“What you feel under your hands”: exploring professionals’ perspective of somatic dysfunction in osteopathic clinical practice—a qualitative study
Tóm tắt
Despite controversy regarding its validity and clinical usefulness, manual examination findings still have an important role for manipulative therapies. As an example, somatic dysfunction (SD) remains central to osteopathic practice.This study aims to explore the experienced osteopaths' attitudes concerning SD and its role in osteopathic practice. This qualitative research could contribute to building a consistent paradigm for manual intervention in all musculoskeletal manipulations. A thematic analysis with grounded theory elements was used. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews carried out between February and April 2021. A purposive sample of twenty professional osteopaths with past experience in osteopathic care was chosen to reflect the phenomenon's variety. The data analysis was done inductively and in tandem with the recruiting to keep track of data saturation. Eleven osteopaths participated in the study. Three main themes emerged from the data analysis: (1) SD as a safe tissue-touch-based communication tool between operator and person complex adaptive health system; (2) The treatment of SD is shareable between osteopaths, other health professionals, and the patients involved in the therapeutic pathway improving body awareness and health; (3) The development of the SD concept in research and practice to better clarify osteopathic profession identity and definition. A panel of expert osteopaths consider the concept of SD as a valuable tool integrated into the osteopathic evaluation and treatment process. The shared concept and clinical application of SD is informed by person-centered care concepts and from the fields of neuroscience, cognitive and complexity science. Our study reports a common need among osteopaths to develop an evidence-based framework of SD to allow the best development of the osteopathic profession.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Musculoskeletal Manipulations - MeSH - NCBI n.d. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=Musculoskeletal+Manipulations. Accessed March 24, 2022
Rabey M, Hall T, Hebron C, Palsson TS, Christensen SW, Moloney N. Reconceptualising manual therapy skills in contemporary practice. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017;29:28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.02.010.
Triano JJ, Budgell B, Bagnulo A, Roffey B, Bergmann T, Cooperstein R, et al. Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation. Chiropr Man Ther. 2013;21:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-36.
Moran R. Somatic dysfunction—conceptually fascinating, but does it help us address health needs? Int J Osteopath Med. 2016;22:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2016.11.001.
Bialosky JE, Beneciuk JM, Bishop MD, Coronado RA, Penza CW, Simon CB, et al. Unraveling the mechanisms of manual therapy: modeling an approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48:8–18. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.7476.
Bialosky JE, Bishop MD, Price DD, Robinson ME, George SZ. The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model. Man Ther. 2009;14:531–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2008.09.001.
Tramontano M, Pagnotta S, Lunghi C, Manzo C, Manzo F, Consolo S, et al. Assessment and management of somatic dysfunctions in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2020;120:165–73. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.029.
Tassorelli C, Tramontano M, Berlangieri M, Schweiger V, D’Ippolito M, Palmerini V, et al. Assessing and treating primary headaches and cranio-facial pain in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases. J Headache Pain. 2017;18:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-017-0809-z.
American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. Glossary of osteopathic terminology. Chevy Chase, Md.: American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine; 2017.
World Health Organization. Benchmarks for training in traditional/complementary and alternative medicine: benchmarks for training in osteopathy 2010.
Bergna A, Vismara L, Parravicini G, Dal Farra F. A new perspective for somatic dysfunction in osteopathy: the variability model. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24:181–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.03.008.
European Committee for Standardisation CEN. European Standard on Osteopathic Healthcare Provision. EN 16686, CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels 2015.
Esteves JE, Zegarra-Parodi R, van Dun P, Cerritelli F, Vaucher P. Models and theoretical frameworks for osteopathic care: a critical view and call for updates and research. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;35:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.01.003.
Alvarez G, Van Biesen T, Roura S. Professional identity in the evolution of osteopathic models: Response to Esteves et al. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;36:58–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.05.001.
Lunghi C, Liem T. Models and theoretical frameworks for osteopathic care—a critical view and call for updates and research. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;37:48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.07.004.
Ménard M, Draper-Rodi J, Merdy O, Wagner A, Tavernier P, Jacquot E, et al. Finding a way between osteopathic principles and evidence-based practices: Response to Esteves et al. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;37:45–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.07.006.
Noy M, Macedo L, Carlesso L. Biomedical origins of the term “osteopathic lesion” and its impact on people in pain. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;37:40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.06.002.
Sampath KK, Fairs E. A piece of the puzzle: response to Esteves et al. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;38:39–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.10.010.
Vogel S. Continuing debates about models of practice. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;37:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.09.001.
Vogel S. W(h)ither osteopathy: a call for reflection; a call for submissions for a special issue. Int J Osteopath Med. 2021;41:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2021.09.001.
