Ciarán Purcell, Brona M Fullen, Tomás Ward, Brian M Caulfield
{"title":"发展共识的上肢和下肢运动员疼痛评估框架-实时德尔福研究与国际运动物理治疗师。","authors":"Ciarán Purcell, Brona M Fullen, Tomás Ward, Brian M Caulfield","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> We sought to develop recommendations to inform a framework for comprehensively assessing upper and lower limb pain in athletes including the key assessment items sports physiotherapists should consider. <b>DESIGN:</b> Real-time Delphi. <b>METHODS:</b> We recruited sports physiotherapists who were currently working with athletes through the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapists and Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists. Participants voted on 86 pain assessment items chosen using best available evidence. The real-time Delphi method facilitated independent anonymous voting, commenting, and immediate review of consensus. Participants indicated level of agreement for inclusion in an upper and lower limb athlete pain assessment framework on a 6-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and how often they are/will be required in practice on a 5-point scale from never to always. Criteria for consensus agreement and inclusion were (1) >70% sports physiotherapists voting agree/strongly agree AND (2) median vote selected by physiotherapists was agree or strongly agree. <b>RESULTS:</b> Forty-one sports physiotherapists (female, n = 20; male, n = 21), visited the survey an average of 5.3 times (±5), resulting in a completion rate of 98%. Sixty-four assessment items (neurophysiological, n = 20; biomechanical, n = 15; affective, n = 8; cognitive, n = 3; socioenvironmental, n = 10; general assessment aspects of assessment, n = 8) met the criteria for consensus. Frequency of use in practice was always for 28 items often for 32 items and sometimes for 4 items. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> We have presented stakeholder-generated recommendations and priorities for assessing athletes' pain. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(1):1-11. Epub 22 November 2024. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12807</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"55 1","pages":"45-55"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing Consensus for an Upper and Lower Limb Athlete Pain Assessment Framework - A Real-Time Delphi Study With International Sports Physiotherapists\",\"authors\":\"Ciarán Purcell, Brona M Fullen, Tomás Ward, Brian M Caulfield\",\"doi\":\"10.2519/jospt.2024.12807\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> We sought to develop recommendations to inform a framework for comprehensively assessing upper and lower limb pain in athletes including the key assessment items sports physiotherapists should consider. <b>DESIGN:</b> Real-time Delphi. <b>METHODS:</b> We recruited sports physiotherapists who were currently working with athletes through the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapists and Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists. Participants voted on 86 pain assessment items chosen using best available evidence. The real-time Delphi method facilitated independent anonymous voting, commenting, and immediate review of consensus. Participants indicated level of agreement for inclusion in an upper and lower limb athlete pain assessment framework on a 6-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and how often they are/will be required in practice on a 5-point scale from never to always. Criteria for consensus agreement and inclusion were (1) >70% sports physiotherapists voting agree/strongly agree AND (2) median vote selected by physiotherapists was agree or strongly agree. <b>RESULTS:</b> Forty-one sports physiotherapists (female, n = 20; male, n = 21), visited the survey an average of 5.3 times (±5), resulting in a completion rate of 98%. Sixty-four assessment items (neurophysiological, n = 20; biomechanical, n = 15; affective, n = 8; cognitive, n = 3; socioenvironmental, n = 10; general assessment aspects of assessment, n = 8) met the criteria for consensus. Frequency of use in practice was always for 28 items often for 32 items and sometimes for 4 items. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> We have presented stakeholder-generated recommendations and priorities for assessing athletes' pain. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(1):1-11. Epub 22 November 2024. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12807</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"45-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12807\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12807","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing Consensus for an Upper and Lower Limb Athlete Pain Assessment Framework - A Real-Time Delphi Study With International Sports Physiotherapists
OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop recommendations to inform a framework for comprehensively assessing upper and lower limb pain in athletes including the key assessment items sports physiotherapists should consider. DESIGN: Real-time Delphi. METHODS: We recruited sports physiotherapists who were currently working with athletes through the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapists and Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists. Participants voted on 86 pain assessment items chosen using best available evidence. The real-time Delphi method facilitated independent anonymous voting, commenting, and immediate review of consensus. Participants indicated level of agreement for inclusion in an upper and lower limb athlete pain assessment framework on a 6-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and how often they are/will be required in practice on a 5-point scale from never to always. Criteria for consensus agreement and inclusion were (1) >70% sports physiotherapists voting agree/strongly agree AND (2) median vote selected by physiotherapists was agree or strongly agree. RESULTS: Forty-one sports physiotherapists (female, n = 20; male, n = 21), visited the survey an average of 5.3 times (±5), resulting in a completion rate of 98%. Sixty-four assessment items (neurophysiological, n = 20; biomechanical, n = 15; affective, n = 8; cognitive, n = 3; socioenvironmental, n = 10; general assessment aspects of assessment, n = 8) met the criteria for consensus. Frequency of use in practice was always for 28 items often for 32 items and sometimes for 4 items. CONCLUSION: We have presented stakeholder-generated recommendations and priorities for assessing athletes' pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(1):1-11. Epub 22 November 2024. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12807.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics.
With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.