Assessment of Knowledge, Beliefs, and Attitudes Regarding Spinal Manipulation in Physical Therapists Practicing in Hyderabad

Dabeer ul Ghani; Jasma Moin; Dua e Fatima

doi:10.55735/s48ys138

Authors

Dabeer ul Ghani Isra Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan
Jasma Moin Isra Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan
Dua e Fatima Isra Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55735/s48ys138

Keywords:

Attitude , Beliefs , Knowledge , Physical therapy , Spinal manipulation

Abstract

Background: Manual therapy has long incorporated spinal manipulation as an integral technique practiced by physical therapists. Spinal manipulation involves the manual adjustment of vertebrae by passively moving them within their physiological range of motion. This procedure is widely used to restore mobility, and improve pain and functional outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Objective: To assess the level of knowledge and awareness among physical therapists in Hyderabad regarding spinal manipulation. Methodology: This cross-sectional study was conducted after obtaining ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Isra Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences. The study was carried out from January to December 2023. Data were collected from various clinical settings across Hyderabad, including hospitals and private physiotherapy clinics. A total of 150 physiotherapists participated in the study, recruited through convenience sampling due to population accessibility. Inclusion criteria were limited to practicing clinical physiotherapists with at least a bachelor’s degree in physiotherapy. This criterion was set to ensure that respondents possessed sufficient academic and clinical knowledge to provide meaningful input regarding spinal manipulation. Exclusion criteria included non-clinical physiotherapists, physiotherapy technicians, and diploma holders, as the focus was specifically on qualified clinicians actively engaged in patient care. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables, while means and standard deviations were used for continuous data. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between categorical variables, such as practice setting and use of spinal manipulation. Independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA were applied. Results: The study revealed that only 5.3% of participants had completed orthopedic manual physical therapy specialization, while 94.7% had not received such advanced training. The majority of respondents demonstrated good knowledge of spinal manipulation techniques. Most therapists reported being familiar with clinical prediction rules and acknowledged their use in practice. Conclusion: This study concluded that physical therapists in Hyderabad possess a sound level of knowledge regarding spinal manipulation. The undergraduate physiotherapy curriculum appeared to be the primary source of this knowledge, underscoring its influence on professional practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Mourad F, Yousif MS, Maselli F, et al. Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 2022; 30(1): 1-8.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00449-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00449-x

2. Hurwitz EL. Epidemiology: spinal manipulation utilization. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2012; 22(5): 648-54.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.01.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.01.006

3. Moorman AC, Newell D. Impact of audible pops associated with spinal manipulation on perceived pain: a systematic review. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 2022; 30(1): 42.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00454-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00454-0

4. Herzog W. The biomechanics of spinal manipulation. Journal of bodywork and movement therapies. 2010; 14(3): 280-6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2010.03.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2010.03.004

5. Gyer G, Michael J, Inklebarger J, Tedla JS. Spinal manipulation therapy: Is it all about the brain? A current review of the neurophysiological effects of manipulation. Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019; 17(5): 328-37.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joim.2019.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joim.2019.05.004

6. Kazeminasab S, Nejadghaderi SA, Amiri P, et al. Neck pain: global epidemiology, trends and risk factors. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022; 23(1): 26.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04957-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04957-4

7. Coulter ID, Crawford C, Hurwitz EL, et al. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Spine Journal. 2018; 18(5): 866-79.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.013

8. Fatoye F, Gebrye T, Odeyemi I. Real-world incidence and prevalence of low back pain using routinely collected data. Rheumatology International. 2019; 39(4): 619-26.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04273-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04273-0

9. Nielsen SM, Tarp S, Christensen R, et al. The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2017; 6(1): 64.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y

10. Smith WS, Johnston SC, Skalabrin EJ, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection. Neurology. 2003; 60(9): 1424-8.

https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000063305.61050.e6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000063305.61050.E6

11. Moser N, Mior S, Noseworthy M, et al. Effect of cervical manipulation on vertebral artery and cerebral haemodynamics in patients with chronic neck pain: a crossover randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5): e025219.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025219

12. Adams G, Sim J. A survey of UK manual therapists’ practice of and attitudes towards manipulation and its complications. Physiotherapy Research International: the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy. 1998; 3(3): 206-27.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.141

13. Puentedura EJ, Slaughter R, Reilly S, Ventura E, Young D. Thrust joint manipulation utilization by US physical therapists. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2017; 25(2): 74-82.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2016.1187902 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2016.1187902

14. Michaeli A. Reported occurrence and nature of complications following manipulative physiotherapy in South Africa. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 1993; 39(4): 309-15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60491-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60491-8

15. Carlesso LC, Macdermid JC, Santaguida PL, et al. Beliefs and practice patterns in spinal manipulation and spinal motion palpation reported by Canadian manipulative physiotherapists. Physiotherapy Canada. 2013; 65(2): 167-75.

https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2012-11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2012-11

16. Thoomes-de Graaf M, Thoomes EJ, Carlesso L, Kerry R, Rushton A. Adverse effects as a consequence of being the subject of orthopaedic manual therapy training, a worldwide retrospective survey. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2017; 29: 20-7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.02.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.02.009

17. Evans DW. Why do spinal manipulation techniques take the form they do? Towards a general model of spinal manipulation. Manual Therapy. 2010; 15(3): 212-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2009.03.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2009.03.006