Objective:We examined magnitude preference, subjective discomfort, and spine posture during prolonged simulated driving with a self-selected amount of lumbar support.Background:The general use of lumbar supports has been associated with decreased reports of low-back pain during driving exposures; however, minimal data exist regarding occupant magnitude preference.Method:Participants chose between five discrete levels of lumbar support (0–4 cm). Time-varying postural and discomfort responses were then monitored throughout 2 hr of simulated driving.Results:There were no significant effects of gender or time on posture. Women preferred larger amounts of support than men (3.25 cm ± 0.71 and 2.56 cm ± 0.88, respectively, p = .048). All participants exhibited significant increases ( p = .003) in pelvic discomfort throughout the 2-hr trial regardless of the level of support chosen. Discomfort related to various aspects of the lumbar support increased significantly over time. Retrospectively, no participants desired a setting beyond 4 cm, and the majority of respondents indicate had they been able to change their initial selection, they would choose a setting between 2 and 3 cm.Conclusion:The results suggest that occupants would prefer increasing the excursion capability of automobile lumbar supports beyond 2 cm.Application:Excursion capability and adjustability of automobile lumbar supports are important features to better meet end-user preference and to reducing lumbar flexion in sitting.
Contexto: A Empresa Júnior de Administração (EJA Consultoria) recebeu o desafio de realizar uma pesquisa de marketing para a empresa Santo Agostinho, mas seus membros se deparam com problemáticas relativas à possibilidade de execução desse projeto. No entanto, pesquisa de marketing é o serviço mais realizado pela EJA, e a Santo Agostinho é uma empresa importante para se ter em seu portfólio. Diante desse contexto, surge o dilema acerca da execução do projeto de pesquisa de marketing da Santo Agostinho. Objetivo: O intuito principal do caso em questão é gerar reflexões acerca da complexidade na elaboração, execução e gestão de projetos de pesquisa de marketing. Fontes de Dados: Entrevistas semiestruturadas com a dupla comercial da EJA que negociou o projeto, assim como os outros dois membros da equipe que estruturou o projeto e era responsável pela sua execução. Algumas conversas informais com os entrevistados e observação participante do próprio autor do trabalho na época do projeto da Santo Agostinho complementaram os dados obtidos com as entrevistas, além da análise de documentos com registros sobre as especificações do projeto. Aplicação: Sugerimos que o caso seja utilizado na disciplina de Administração de Marketing, Pesquisa de Marketing ou Pesquisa de Mercado e Opinião, em cursos de graduação e pós-graduação lato sensu em Administração. Palavras-chave: Marketing; Pesquisa de marketing; Tomada de decisão.
Objective To compare the impact of multiple computer monitor configurations on health and performance outcomes compared to the use of a single monitor. Background Multiple monitor configurations are used in office settings to promote increased productivity by providing more screen space; however, it is unknown if there are health-related trade-offs to increased productivity. Method A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement guidelines and adapted the best evidence synthesis. Results Eighteen studies were included in our review. There was strong evidence that implementing dual monitors is in line with users' preference. There was also moderate evidence for controlled laboratory studies demonstrating that multiple monitors may increase task efficiency with decreased desktop interaction; however, implementing multiple monitors may also result in nonneutral neck postures for users. Conclusion More research needs to be conducted on biomechanical exposures when using larger displays. Longitudinal field studies should be conducted to determine the influence of monitor interventions on health, productivity, and well-being. All studies must consider task complexity and user positioning and should measure health and productivity outcomes together. Researchers must also consider up-to-date purchasing trends when choosing the monitor configurations and sizes for their studies. Application Regulatory bodies and practitioners can use the results to develop evidence-based monitor guidelines and inform decision-making in practice, respectively. Researchers can use this information to design future studies on monitor configurations that incorporate current purchasing trends.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of a dynamic office chair to activate the core muscles while participants performed exercises sitting on the chair compared to a stability ball. Background: Prolonged sitting has become an accepted part of the modern office. However, epidemiological evidence suggests that sedentary postures are linked to many adverse effects on health. The concept of dynamic or active sitting is intended to promote movement while sitting to reduce the time spent in prolonged, static postures. Methods: Sixteen participants performed four pelvic rotation exercises (front-back, side-side, circular, and leg lift) on both a dynamic office chair and a stability ball. Muscle activity from 12 torso muscles were evaluated with surface electromyography. Results: For all exercises, trunk muscle activity on the chair was comparable to that on a stability ball. The right external oblique was the only muscle to produce greater peak activity ( p = .019) when using the ball compared to the chair (21.4 ± 14.0 percent maximal voluntary excitations (%MVE) and 14.7 ± 10.8 %MVE for the ball and chair, respectively). The left thoracic erector spinae produced greater average activity ( p = .044) on the chair than on the ball. Conclusion: These findings suggest that this dynamic sitting approach could be an effective tool for core muscle activation while promoting movement and exercise while sitting at work. Application: Muscle activations on the dynamic chair are comparable to those on a stability ball, and dynamic office chairs can promote movement and exercise while sitting at work.
