BackgroundPatellofemoral pain is considered one of the most common forms of knee pain, affecting adults, adolescents, and physically active populations. Inconsistencies in reported incidence and prevalence exist and in relation to the allocation of healthcare and research funding, there is a clear need to accurately understand the epidemiology of patellofemoral pain.MethodsAn electronic database search was conducted, as well as grey literature databases, from inception to June 2017. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised methodological quality. If heterogeneous, data were analysed descriptively. Where studies were homogeneous, data were pooled through a meta-analysis.Results23 studies were included. Annual prevalence for patellofemoral pain in the general population was reported as 22.7%, and adolescents as 28.9%. Incidence rates in military recruits ranged from 9.7–571.4/1,000 person-years, amateur runners in the general population at 1080.5/1,000 person-years and adolescents amateur athletes 5.1%–14.9% over 1 season. One study reported point prevalence within military populations as 13.5%.The pooled estimate for point prevalence in adolescents was 7.2% (95% Confidence Interval: 6.3%–8.3%), and in female only adolescent athletes was 22.7% (95% Confidence Interval 17.4%–28.0%).ConclusionThis review demonstrates high incidence and prevalence levels for patellofemoral pain. Within the context of this, and poor long term prognosis and high disability levels, PFP should be an urgent research priority.PROSPERO registrationCRD42016038870

BackgroundChronic musculoskeletal disorders are a prevalent and costly global health issue. A new form of exercise therapy focused on loading and resistance programmes that temporarily aggravates a patient’s pain has been proposed. The object of this review was to compare the effect of exercises where pain is allowed/encouraged compared with non-painful exercises on pain, function or disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain within randomised controlled trials.MethodsTwo authors independently selected studies and appraised risk of bias. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.ResultsThe literature search identified 9081 potentially eligible studies. Nine papers (from seven trials) with 385 participants met the inclusion criteria. There was short- term significant difference in pain, with moderate quality evidence for a small effect size of −0.27 (−0.54 to −0.05) in favour of painful exercises. For pain in the medium and long term, and function and disability in the short, medium and long term, there was no significant difference.ConclusionProtocols using painful exercises offer a small but significant benefit over pain-free exercises in the short term, with moderate quality of evidence. In the medium and long term there is no clear superiority of one treatment over another. Pain during therapeutic exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain need not be a barrier to successful outcomes. Further research is warranted to fully evaluate the effectiveness of loading and resistance programmes into pain for chronic musculoskeletal disorders.PROSPERO registrationCRD42016038882.

ObjectivesTo investigate the experience of living with patellofemoral pain (PFP).DesignQualitative study design using semistructured interviews and analysed thematically using the guidelines set out by Braun and Clarke.SettingA National Health Service physiotherapy clinic within a large UK teaching hospital.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 10 participants, aged between 18 and 40 years, with a diagnosis of PFP and on a physiotherapy waiting list, prior to starting physiotherapy.ResultsParticipants offered rich and detailed accounts of the impact and lived experience of PFP, including loss of physical and functional ability; loss of self-identity; pain-related confusion and difficulty making sense of their pain; pain-related fear, including fear-avoidance and ‘damage’ beliefs; inappropriate coping strategies and fear of the future. The five major themes that emerged from the data were: (1) impact on self; (2) uncertainty, confusion and sense making; (3) exercise and activity beliefs; (4) behavioural coping strategies and (5) expectations of the future.ConclusionsThese findings offer an insight into the lived experience of individuals with PFP. Previous literature has focused on pain and biomechanics, rather than the individual experience, attached meanings and any wider context within a sociocultural perspective. Our findings suggest that future research is warranted into biopsychosocial targeted interventions aimed at the beliefs and pain-related fear for people with PFP. The current consensus that best-evidence treatments consisting of hip and knee strengthening may not be adequate to address the fears and beliefs identified in the current study. Further qualitative research may be warranted on the impact and interpretation of medical terminology commonly used with this patient group, for example, ‘weakness’ and ‘patellar mal-tracking’ and its impact and interpretation by patients.Trial registration numberISRCTN35272486; Pre-results.

