ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0300-4395
Current Organisation
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.MSKSP.2019.06.002
Abstract: To evaluate how physiotherapists across three countries (Australia, New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland) diagnose greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) using clinical tests and imaging findings, and how physiotherapists update their knowledge regarding GTPS. Cross-sectional observational study of physiotherapists. An online survey was distributed to registered physiotherapists in Australia, NZ and Ireland. Ordinal and nominal data were analysed using frequency counts or mean ranks medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for numerical data. Comparisons between the three countries were made using Chi-squared analyses for nominal/ordinal data and Kruskal Wallis tests for numerical data. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Valid responses were received from 361 physiotherapists 61% were female and 79.8% worked in private practice. Most respondents were very confident in diagnosing GTPS (67.9%) and incorporated a range of symptoms and tests, including validated tests, in their diagnosis. However, many physiotherapists were not commonly using some available validated diagnostic tests (e.g. FABER and FADER-R). Approximately 30% of physiotherapists used imaging to inform assessment, with ultrasound being most preferred. Physiotherapists rated hands-on experience as most valuable for updating their knowledge of GTPS, followed by courses. While most clinicians appear to be using current evidence in their assessment of patients with GTPS, a proportion use suboptimal methods and/or a limited range of diagnostic tests, suggesting that despite their confidence in diagnosis, further knowledge translation may be required. Future research should determine the best methods of facilitating knowledge acquisition and translation of research into practice.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2020
DOI: 10.1016/J.PHYSIO.2019.05.002
Abstract: This study aimed to establish and compare current physiotherapy management of GTPS in Australia, New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Cross-sectional observational survey of physiotherapists. An online survey was distributed to registered musculoskeletal physiotherapists in Australia, NZ and Ireland. Ordinal and nominal data were analysed using frequency counts or mean ranks median and interquartile ranges were calculated for numerical data. Inter-country comparisons were made using Chi-squared analyses for nominal/ordinal data and Kruskal-Wallis tests for numerical data. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Valid responses were received from 361 physiotherapists, 61% were female and 80% worked in private practice. Overall, consistency in treatment of GTPS was observed across the three countries. All physiotherapists used education and exercise (most commonly strengthening and neuromuscular control) primarily targeting the gluteal muscles. Other interventions included massage (90%), stretching (53%), range of motion (40%), thermal modalities (50%), taping (38%) and electrotherapy (25%), whilst 40% commonly recommended up to 2 to 3 corticosteroid injections per patient er annum. Physiotherapists used pain severity scales as their primary outcome measure (79%). Single leg stance was the most common physical measure used (68%), and global rating scores or standardised physical measures were less commonly used. This international survey established the physiotherapy management of GTPS. Education used in conjunction with exercise is in line with current evidence, but a proportion of clinicians use adjunct treatments without clear rationale or supporting evidence. Results indicate the need to further define optimal management of GTPS using robust methodologies such as randomised controlled trials.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2023
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 12-2017
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2017-018971
Abstract: Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Therapeutic exercise is a recommended core treatment for people with knee and hip OA, however, the observed effect sizes for reducing pain and improving physical function are small to moderate. This may be due to insufficient targeting of exercise to subgroups of people who are most likely to respond and/or suboptimal content of exercise programmes. This study aims to identify: (1) subgroups of people with knee and hip OA that do/do not respond to therapeutic exercise and to different types of exercise and (2) mediators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function. This will enable optimal targeting and refining the content of future exercise interventions. Systematic review and in idual participant data meta-analyses. A previous comprehensive systematic review will be updated to identify randomised controlled trials that compare the effects of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and hip OA on pain and physical function to a non-exercise control. Lead authors of eligible trials will be invited to share in idual participant data. Trial-level and participant-level characteristics (for baseline variables and outcomes) of included studies will be summarised. Meta-analyses will use a two-stage approach, where effect estimates are obtained for each trial and then synthesised using a random effects model (to account for heterogeneity). All analyses will be on an intention-to-treat principle and all summary meta-analysis estimates will be reported as standardised mean differences with 95% CI. Research ethical or governance approval is exempt as no new data are being collected and no identifiable participant information will be shared. Findings will be disseminated via national and international conferences, publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites accessed by the public and clinicians. CRD 42017054049.
No related grants have been discovered for Helen French.