Nesi J. Models and theoretical frameworks for osteopathic care—a critical view from a nonregulated country. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;36:62–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.05.006.
Steel A, Foley H, Redmond R. Person-centred care and traditional philosophies in the evolution of osteopathic models and theoretical frameworks: Response to Esteves et al. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;36:60–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.03.001.
Liem TAT. Still’s osteopathic lesion theory and evidence-based models supporting the emerged concept of somatic dysfunction. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2016;116:654–61. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2016.129.
Fryer G. Somatic dysfunction: an osteopathic conundrum. Int J Osteopath Med. 2016;22:52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2016.02.002.
Lunghi C, Consorti G, Tramontano M, Esteves JE, Cerritelli F. Perspectives on tissue adaptation related to allostatic load: scoping review and integrative hypothesis with a focus on osteopathic palpation. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24:212–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.03.006.
Tozzi P. A unifying neuro-fasciagenic model of somatic dysfunction-underlying mechanisms and treatment—Part I. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19:310–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.01.001.
Tozzi P. A unifying neuro-fasciagenic model of somatic dysfunction-underlying mechanisms and treatment—Part II. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19:526–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.03.002.
Tramontano M, Tamburella F, Dal Farra F, Bergna A, Lunghi C, Innocenti M, et al. International overview of somatic dysfunction assessment and treatment in osteopathic research: a scoping review. Healthcare. 2022;10:28. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010028.
Licciardone JC, Kearns CM, King HH, Seffinger MA, Crow WT, Zajac P, et al. Somatic dysfunction and use of osteopathic manual treatment techniques during ambulatory medical care visits: a CONCORD-PBRN study. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2014;114:344–55. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2014.072.
Bettelli L, Pisa V, Formica A. “I do it my way”—Italian osteopaths’ beliefs and attitudes about five osteopathic models: a qualitative study. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;38:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.10.009.
Grace S, Orrock P, Vaughan B, Blaich R, Coutts R. Understanding clinical reasoning in osteopathy: a qualitative research approach. Chiropr Man Ther. 2016;24:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0087-x.
Santiago R, Campos B, Moita J, Nunes A. Response to: Models and theoretical frameworks for osteopathic care—a critical view and call for updates and research. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;37:52–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2020.07.001.
Gooberman-Hill R. Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences. Patient. 2012;5:215–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262494.
Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15:398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Thomson OP, Petty NJ, Scholes J. Grounding osteopathic research—introducing grounded theory. Int J Osteopath Med. 2014;17:167–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2013.07.010.
Cerritelli F, Lanaro D. Elementi di ricerca in osteopatia e terapie manuali. Napoli: EdiSes; 2018.
Corbin JM, Strauss A. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol. 1990;13:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care ISQua. 2008;19:349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26:1802–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870.
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16:1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847.
Schwandt TA. Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Dict Qual Inq. 2001;7:281–306.
Engward H, Davis G. Being reflexive in qualitative grounded theory: discussion and application of a model of reflexivity. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71:1530–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12653.
Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2015;42:533–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26:1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444.
Ericsson KA, Prietula MJ, Cokely ET. The making of an expert. Harv Bus Rev. 2007;85(114–21):193.
Registro degli Osteopati d’Italia. Regist DEGLI OSTEOPATI D’ITALIA n.d. https://www.registro-osteopati-italia.com/. Accessed 6 Mar 2022
Oliffe JL, Kelly MT, Gonzalez Montaner G, Yu Ko WF. Zoom interviews: benefits and concessions. Int J Qual Methods. 2021;20:16094069211053522. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211053522.
Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596.
Santhosh L, Rojas JC, Lyons PG. Zooming into focus groups: strategies for qualitative research in the era of social distancing. ATS Scholar. 2021;2:176–84. https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127PS.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79:373–4.
Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076.
Lunghi C, Iacopini A, Baroni F, Consorti G, Cerritelli F. Thematic analysis of attitudes held by a group of Italian osteopaths toward osteopathic evaluation, treatment, and management in the neonatal and pediatric field: a qualitative study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021;44:164–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2020.07.004.
Bagagiolo D, Rosa D, Borrelli F. Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e053468. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053468.
Basile F, Scionti R, Petracca M. Diagnostic reliability of osteopathic tests: a systematic review. Int J Osteopath Med. 2017;25:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2017.03.004.
Consorti G, Basile F, Pugliese L, Petracca M. Interrater reliability of osteopathic sacral palpatory diagnostic tests among osteopathy students. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2018;118:637–44. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2018.132.
Bicalho E, Vieira L, Makita DK, Rivas L. Inhibitory tests as assessment tools for somatic dysfunctions: mechanisms and practical applications. Cureus. 2020;12:e7700. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7700.
Liem T, Lunghi C. Reconceptualizing principles and models in osteopathic care: a clinical application of the integral theory. Altern Ther Health Med 2021:AT6750.
