Introduction Uptake of telehealth has surged, yet no previous studies have evaluated the clinimetric properties of clinician-administered performance-based tests of function, strength, and balance via telehealth in people with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain. This study investigated the: (i) test–retest reliability of performance-based tests via telehealth, and (ii) agreement between scores obtained via telehealth and in-person. Methods Fifty-seven adults aged ≥45 years with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain underwent three testing sessions: one in-person and two via videoconferencing. Tests included 30-s chair stand, 5-m fast-paced walk, stair climb, timed up and go, step test, timed single-leg stance, and calf raises. Test–retest reliability and agreement were assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) ≥0.70 considered acceptable). ICCs were interpreted as poor (<0.5), moderate (0.5–0.75), good (0.75–0.9), or excellent (>0.9). Results Test–retest reliability was good-excellent with acceptable lower CI for stair climb test, timed up and go, right leg timed single-leg stance, and calf raises (ICC = 0.84–0.91, 95% CI lower limit = 0.71–0.79). Agreement between telehealth and in-person was good-excellent with acceptable lower CI for 30-s chair stand, left leg single-leg stance, and calf raises (ICC = 0.82–0.91, 95% CI lower limit = 0.71–0.85). Discussion Stair climb, timed up and go, right leg timed single-leg stance, and calf raise tests have acceptable reliability for use via telehealth in research and clinical practice. If re-testing via a different mode (telehealth/in-person), clinicians and researchers should consider using the 30-s chair stand test, left leg timed single-leg stance, and calf raise tests.
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.
IntroductionChronic hip pain in middle-aged and older adults is common and disabling. Patient-centred care of chronic hip pain requires a comprehensive understanding of how people with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care. This paper outlines a protocol to synthesise qualitative evidence of middle-aged and older adults' views, beliefs, expectations and preferences about their chronic hip pain and its care.Methods and analysisWe will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. We will conduct this study in accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative research checklist. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and PsycINFO using a comprehensive search strategy. A priori selection criteria include qualitative studies involving samples with a mean age over 45 and where 80% or more have chronic hip pain. Two or more reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, assess methodological strengths and limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative studies checklist, perform data extraction and synthesis and determine ratings of confidence in each review finding using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation—Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. Data extraction and synthesis will be guided by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. All authors will contribute to interpreting, refining and finalising review findings. This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and reported according to the PRISMA Statement for Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The findings of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246305.
ObjectivesUsing a case vignette of an adult (George) presenting with hip pain consistent with hip OA, this study aimed to describe: (a) whether physiotherapists make diagnoses and identify bodily structures using either patient history and/or physical examination findings; (b) which diagnoses and bodily structures physiotherapists attribute to the hip pain; (c) how confident physiotherapists were in their clinical reasoning using patient history and physical examination findings; (d) what treatments physiotherapists would offer to George.MethodsWe conducted a cross‐sectional online survey of physiotherapists in Australia and New Zealand. We used descriptive statistics to analyse closed questions and content analysis for open‐text responses.ResultsTwo hundred and twenty physiotherapists completed the survey (39% response‐rate). After receiving the patient history, 64% diagnosed George's pain and 49% of these as hip OA; 95% attributed George's pain to a bodily structure(s). After receiving the physical examination, 81% diagnosed George's hip pain and 52% of these as hip OA; 96% attributed George's hip pain to a bodily structure(s). Ninety‐six percent of respondents were at least somewhat confident in their diagnosis after the patient history, and 95% were similarly confident after the physical examination. Most respondents offered advice (98%) and exercise (99%), but fewer offered treatments for weight loss (31%), medication (11%), and psychosocial factors (<15%).DiscussionAbout half of the physiotherapists that diagnosed George's hip pain made a diagnosis of hip OA, despite the case vignette including clinical criteria for a diagnosis of OA. Physiotherapists offered exercise and education, but many physiotherapists did not offer other clinically indicated and recommended treatments, such as weight loss and sleep advice.
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.