BackgroundNon-specific neck pain is a common health problem of global concern for office workers. This systematic review ascertained the latest evidence for the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise versus no therapeutic exercise on reducing neck pain and improving quality of life (QoL) in office workers with non-specific neck pain.MethodSeven electronic databases using keywords, that is, ‘office workers’, ‘non-specific neck pain’, ‘exercise’ and/or ‘exercise therapy’, ‘QoL’, ‘strengthening’, ‘stretching’, ‘endurance’, ‘physiotherapy’ and/or ‘physical therapy’, were searched from inception until March 2017. Heterogeneous data were reported in narrative format and comparable homogenous data were pooled using Revman.ResultsEight randomised control trials were reviewed and scored on average 6.63/10 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Five studies performed strengthening exercise, one study had a strengthening and an endurance exercise group, one study performed stretching exercise and one study had an endurance intervention group and a stretching intervention group. Five and four studies reported significant improvement in neck pain and QoL, respectively, when conducting strengthening exercise. When performing endurance exercises, one and two studies reported significant changes in neck pain and QoL, respectively. The one study incorporating stretching exercise reported significant improvement in neck pain. The meta-analysis revealed that there is a clinically significant difference favouring strengthening exercise over no exercise in pain reduction but not for QoL.ConclusionThere is level II evidence recommending that clinicians include strengthening exercise to improve neck pain and QoL. However, the effect of endurance and stretching exercise needs to be explored further.
Background. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health concern. The International Diabetes Federation estimated that the global prevalence of hyperglycemia in pregnancy is 16.2%. In South Africa, the most recent prevalence of GDM ranges between 9.1-25.8%. Serious adverse events associated with GDM can be mitigated by lifestyle modifications and education. Good comprehension of GDM, and improved understanding has been shown to translate into better glycemic control and reduces peri-natal complications. Assessing the knowledge base of mothers with GDM, whether in a country like South Africa, or any other similar country, is therefore imperative in bridging the gap and improving their understanding and control of their condition. Objective. To ascertain the validity and reliability of translated, cross-culturally adapted South African English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa versions of the Malaysian GDM Knowledge Questionnaire (M-GDMKQ). Methods. This mixed-method study was conducted prospectively within a high-risk antenatal clinic setting. The study consisted of three phases. Women ≥18-years, with GDM who were able to read basic level English, Afrikaans or isiXhosa; and attended the high-risk antenatal clinic throughout the index pregnancy were consecutively sampled and stratified into three language groups across phases. Results. The cross-culturally adapted English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa South African GDMKQ demonstrated reasonable face and content validity. Kappa values ranged between Kappa (SE), -0.03 (0.18) to 0.89 (0.13) for the English version, Kappa (SE), -0.07 (0.18) to 0.53 (0.13) for the Afrikaans version and Kappa (SE), 0.28 (0.18) to 0.87 (0.17) for the isiXhosa version respectively. Cronbach alpha for the individual questions ranged from 0.31 to 0.90, while correlation between overall scores was rho=0.79 (p<0.001). Conclusion. While the translated and cross-culturally adaptation South African English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa versions of the GDMKQ were found to be feasible, acceptable and easy to comprehend, more research is required to confirm validity and reliability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.