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。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们试图为全面评估运动员上肢和下肢疼痛的框架提供建议,包括运动理疗师应考虑的关键评估项目。设计:实时德尔菲法。方法:我们通过国际运动理疗师联合会和爱尔兰特许理疗师协会招募了目前为运动员提供服务的运动理疗师。参与者对利用现有最佳证据选出的 86 个疼痛评估项目进行投票。实时德尔菲法为独立匿名投票、评论和即时审查共识提供了便利。参与者以从非常不同意到非常同意的 6 级李克特量表来表示是否同意将这些项目纳入上肢和下肢运动员疼痛评估框架,并以从从不到总是的 5 级量表来表示在实践中需要/将需要这些项目的频率。达成共识和纳入的标准是:(1)超过 70% 的运动理疗师投票同意/非常同意;(2)理疗师选择的投票中位数为同意或非常同意。结果:41 名运动理疗师(女性,n = 20;男性,n = 21)平均访问调查表 5.3 次(±5),完成率为 98%。64个评估项目(神经生理学,n = 20;生物力学,n = 15;情感,n = 8;认知,n = 3;社会环境,n = 10;一般评估方面的评估,n = 8)符合共识标准。在实践中经常使用的有 28 项,经常使用的有 32 项,有时使用的有 4 项。结论:我们介绍了由利益相关者提出的评估运动员疼痛的建议和优先事项。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(1):1-11.https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12807.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信