This qualitative evaluation draws on the themes to propose five key lessons which may be significant in predicting the success of implementing physiotherapy self-referral schemes.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

BackgroundPatellofemoral pain (PFP) is considered one of the commonest forms of knee pain. This study aimed to identify how physiotherapists in the United Kingdom (UK) currently manage patellofemoral pain (PFP), particularly in relation to exercise prescription, and response to pain.MethodsAn anonymous survey was designed with reference to previous surveys and recent systematic reviews. Practising UK physiotherapists who treat patients with PFP were invited to take part via an invitation email sent through professional networks, the ‘interactive Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (iCSP)’ message board, and social media (Twitter). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data.ResultsA total of 99 surveys were completed. Responders reported a wide range of management strategies, including a broad selection of type and dose of exercise prescription. The five most common management strategies chosen were: closed chain strengthening exercises (98%); education and advice (96%); open chain strengthening exercises (76%); taping (70%) and stretches (65%). Physiotherapists with a special interest in treating PFP were statistically more likely to manage patients with orthotics (P = 0.02) and bracing (P = 0.01) compared to physiotherapists without a special interest. Approximately 55% would not prescribe an exercise if it was painful. Thirty-one percent of physiotherapists would advise patients not to continue with leisure and/or sporting activity if they experienced any pain.ConclusionCurrent UK practice in the management strategies of PFP is variable. Further high quality research on which to inform physiotherapy practice is warranted for this troublesome musculoskeletal condition.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1539-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving performance is an imperative for most healthcare systems in industrialised countries. This article considers one such system, the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Recent NHS reforms and strategies have advocated improved healthcare productivity as a fundamental objective of policy and professional work. This article explores the construction of productivity in contemporary NHS discourse, analysing it via the Foucauldian concept of governmentality. In this manner it is possible to investigate claims that the commodification of health work constitutes a threat to autonomy, and counter that with an alternative view from a perspective of neoliberal self-governance. Contemporary policy documents pertaining to NHS productivity were analysed using discourse analysis to examine the way in which productivity was framed and how responsibility for inefficient resource use, and possible solutions, were constructed. Data reveals the notion of productivity as problematic, with professionals as key protagonists. A common narrative identifies traditional NHS command/control principles as having failed to engage professionals or having been actively obstructed by them. In contrast, new productivity narratives are framed as direct appeals to professionalism. These new narratives do not support deprofessionalisation, but rather reconstruct responsibilities, what might be called 'new professionalism', in which productivity is identified as an individualised professional duty.

Objectives First point of contact physiotherapy (FPCP) provides patients direct access to a physiotherapist. Literature demonstrates efficacy of FPCP. Evidence has highlighted the need for cultural shifts from both patient and professional perspectives to optimise FPCP. This study explored stakeholder perceptions of patient awareness and understanding of FPCP to better inform FPCP implementation. Design, setting, participants A qualitative methodology utilised semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Findings from a previous realist review were used to generate a priori topic guides. Participants included patients, physiotherapists, GPs, administration staff, and commissioners. A thematic analysis was undertaken. Results Four themes emerged that are described: level of patient awareness of the FPCP role situated against the GP as first contact practitioner, patients attain an awareness of FPCP from a variety of sources, patient understanding of physiotherapy arises from several sources and is poorly aligned with the FPCP model, characteristics and behaviours of patients influence access to FPCP services. Patient awareness and understanding was poor. Patients tended to view the GP as the default first contact practitioner. Traditional advertising approaches appeared on the whole invisible to patients and there was a reliance on signposting to facilitate patient access. Conclusion Findings from this study can inform implementation of FPCP. Several obstacles to the optimisation of FPCP were highlighted. Improved marketing of physiotherapy generally and FPCP specifically may increase patient awareness and understanding. However, it is likely further time will be required to bring about the cultural shift in public perception required to optimise the potential of FPCP.