BACKGROUND: The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on healthcare professionals has implications for healthcare delivery, including the public health guidance provided to patients. This study aims to assess the response and impact of COVID-19 on chiropractors internationally, and examines the public health response of chiropractors to the COVID-19 pandemic practising under a musculoskeletal spine-care versus subluxation-based care paradigm. METHODS: A survey was distributed to chiropractors in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Hong Kong, United Kingdom and United States (Oct. 2nd–Dec. 22nd, 2020) via professional bodies/publications, and social media. Questions were categorised into three domains: socio-demographic, public health response and business/financial impact. Multivariable logistic regression explored survey items associated with chiropractors practising under different self-reported paradigms. RESULTS: A total of 2061 chiropractors representing four global regions completed the survey. Our recruitment method did not allow the calculation of an accurate response rate. The vast majority initiated COVID-19 infection control changes within their practice setting, including increased disinfecting of treatment equipment (95%), frequent contact areas (94%) and increased hand hygiene (94%). While findings varied by region, most chiropractors (85%) indicated that they had implemented regulator advice on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Suspension of face-to-face patient care during the peak of the pandemic was reported by 49% of the participants with 26% implementing telehealth since the pandemic began. Chiropractors practising under a musculoskeletal spine-care paradigm were more likely to implement some/all regulator advice on patient PPE use (odds ratio [OR] = 3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57, 6.74) and practitioner PPE use (OR = 2.59; 95% CI 1.32, 5.08); trust COVID-19 public health information provided by government/World Health Organisation/chiropractic bodies (OR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.49, ...
In: Moore , C , Wong , A Y L , de Luca , K , De Carvalho , D , Johansson , M S , Pohlman , K A , Miller , A , Funabashi , M , Dougherty , P , French , S , Adams , J & Kawchuk , G 2022 , ' The impact and public health response of chiropractors to the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey across four continents ' , Chiropractic & Manual Therapies , vol. 30 , 24 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00432-6
BACKGROUND: The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on healthcare professionals has implications for healthcare delivery, including the public health guidance provided to patients. This study aims to assess the response and impact of COVID-19 on chiropractors internationally, and examines the public health response of chiropractors to the COVID-19 pandemic practising under a musculoskeletal spine-care versus subluxation-based care paradigm. METHODS: A survey was distributed to chiropractors in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Hong Kong, United Kingdom and United States (Oct. 2nd-Dec. 22nd, 2020) via professional bodies/publications, and social media. Questions were categorised into three domains: socio-demographic, public health response and business/financial impact. Multivariable logistic regression explored survey items associated with chiropractors practising under different self-reported paradigms. RESULTS: A total of 2061 chiropractors representing four global regions completed the survey. Our recruitment method did not allow the calculation of an accurate response rate. The vast majority initiated COVID-19 infection control changes within their practice setting, including increased disinfecting of treatment equipment (95%), frequent contact areas (94%) and increased hand hygiene (94%). While findings varied by region, most chiropractors (85%) indicated that they had implemented regulator advice on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Suspension of face-to-face patient care during the peak of the pandemic was reported by 49% of the participants with 26% implementing telehealth since the pandemic began. Chiropractors practising under a musculoskeletal spine-care paradigm were more likely to implement some/all regulator advice on patient PPE use (odds ratio [OR] = 3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57, 6.74) and practitioner PPE use (OR = 2.59; 95% CI 1.32, 5.08); trust COVID-19 public health information provided by government/World Health Organisation/chiropractic bodies (OR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.49, ...