Baroni F, Ruffini N, D’Alessandro G, Consorti G, Lunghi C. The role of touch in osteopathic practice: a narrative review and integrative hypothesis. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2021;42:101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101277.
Castagna C, Consorti G, Turinetto M, Lunghi C. Osteopathic models integration radar plot: a proposed framework for osteopathic diagnostic clinical reasoning. J Chiropr Humanit. 2021;28:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echu.2021.09.001.
Cerritelli F, Esteves JE. An enactive-ecological model to guide patient-centered osteopathic care. Healthcare. 2022;10:1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061092.
Fryer G. Integrating osteopathic approaches based on biopsychosocial therapeutic mechanisms. Part 1: the mechanisms. Int J Osteopath Med. 2017;25:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2017.05.002.
Fryer G. Integrating osteopathic approaches based on biopsychosocial therapeutic mechanisms. Part 2: clinical approach. Int J Osteopath Med. 2017;26:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2017.05.001.
Lederman E. A process approach in osteopathy: beyond the structural model. Int J Osteopath Med. 2017;23:22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2016.03.004.
Smith D. Reflecting on new models for osteopathy—it’s time for change. Int J Osteopath Med. 2019;31:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2018.10.001.
Ménard M, Couvertier M, Awai L, Esteves JE, Bideau B, Vaucher P. Exploring lumbo-pelvic functional behaviour patterns during osteopathic motion tests: a biomechanical (en)active inference approach to movement analysis. Int J Osteopath Med 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2022.05.001.
WHO. ICD-10 Version: Somatic Dysfunction M99.0 2019. https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/M99.0. Accessed 16 June 2022
International Classification of Diseases (ICD) n.d. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases. Accessed 16 June 2022
Baroni F, Tramontano M, Barsotti N, Chiera M, Lanaro D, Lunghi C. Osteopathic structure/function models renovation for a person-centered approach: a narrative review and integrative hypothesis. J Complement Integr Med 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2021-0430.
Cerritelli F, Cardone D, Pirino A, Merla A, Scoppa F. Does osteopathic manipulative treatment induce autonomic changes in healthy participants? A thermal imaging study. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:887. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00887.
d’Alcalà CR, Webster DG, Esteves JE. Interoception, body awareness and chronic pain: results from a case–control study. Int J Osteopath Med. 2015;18:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2014.08.003.
Casals-Gutiérrez S, Abbey H. Interoception, mindfulness and touch: a meta-review of functional MRI studies. Int J Osteopath Med. 2020;35:22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2019.10.006.
D’Alessandro G, Cerritelli F, Cortelli P. Sensitization and interoception as key neurological concepts in osteopathy and other manual medicines. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00100.
Cerritelli F, Chiacchiaretta P, Gambi F, Perrucci MG, Barassi G, Visciano C, et al. Effect of manual approaches with osteopathic modality on brain correlates of interoception: an fMRI study. Sci Rep. 2020;10:3214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60253-6.
Cerritelli F, Chiacchiaretta P, Gambi F, Ferretti A. Effect of continuous touch on brain functional connectivity is modified by the operator’s tactile attention. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00368.
Esteves JE, Cerritelli F, Kim J, Friston KJ. Osteopathic care as (en)active inference: a theoretical framework for developing an integrative hypothesis in osteopathy. Front Psychol. 2022;13:812926.
Bohlen L, Shaw R, Cerritelli F, Esteves JE. Osteopathy and mental health: an embodied, predictive, and interoceptive framework. Front Psychol. 2021;12:767005. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.767005.
McParlin Z, Cerritelli F, Friston KJ, Esteves JE. Therapeutic alliance as active inference: the role of therapeutic touch and synchrony. Front Psychol. 2022;13:783694.
Tramontano M, Cerritelli F, Piras F, Spanò B, Tamburella F, Piras F, et al. Brain connectivity changes after osteopathic manipulative treatment: a randomized manual placebo-controlled trial. Brain Sci. 2020;10:E969. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10120969.
Cerritelli F, Lunghi C, Esteves JE, Vaucher P, van Dun PLS, Alvarez G, et al. Osteopathy: Italian professional profile: a professional commentary by a group of experts of the European community of practice. Int J Osteopath Med. 2021;40:22–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2021.03.004.
WHO Collaborative Project Task Forces—Osteopathic International Alliance n.d. https://oialliance.org/who-collaborative-project-task-forces/. Accessed 20 June 2022
Weber AM, Gupta R, Abdalla S, Cislaghi B, Meausoone V, Darmstadt GL. Gender-related data missingness, imbalance and bias in global health surveys. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6:e007405. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007405.
Castleberry A, Nolen A. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018;10:807–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019.