BackgroundAetiology of births involving very low birthweight (VLBW) and extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infants is heterogeneous and preventive strategies remain elusive. Socioenvironmental measures implemented as Ireland’s response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic represented a national lockdown, and have possibly influenced the health and well-being of pregnant women and unborn infants.MethodsRegional trends of VLBW and ELBW infants in one designated health area of Ireland over two decades were analysed. Poisson regression and rate ratio analyses with 95% CI were conducted. Regional data covering most of the lockdown period of 2020 were compared with historical regional and national data and forecasted national figures for 2020.ResultsPoisson regression analysis found that the regional historical VLBW rate per 1000 live births for January to April, 2001–2019 was 8.18 (95% CI 7.21 to 9.29). During January to April 2020, an unusually low VLBW rate of just 2.17 per 1000 live births was observed, reflecting a rate ratio of 3.77 (95% CI 1.21 to 11.75), p=0.022, representing a 73% reduction of VLBW during the first 4 months of 2020 compared with same period for the preceding two decades. There were no ELBW infants admitted to the regional neonatal intensive care unit. National Irish VLBW rate for 2020 is forecasted to be reduced to approximate 400 per 60 000 births compared with the historical 500–600 range.ConclusionAn unprecedented reduction in regional births of VLBW and ELBW infants was observed in Ireland coinciding with the COVID-19 lockdown. Potential determinants of this unique temporal trend possibly reside in the summative socioenvironmental impact of the COVID-19 lockdown. Our findings, if mirrored in other regions that have adopted a lockdown, demonstrate the potential to evaluate these implicated behavioural and socioenvironmental modifiers to positively influence VLBW and ELBW rates globally.

Identification of at-risk athletes using screening tools such as US may allow preventative programmes to be implemented. However, it is clear that other factors beyond tissue structure are involved in the development of lower limb tendinopathy.

BackgroundOne-size-fits-all interventions reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) a small amount. An individualised intervention called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) was superior for CLBP compared with manual therapy and exercise in one randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, systematic reviews show group interventions are as effective as one-to-one interventions for musculoskeletal pain. This RCT investigated whether a physiotherapist-delivered individualised intervention (CFT) was more effective than physiotherapist-delivered group-based exercise and education for individuals with CLBP.Methods206 adults with CLBP were randomised to either CFT (n=106) or group-based exercise and education (n=100). The length of the CFT intervention varied according to the clinical progression of participants (mean=5 treatments). The group intervention consisted of up to 6 classes (mean=4 classes) over 6–8 weeks. Primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity in the past week at 6 months and 12months postrandomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.ResultsCFT reduced disability more than the group intervention at 6 months (mean difference, 8.65; 95% CI 3.66 to 13.64; p=0.001), and at 12 months (mean difference, 7.02; 95% CI 2.24 to 11.80; p=0.004). There were no between-group differences observed in pain intensity at 6 months (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54; p=0.056) or 12 months (mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI -0.20 to 1.50; p=0.134).ConclusionCFT reduced disability, but not pain, at 6 and 12 months compared with the group-based exercise and education intervention. Future research should examine whether the greater reduction in disability achieved by CFT renders worthwhile differences for health systems and patients.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02145728).

Despite its growing popularity, scant research exists concerning musculoskeletal pain and injury in Irish dancing (ID). This study aimed to record the biopsychosocial characteristics of elite adult Irish dancers and to investigate potential relationships between these characteristics and musculoskeletal pain and injury. One hundred and four professional Irish dancers, elite competitive Irish dancers, and dancers in full time education studying ID completed a questionnaire providing data on dance and activity levels, physical and psychological health, and pain and injury history. Of these subjects, 84 underwent 1. a physical screening of lower limb flexibility, which involved balance and endurance; 2. a number of functional tests; and 3. anthropometric, biomechanical, and anatomical assessments. Subjects were divided into "significantly injured (SI)" and "not significantly injured (NSI)" categories based on the severity and impact of self-reported pain and injury. Thirty-three (31.7%) subjects were classified as SI and 71 (68.3%) as NSI. The factors significantly associated with being SI were female sex (p = 0.036), higher number of subjective general health (p = 0.001) and psychological (p = 0.036) complaints, low mood (p = 0.01), heightened catastrophizing (p = 0.047), and failure always to complete a warm-up (p = 0.006). A self-reported injury rate of 76.9% over the previous 5 years was reported. The mean number of injuries sustained to all body parts over the previous 5 years was 1.49, with a mean of 126.1 days lost annually to injury. Foot and ankle injuries were most prevalent. It was concluded that there is a significant level of musculoskeletal pain and injury in elite adult ID. A complex combination of biopsychosocial factors appears to be associated with pain and injury.