In: Côté , P , Hartvigsen , J , Leboeuf-Yde , C , Corso , M , Shearer , H , Wong , J , Marchand , A-A , French , S , Kawchuk , G N , Mior , S , Poulsen , E , Srbely , J , Ammendolia , C , Blanchette , M-A , Busse , J W , Bussières , A , Cancelliere , C , Christensen , H W , De Carvalho , D , De Luca , K , Du Rose , A , Eklund , A , Engel , R , Goncalves , G , Hebert , J , Hincapié , C A , Kimpton , A , Lauridsen , H H , Innes , S , Meyer , A-L , Newell , D , O'Neill , S , Pagé , I , Passmore , S , Perle , S M , Quon , J , Rezai , M , Stupar , M , Swain , M , Vitello , A , Weber , K , Young , K J & Yu , H 2021 , ' The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature ' , Chiropractic & Manual Therapies , vol. 29 , 8 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9
Background: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit: The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Abstract Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
In: Côté , P , Bussières , A , Cassidy , J D , Hartvigsen , J , Kawchuk , G N , Leboeuf-Yde , C , Mior , S , Schneider , M , Aillet , L , Ammendolia , C , Arnbak , B , Axen , I , Baechler , M , Barbier-Cazorla , F , Barbier , G , Bergstrøm , C , Beynon , A , Blanchette , M A , Bolton , P S , Breen , A , Brinch , J , Bronfort , G , Brown , B , Bruno , P , Konner , M B , Burrell , C , Busse , J W , Byfield , D , Campello , M , Cancelliere , C , Carroll , L , Cedraschi , C , Chéron , C , Chow , N , Christensen , H W , Claussen , S , Corso , M , Davis , M A , Demortier , M , De Carvalho , D , De Luca , K , De Zoete , A , Doktor , K , Downie , A , Du Rose , A , Eklund , A , Engel , R , Erwin , M , Eubanks , J E , Evans , R , Evans , W , Fernandez , M , Field , J , Fournier , G , French , S , Fuglkjaer , S , Gagey , O , Giuriato , R , Gliedt , J A , Goertz , C , Goncalves , G , Grondin , D , Gurden , M , Haas , M , Haldeman , S , Harsted , S , Hartvigsen , L , Hayden , J , Hincapié , C , Hébert , J J , Hesby , B , Hestbæk , L , Hogg-Johnson , S , Hondras , M A , Honoré , M , Howarth , S , Injeyan , H S , Innes , S , Irgens , P M , Jacobs , C , Jenkins , H , Jenks , A , Jensen , T S , Johhansson , M , Kongsted , A , Kopansky-Giles , D , Kryger , R , Lardon , A , Lauridsen , H H , Leininger , B , Lemeunier , N , Le Scanff , C , Lewis , E A , Linaker , K , Lothe , L , Marchand , A A , McNaughton , D , Meyer , A L , Miller , P , Mølgaard , A , Moore , C , Murphy , D R , Myburgh , C , Myhrvold , B , Newell , D , Newton , G , Nim , C , Nordin , M , Nyiro , L , O'Neill , S , Øverås , C , Pagé , I , Pasquier , M , Penza , C W , Perle , S M , Picchiottino , M , Piché , M , Poulsen , E , Quon , J , Raven , T , Rezai , M , Roseen , E J , Rubinstein , S , Salmi , L R , Schweinhardt , P , Shearer , H M , Sirucek , L , Sorondo , D , Stern , P J , Stevans , J , Stochkendahl , M J , Stuber , K , Stupar , M , Srbely , J , Swain , M , Teodorczyk-Injeyan , J , Théroux , J , Thiel , H , Uhrenholt , L , Verbeek , A , Verville , L , Vincent , K , Dan Wang , A L , Weber , K A , Whedon , J M , Wong , J , Wuytack , F , Young , J , Yu , H & Ziegler , D 2020 , ' A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity ' , Chiropractic and Manual Therapies , vol. 28 , no. 1 , 21 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x
Background: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. Main body: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. Conclusion: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.