Vaccine hesitancy has increased in the past few years, influenced by the socio-cultural differences, political populism, or concerns related to the effectiveness and safety of some vaccines, resulting a feeling of distrust. This feeling can become a barrier against the achievement of the immunity necessary to stop the expansion of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of the vaccine against COVID-19 in Spain, as well as to identify the factors that have an influence on the concerns and attitudes of people against accepting the vaccine in the months prior to the start of vaccination on December 2020. An online questionnaire was created to obtain information about (1) sociodemographic characteristics; (2) concerns and sources of information about vaccines; and (3) attitudes about vaccination and state of health. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the influencing factors. Of the 2501 participants, 1207 (48.3%) would accept the COVID-19 vaccine, 623 (24.9%) were hesitant, and 671 (26.8%) would reject it. The logistic regression showed that being male, older than 60, married, retired, with a high level of education, or with a leftist political inclination, could increase the probability of accepting the COVID-19 vaccine. Disinformation and the lack of political consensus were the main sources of distrust. The patients with hypertension, immunodepression, hypercholesterolemia, or respiratory disease, or were overweight, showed a greater acceptance to the vaccine, while those with cancer took the longest to accept it. A low acceptance of the vaccine against COVID-19 was observed among the Spanish population in the phase prior to its availability, and the main fears of the population were identified. It is necessary to offer correct and transparent information about these vaccines to reduce the concerns and increase the trust of the population, to thereby guarantee the success of the vaccination campaigns.

(1) To assess the efficacy of a specific rehabilitation protocol for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), patients who underwent hip arthroscopy (HA) were compared with a control group. (2) Patients with symptomatic FAIS who were scheduled for HA were randomized either to a control group (n = 45, 66.6% men, 41.8 ± 12.4 years) following a general post-surgical treatment protocol or to an experimental group (n = 45, 71.2% men, 40.9 ± 7.6 years) following a specific rehabilitation protocol supervised by a physiotherapist. Range of motion (ROM), orthopedic tests and pain were assessed immediately before surgery and at 4 and 14 weeks after surgery. The hip functional status was assessed by the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) before surgery and at the end of follow-up. (3) At 14 weeks after surgery and compared with the control group, the experimental group showed a lower percentage of positives for hip provocation tests (15.6% vs. 46.6% on Faber test; 15.6% vs. 77.8% on Fadir test; 2.2% vs. 20% on Ober test, experimental vs. control group, p < 0.001), a greater improvement in mHHS (27.2 vs. 10.7 points, p < 0.001) and higher ROM for all the movements evaluated: flexion (99.6 ± 12.2 vs. 89.6 ± 4.5, p < 0.001), extension (20.6 ± 5.8 vs. 13.3 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), adduction (30.6 ± 5.7 vs. 23.4 ± 8.4, p < 0.001), abduction (43.4 ± 10.7 vs. 32.8 ± 8.4, p < 0.001) and both internal (28.2 ± 8.5 vs. 18.7 ± 6.1, p < 0.001) and external hip rotation (36.8 ± 9.3 vs. 27.4 ± 5.6. p < 0.001). The pain decreased after surgery for both groups, although the reduction was greater in the experimental group at the end of intervention (13.8 ± 16.1 vs. 34.9 ± 16.3 mm, experimental vs. control group, p < 0.001). (4) The specific and supervised rehabilitation program in patients with FAIS undergoing HA showed better benefits at 14 weeks of treatment than the benefits achieved by a care protocol in terms of pain reduction and recovery of hip motion.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, physical therapists have had to adopt a set of specific protection measures, which have had an impact on their clinical activity and economy. The objective was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of Spanish physical therapists, as well as their attitudes and predisposition to vaccination. An online questionnaire was divided into five sections: (1) demographic and professional data; (2) labor impact; (3) precautions and infection-control measures; (4) economic impact; and (5) vaccine acceptance and adverse effects. Of the 666 participants, 62.1% showed a reduction in their working hours motivated by: fear of infection (p = 0.007), financial issues (p = 0.002) and being in quarantine or isolation (p &lt; 0.001). Of these, 36.4% were forced to close the clinic, 62.7% requested help from the government, but only 12.04% mentioned that it was adequate. The main prevention measures adopted were the use of gels and masks and, in the private sector, disinfection with ozone or ultraviolet light (p &lt; 0.05). The acceptance of the vaccine was high, 87.5%, being lower among the group over 40 years of age, self-employed, widowed or separated. More adverse effects were mentioned after receiving the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, compared to Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna. In conclusion, this study assessed for the first time that the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain had a negative impact on work and finances of physical therapists. The vaccine was widely accepted, in part by the economic impact that an infection in the work setting could signify.

No abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the changes in pain pressure threshold (PPT) and active cervical range of motion (ACROM) after the application of superficial dry needling (DN) or deep DN in myofascial trigger point (MTrP) 1 of the upper trapezius versus a simulated DN technique in the gastrocnemius muscle (control group). Design: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 7-day follow-up. Participants: Asymptomatic volunteers (n = 180; 76 men, 104 women) with a latent MTrP 1 in the upper trapezius were randomly divided into three groups: G1, receiving superficial DN in the upper trapezius; G2, receiving deep DN in the upper trapezius; and G3, control group, receiving simulated DN technique in the gastrocnemius muscle. Main outcome measures: While sitting in a chair, each subject underwent measurements of PPT and ACROM (ipsilateral and contralateral side flexion and rotation, flexion and extension) preintervention, (immediately) postintervention, and at 24 h, 72 h and 7 days. Results: Superficial and deep DN produced an increase in PPT at 7 days with respect to preintervention levels. Furthermore, superficial and deep DN produced a decrease in cervical flexion at 24 h and an increase in ipsilateral rotation until 72 h, increasing to 7 days in the case of deep DN. On the contrary, superficial DN produced an increase in ipsilateral and contralateral side flexion after intervention, unlike deep DN that produced a decrease at 24 h. Furthermore, superficial DN produced an increase in contralateral rotation at 24 h and deep DN decreased extension at 72 h. Conclusion: A single intervention of superficial or deep DN did not produce statistically significant changes in PPT or goniometry measurements. Trial registration number: NCT03719352 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )