3.9 Article

Attitudes to back pain amongst musculoskeletal practitioners: A comparison of professional groups and practice settings using the ABS-mp

Journal

MANUAL THERAPY
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 167-175

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2006.06.005

Keywords

attitudes; back pain; chiropractors; osteopaths; physiotherapists

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [PC6/CSA04/03] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists play key roles in the management of low back pain (LBP) patients in the UK. We investigated the attitudes of these three professional groups to back pain using a recently developed and validated questionnaire, the Attitudes to Back Pain Scale for musculoskeletal practitioners (ABS-mp). A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was sent to 300 of each professional group (n = 900). Responses were analysed from 465 practitioners: 132 chiropractors (28%), 159 osteopaths (34%) and 174 physio therapists (37%). Overall, all three groups endorse a psychosocial approach to treatment, and see re-activation as a primary goal. However, physiotherapists and osteopaths tend to endorse attitudes towards limiting the number of treatment sessions offered to LBP patients more than chiropractors, and chiropractors endorse a more biomedical approach than physio therapists. When practice setting (NHS versus private practice) was considered (in physiotherapists alone), physiotherapists working for the NHS endorsed limiting the number of treatment sessions more than those working in the private sector and would also less frequently advise their patients to restrict activities and be vigilant. The results may help explain current clinical practice patterns observed in these groups and their uptake of clinical guideline recommendations. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available