Only small, clinically irrelevant differences in pain or disability outcomes were found between group and individual physiotherapy incorporating exercise. Since all but one study included other interventions together with exercise in either the group or individual arm, deciphering the unique effect of the way in which exercise is delivered is difficult. Group interventions may need to be considered more often, given their similar effectiveness and potentially lower healthcare costs.

No abstract

Non-specific chronic spinal pain (NSCSP) is highly disabling. Current conservative rehabilitation commonly includes physical and behavioural interventions, or a combination of these approaches. Physical interventions aim to enhance physical capacity by using methods such as exercise, manual therapy and ergonomics. Behavioural and/or psychologically informed interventions aim to enhance behaviours, cognitions or mood by using methods such as relaxation and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Combined interventions aim to target both physical and behavioural and/or psychological factors contributing to patients' pain by using methods such as multidisciplinary pain management programmes. Since it remains unclear whether any of these approaches are superior, this review aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed, and combined interventions on pain and disability in patients with NSCSP. Nine electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants reporting NSCSP. Studies were required to have an "active" conservative treatment control group for comparison. Studies were not eligible if the interventions were from the same domain (e.g. if the study compared two physical interventions). Study quality was assessed used the Cochrane Back Review Group risk of bias criteria. The treatment effects of physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed, and combined interventions were assessed using meta-analyses. 24 studies were included. No clinically significant differences were found for pain and disability between physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed and combined interventions. The simple categorisation of interventions into physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed and combined could be considered a limitation of this review, as these interventions may not be easily differentiated to allow accurate comparisons to be made. Further work should consider investigating whether tailoring Perspective: In this systematic review of RCTs in NSCSP, only small differences in pain or disability were observed between physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed and combined interventions.

Background: Aetiology of preterm birth (PTB) is heterogeneous and preventive strategies remain elusive. Socio-environmental measures implemented as Ireland s prudent response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic represented, in effect, a national lockdown and have possibly influenced the health and wellbeing of pregnant women and unborn infants. Cumulative impact of such socio-environmental factors operating contemporaneously on PTB has never been assessed before. Methods: Regional PTB trends of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants in one designated health area of Ireland over two decades were analysed. Poisson regression and rate ratio analyses with 95% CI were conducted. Observed regional data from January to April 2020 were compared to historical regional and national data and forecasted national figures for 2020. Results: Poisson regression analysis found that the regional historical VLBW rate per 1000 live births for January to April, 2001 to 2019 was 8.18 (95% CI: 7.21, 9.29). During January to April 2020, an unusually low VLBW rate of just 2.17 per 1000 live births was observed. The rate ratio of 3.77 (95% CI: 1.21, 11.75), p = 0.022, estimates that for the last two decades there was, on average, 3.77 times the rate of VLBW, compared to the period January to April 2020 during which there is a 73% reduction. National Irish VLBW rate for 2020 is forecasted to be reduced to 400 per 60,000 births compared to historical 500 to 600 range. Conclusion: An unprecedented reduction in PTB of VLBW infants was observed in one health region of Ireland during the COVID-19 lockdown. Potential determinants of this unique temporal trend reside in the summative socio-environmental impact of the COVID-19 dictated lockdown. Our findings, if mirrored in other regions that have adopted similar measures to combat the pandemic, demonstrate the potential to evaluate these implicated interdependent behavioural and socio-environmental modifiers to positively influence PTB rates globally.