Musculoskeletal disorders – a challenge to society and to physiotherapists

Abstract:
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), particularly back and neck pain, is a challenge for society due to high prevalence, high disability and high costs. It occurs in high-income, middleincome and low-income countries and in all age groups. Years lived with disability caused by low back pain (LBP) has increased by 54% between 1995 and 2015 and has now become number one cause of disability. The Lancet series about LBP in 2018 underlined that pathoanatomy often is unclear and that imaging adds little and should be used much less as most LBP-conditions are unrelated to specifically identifiable abnormalities. Furthermore, increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling LBP [1]. Globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections and surgery. Many patients get the wrong care, and a lot of money is used on wrong and/or unnecessary care. Invasive care has a limited, if any, role and use of opioids in treatment of MSDs must be avoided. Neuroscience knowledge has done advances and fortunately put the mind and body back together and a multidimensional treatment approach has become more usual. Clinical practice guidelines encourage a management approach that is both patient-centred and patient-informed, addressing psychosocial factors and focussing on increasing or maintaining activity and selfmanagement. Although guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging and surgery, medication and surgery have unfortunately been on the rise in many countries and multidimensional and multidisciplinary care on the decline [2]. Physiotherapists (PTs) must acknowledge that a broader recognition of multi-morbidity is necessary for assessment and treatment of MSDs, particularly in those with persistent problems. We cannot focus on pain symptoms and function alone, but also recognise accompanying problems such as negative beliefs, pain-related fear, sleep disturbance, inactivity, anxiety and depression. Therapists must remember to ask questions about patients working life. Too many too often do not ask or get enough information about the working conditions and the patients working history. Furthermore, care must be strategic and classified. Some patients need just advice and manage better on their own; others need assistance from PTs to change their illness perception and beliefs about pain in order to self-manage their problems. Only by doing this, we can tailor care better and increase patient-centred and supported self-care management. Studies have shown much better results when having a biopsychosocial approach compared to a symptom focussed and biomedical approach, and improvement in function can be maintained over time when a healthier life-style has been adopted [3,4]. Clinical practice, research and policy-making are often representing different worlds, but are dependent upon each other. Treatment must be payable, accessible, effective and evidence-based. Guidelines and standards are central, and policymakers look at effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, necessity (burden of disease), feasibility and should take out care that does not work, as well as its’ funding. For example, in the Nederland radiofrequency denervation of facet/IS-joints and discs has not being reimbursed after 2016 due to lack of demonstrating effect, as physiotherapy alone showed the same effect. However, this is still a treatment offered in many countries. Professionals that have criticised and tried to change guidelines that have opened for less injections and fusion surgery have, however, been personally attacked by strong interest groups representing this type of treatments. The drug industry have enormous budgets and aggressive marketing strategy tactics for promoting drugs, and opioids are presently causing an increasing number of deaths (more than in vehicle accidents in USA), and with high rates of dependency and addiction [2,5]. So how can we meet the challenges and improve care in MSDs? More countries should follow the policy in Nederland where the government requires high-quality RCTs in order to provide funding/coverage for new expensive treatments. Stakeholders must join forces in building evidence. We can change beliefs and culture, both in health personnel and in patients. Public health campaigns have developed messages about the importance of staying active, cognitive reassurance, the nature of LBP not meaning damage and that the prognosis is good. We can change our treatment approach, update our education and we can aim to change compensation systems. Communicate with patients. Change public perceptions through use of media, including Facebook. Be certain of facts and strive for impeccable science, and use own experience and real stories as good examples. Decision aids can be both booklets and videos. Videos have been shown to better inform and aid patients in their shared-decision making than just by conversation and booklets. A major challenge will be to stop use of harmful practices while ensuring access to effective and affordable health care for people with LBP [5]. PTs’ who have changed to behaviour and cognition treatments improves care.
Author Listing: Alice Kvåle
Volume: 21
Pages: 185 - 186
DOI: 10.1080/21679169.2019.1666551
Language: English
Journal: European Journal of Physiotherapy

European Journal of Physiotherapy

EUR J PHYSIOTHER

影响因子:1.5 是否综述期刊:否 是否OA:否 是否预警:不在预警名单内 发行时间:- ISSN:2167-9169 发刊频率:- 收录数据库:ESCI/Scopus收录 出版国家/地区:- 出版社:Taylor & Francis

期刊介绍

年发文量 37
国人发稿量 1
国人发文占比 2.7%
自引率 6.7%
平均录取率 -
平均审稿周期 -
版面费 -
偏重研究方向 REHABILITATION-
期刊官网 https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/iejp20/current
投稿链接 -

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比 OA被引用占比 撤稿占比 出版后修正文章占比
82.86% 30.71% - -

相关指数

{{ relationActiveLabel }}
{{ item.label }}

期刊预警不是论文评价,更不是否定预警期刊发表的每项成果。《国际期刊预警名单(试行)》旨在提醒科研人员审慎选择成果发表平台、提示出版机构强化期刊质量管理。

预警期刊的识别采用定性与定量相结合的方法。通过专家咨询确立分析维度及评价指标,而后基于指标客观数据产生具体名单。

具体而言,就是通过综合评判期刊载文量、作者国际化程度、拒稿率、论文处理费(APC)、期刊超越指数、自引率、撤稿信息等,找出那些具备风险特征、具有潜在质量问题的学术期刊。最后,依据各刊数据差异,将预警级别分为高、中、低三档,风险指数依次减弱。

《国际期刊预警名单(试行)》确定原则是客观、审慎、开放。期刊分区表团队期待与科研界、学术出版机构一起,夯实科学精神,打造气正风清的学术诚信环境!真诚欢迎各界就预警名单的分析维度、使用方案、值得关切的期刊等提出建议!

预警情况 查看说明

时间 预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版 不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版 不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版 不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版 不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级:Q3区

版本 按学科 分区
WOS期刊SCI分区
WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方(Web of Science)为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排 序,将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级,Q1代表质量最高,即常说的1区期刊。
(2021-2022年最新版)
REHABILITATION Q3

关于2019年中科院分区升级版(试行)

分区表升级版(试行)旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著,学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏,“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系,然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力,最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值,得到“期刊超越指数”,作为分区依据。

分区表升级版(试行)的优势:一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点,又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性;二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标,解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言,分区表升级版(试行)突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题,能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力,为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可,已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版(试行)》首次将社会科学引文数据库(SSCI)期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表(试行)设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版(试行)将过渡共存三年时间,推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。 提示:中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询,暂无升级版数据,请注意区分。

中科院分区 查看说明

版本 大类学科 小类学科 Top期刊 综述期刊
暂无数据