No abstract

Background During COVID-19 pandemic, physiotherapy lecturers faced the challenge of rapidly shifting from face-to-face to online education. This retrospective case-control study aims to compare students’ satisfaction and performances shown in an online course to a control group of students who underwent the same course delivered face-to-face in the previous five years. Methods Between March and April 2020, a class (n = 46) of entry-level physiotherapy students (University of Verona - Italy), trained by an experienced physiotherapist, had 24-hours online lessons. Students exposed to the same course in the previous five academic years (n = 112), delivered with face-to-face conventional lessons, served as a historical control. The course was organized in 3 sequential phases: (1) PowerPoint presentations were uploaded to the University online platform, (2) asynchronous video recorded lectures were provided on the same platform, and (3) between online lectures, the lecturer and students could communicate through an email chat to promote understanding, dispel any doubts and collect requests for supplementary material (e.g., scientific articles, videos, webinars, podcasts). Outcomes were: (1) satisfaction as routinely measured by University with a national instrument and populated in a database; (2) performance as measured with an oral examination. Results We compared satisfaction with the course, expressed on a 5-point Likert scale, resulting in no differences between online and face-to-face teaching (Kruskal-Wallis 2 = 0.24, df = 1, p = 0.62). We weighted up students’ results by comparing their mean performances with the mean performances of the same course delivered face-to-face in the previous five years, founding a statistical significance in favour of online teaching (Wilcoxon rank sum test W = 1665, p < 0.001). Conclusions Online teaching in entry-level Physiotherapy seems to be a feasible option to face COVID-19 pandemic, as satisfies students as well as face-to-face courses and leading to a similar performance. Entry-level Bachelors in Physiotherapy may consider moving to eLearning to facilitate access to higher education. Universities will have to train lecturers to help them develop appropriate pedagogical skills, and supply suitable support in terms of economic, organizational, and technological issues, aimed at guaranteeing a high level of education to their students. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

No abstract

BackgroundContextual factors (CFs) represent a potential therapeutic tool to boost physiotherapy outcomes, triggering placebo effects. Nevertheless, no evidence about the use of CFs among physical therapists is currently available.ObjectiveTo investigate the use of CFs and the opinion of Italian physical therapists specialized in Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMTs) on their therapeutic benefits.DesignAn exploratory cross-sectional online survey.MethodsA 17-item questionnaire and 2 clinical vignettes assessed the perspective of OMTs on the adoption of CFs in daily clinical practice. The target population was composed of 906 OMTs. An online survey was performed in 2016 using SurveyMonkey Software. Data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsA total of 558 volunteers (61.6% of the target OMT population) participated in the study. Half of the participants (52.0%) claimed to use CFs frequently in their practice. More of 50% of OMTs valued the therapeutic significance of CFs for different health problems as determined by a combined psychological and physiological effect. OMTs considered the use of CFs ethically acceptable when they exert beneficial therapeutic effects and their effectiveness has emerged in previous clinical experiences (30.6%). They disagreed on the adoption of CFs when they are deceptive (14.1%). Moreover, OMTs did not communicate the adoption of CFs to patients (38.2%), and CFs were usually used in addition to other interventions to optimize clinical responses (19.9%). Psychological mechanisms, patient’s expectation and conditioning were believed to be the main components behind CFs (7.9%).LimitationsConsidering that the data collected were self-reported and retrospective, recall and response biases may limit the internal and external validity of the findings.ConclusionsOMTs used CFs in their clinical practice and believed in their therapeutic effect. The knowledge of CFs, placebo and nocebo mechanisms and their clinical effects should be included in physical therapists’ university studies.

The validation process revealed acceptable psychometric properties of the NBQ, whose Italian version can be used for research and clinical purposes.

Aims and objectives To describe contextual factors (CFs) used by nurses to increase placebo and to prevent nocebo effects. Background Placebo effects have been studied in the nursing discipline, but nocebo effects still remain unexplored. Recently, a set of CFs functioning as triggers of placebo/nocebo effects has been described; however, its use in daily care has never been documented to date. Design A national cross‐sectional survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys guidelines and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), was performed in 2016. Methods A wide sample of Italian nurses belonging to four national associations was involved. A questionnaire based on CFs literature was developed and administered through the SurveyMonkey Software® exploring: (a) CFs definition, (b) beliefs, (c) case‐by‐case frequency of use, (d) circumstances of application, (e) clinical conditions where participants perceived their potential beneficial effects, (f) ethical implications and (g) communication issues with the patient. Results Out of 1,411 eligible nurses, 455 answered (32.2%) and 425 questionnaires (30.1%) were valid for the analysis. A total of 211 nurses (49.6%) defined the CFs as an intervention with a possible aspecific effect; participants believed in the CFs (2.91; 95%CI 2.88–2.94), using them >2 times/month, mainly in addition to a nursing intervention to optimise clinical outcomes (n = 79; 18.6%). Psychological and physiological therapeutic effects have been perceived mainly in chronic pain (n = 259; 60.9%) and insomnia (n = 243; 57.2%). According to participants, CFs have been reported as ethically acceptable when exerting beneficial psychological effects (n = 148; 34.8%); however, 103 (24.2%) of nurses did not communicate to the patient when CFs were used. Conclusions Nurses are aware of CFs as elements to increase the placebo and prevent the nocebo effects in concomitance with evidence‐based nursing interventions. Relevance to clinical practice The CFs valued by nurses and experienced as effective are mainly based upon the internal quality of the nurse and the quality of the relationship between the nurse and the patient. These qualities require a large personal investment; therefore, nurses should be supported in developing these qualities since their nursing graduation.

BackgroundTo develop an Italian version of the Craniofacial Pain Disability Inventory (CFPDI-I) and investigate its psychometric abilities in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).MethodsThe CFPDI was translated following international standards. The psychometric analyses included reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test/retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC); construct validity was investigated by matching (a priori hypotheses) the CFPDI-I with the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI-I), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS), the Italian Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I), the Italian Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I), and the Italian Migraine Disability Assessment Score Questionnaire (MIDAS) (Pearson’s correlation). Alpha was set at 0.05.ResultsTwo hundred and twelve patients with chronic TMD completed the tool. The questionnaire was internally consistent (α = 0.95) and its stability was good (ICCs = 0.91). As hypothesised, validity figures showed CFPDI-I strongly correlated with the NDI-I (r = 0.66, p < 0.05) and moderately correlated with the NRS (r = 0.48, p < 0.05), PCS (r = 0.37, p < 0.05), TSKI (r = 0.35, p < 0.05) and MIDAS (r = 0.47, p < 0.05). Similar estimates were shown by CFPDI-I subscales.ConclusionsThe cross-culturally adapted version of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CFPDI-I) showed satisfactory psychometric properties that replicate those of the original version and, therefore, can be implemented in the clinical assessment of Italian people affected by TMD.

The Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire with the purposed modification may provide useful clinical profiles and change scores of subjects with chronic neck pain for research purposes.