) coping strategies. There are some differences in the experiences of locked-in and locked-out HCW. This did not always lead to differing reports of moral distress and burnout, and both groups struggled to cope with the realities of the pandemic.

Perceptions of Massage Therapists Participating in a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Clinical practice and randomized trials often have disparate aims, despite involving similar interventions. Attitudes and expectancies of practitioners influence patient outcomes, and there is growing emphasis on optimizing provider–patient relationships. In this study, we evaluated the experiences of licensed massage therapists involved in a randomized controlled clinical trial using qualitative methodology.

Methods

Seven massage therapists who were interventionists in a randomized controlled trial participated in structured interviews approximately 30 minutes in length. Interviews focused on their experiences and perceptions regarding aspects of the clinical trial, as well as recommendations for future trials. Transcribed interviews were analyzed for emergent topics and themes using standard qualitative methods.

Results

Six themes emerged. Therapists discussed 1) promoting the profession of massage therapy through research, 2) mixed views on using standardized protocols, 3) challenges of sham interventions, 4) participant response to the sham intervention, 5) views on scheduling and compensation, and 6) unanticipated benefits of participating in research.

Conclusions

Therapists largely appreciated the opportunity to promote massage through research. They demonstrated insight and understanding of the rationale for a clinical trial adhering to a standardized protocol. Evaluating the experiences and ideas of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners provides valuable insight that is relevant for the implementation and design of randomized trials.

What is Effective in Massage Therapy? Well, "It Depends…": a Qualitative Study of Experienced Orthopaedic Massage Therapists

Background

Massage has been used as a treatment for musculoskeletal pain throughout history and across cultures, and yet most meta-analyses have only shown weak support for the efficacy of massage. There is a recognised need for more research in foundational questions including: how massage treatments are constructed; what therapists actually do within a treatment, including their clinical reasoning; and what role therapists play in determining the effectiveness of a massage treatment.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to explore what experienced orthopaedic massage therapists consider to be the aspects of their work that contribute to effectiveness.

Setting and Participants

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom with six experienced orthopaedic massage therapists in Australia.

Research Design

The interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, seeking insights that might be practically applied, rather than theory-driven interpretations.

Results

The participants focused on the underlying differences between clients, between therapists, and between treatments, and clearly indicated that this concept of "difference" was foundational to their view of their work and was the underlying context for the comments they made. Within that frame of "difference", three key themes were interpreted from the data: (1) "Everyone is different so every treatment is different": how they individualised treatment based on these differences; (2) "How therapists cope with difference": how they managed the challenges of working in this context; and (3) "What makes a difference": the problem-solving processes they used to target each treatment to meeting the client's needs.

Conclusions

Participants did not identify specific techniques or modalities as "effective" or not. Rather, a therapist's ability to provide effective treatment was based on an iterative process of treatment and assessment that allowed them to focus on the individual needs of the client. In this case "effectiveness" could be considered a process rather than a specific massage technique.