Work-related musculoskeletal disorders, particularly back pain, are a significant issue for healthcare workers, with patient handling being the most frequently reported risk factor. Patient handling is often performed without assistive devices or equipment, which can cause healthcare staff to maintain awkward postures or experience high loads. This review aimed to comprehensively map the literature surrounding manual patient handling (without assistive devices) by healthcare practitioners to identify the current evidence-base on moving and handling of patients and explore what primary research had been conducted. JBI methodology for scoping reviews and an a priori registered protocol (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8PR7A) was followed and AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and EMBASE databases were searched. Literature published in English between 2002 and 2021 was included. Forty-nine records were included: 36 primary research studies, 1 systematic review and 12 ‘other’ including narrative and government reports. Primary research predominantly used observational cross-sectional designs (n = 21 studies). Most studies took place in hospitals (n = 13) and laboratories (n = 12). Nurses formed the largest population group (n = 13), with very little research on physiotherapists and other allied health professionals.Purpose and background
Methods and results
Low back pain (LBP) is the most common symptom encountered by osteopaths in the UK and affects a third of the UK population each year. Guidelines recommend using the biopsychosocial (BPS) model for non-specific LBP but it remains unclear what the BPS model actually is and how it applies in osteopathy. The aim of this study was to define the factors included in a BPS approach for non-specific LBP in a manual therapy using a systematic search and scoping review. An online search was performed on seven electronic databases. Guidelines and systematic reviews published after 2004 were included. 10% of the articles randomly selected were analysed by second reviewer to assess consistency of information extraction. Disagreements were discussed between the two reviewers. Mediation from the third author was not required.Background:
Methods:
