Beyond the evidence: The cervical collar as cultural artefact.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Tim Nutbeam
{"title":"Beyond the evidence: The cervical collar as cultural artefact.","authors":"Tim Nutbeam","doi":"10.1186/s13049-026-01600-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical collar application remains prevalent in trauma care despite the absence of evidence of neurological benefit from spinal immobilisation. Clinical behaviour in this area has proven resistant to change, and the persistence of the collar requires explanation beyond the evidential debate alone. The fear of cervical injury has origins that predate clinical practice. Neurobiological preparedness theory suggests that threat associations linked to survival-relevant stimuli are more rapidly acquired and more durably maintained than other learned fears; the cervical region is a plausible candidate for this form of prepared response. This disposition has been reinforced by centuries of cultural practice: capital punishment across civilisations has concentrated on the neck, and its apparatus has entered clinical language through terms such as the hangman's fracture and coup du lapin. The resulting cultural weight on cervical injury shapes illness behaviour, as demonstrated by natural experiments linking whiplash outcomes to compensation context. In the clinical setting, nocebo mechanisms may cause interventions that signal severity, including the collar, to perpetuate the disability they are designed to prevent. Cognitive biases compound this: pattern-based reasoning in high-stakes situations, defensive practice, and the availability heuristic all incline clinicians towards immobilisation regardless of the evidence. The collar may therefore function, in part, as an anxiety management device for clinician and patient alike.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Resistance to reforming immobilisation practice is unlikely to yield to evidence translation alone. Effective change requires explicit engagement with the evolutionary, historical, linguistic, and cognitive determinants of cervical injury fear, alongside the evidential case for gentle patient handling.</p>","PeriodicalId":49292,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13081358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-026-01600-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cervical collar application remains prevalent in trauma care despite the absence of evidence of neurological benefit from spinal immobilisation. Clinical behaviour in this area has proven resistant to change, and the persistence of the collar requires explanation beyond the evidential debate alone. The fear of cervical injury has origins that predate clinical practice. Neurobiological preparedness theory suggests that threat associations linked to survival-relevant stimuli are more rapidly acquired and more durably maintained than other learned fears; the cervical region is a plausible candidate for this form of prepared response. This disposition has been reinforced by centuries of cultural practice: capital punishment across civilisations has concentrated on the neck, and its apparatus has entered clinical language through terms such as the hangman's fracture and coup du lapin. The resulting cultural weight on cervical injury shapes illness behaviour, as demonstrated by natural experiments linking whiplash outcomes to compensation context. In the clinical setting, nocebo mechanisms may cause interventions that signal severity, including the collar, to perpetuate the disability they are designed to prevent. Cognitive biases compound this: pattern-based reasoning in high-stakes situations, defensive practice, and the availability heuristic all incline clinicians towards immobilisation regardless of the evidence. The collar may therefore function, in part, as an anxiety management device for clinician and patient alike.

Conclusion: Resistance to reforming immobilisation practice is unlikely to yield to evidence translation alone. Effective change requires explicit engagement with the evolutionary, historical, linguistic, and cognitive determinants of cervical injury fear, alongside the evidential case for gentle patient handling.

证据之外:颈圈作为文化制品。
背景:颈套的应用在创伤护理中仍然很普遍,尽管没有证据表明脊柱固定对神经系统有益。这一领域的临床行为已被证明是抗拒改变的,项圈的持续存在需要解释,而不仅仅是证据辩论。对颈椎损伤的恐惧早在临床实践之前就有了根源。神经生物学准备理论表明,与生存相关的刺激相关的威胁关联比其他习得性恐惧更迅速地获得和更持久地维持;宫颈区域是这种形式的准备反应的合理候选者。这种倾向在几个世纪的文化实践中得到了强化:不同文明的死刑都集中在脖子上,它的器具也通过刽子手的骨折(the hangman’s fracture)和政变(coup du lapin)等术语进入了临床语言。由此产生的对颈椎损伤的文化权重塑造了疾病行为,正如将鞭打结果与补偿环境联系起来的自然实验所证明的那样。在临床环境中,反安慰剂机制可能导致表明严重程度的干预措施,包括项圈,使其旨在预防的残疾永续存在。认知偏见加剧了这一点:高风险情况下基于模式的推理、防御性实践和可用性启发式都使临床医生倾向于不顾证据而采取固定行动。因此,项圈在某种程度上可以作为临床医生和患者的焦虑管理设备。结论:对改革固定实践的抵制不太可能屈服于单独的证据翻译。有效的改变需要明确地参与到对颈椎损伤恐惧的进化、历史、语言和认知决定因素中,同时还需要有证据表明,要对患者进行温和的处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The primary topics of interest in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (SJTREM) are the pre-hospital and early in-hospital diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of emergency medicine, trauma, and resuscitation. Contributions focusing on dispatch, major incidents, etiology, pathophysiology, rehabilitation, epidemiology, prevention, education, training, implementation, work environment, as well as ethical and socio-economic aspects may also be assessed for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书