ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2025
Information needs for people with neck pain seeking physiotherapy neck manipulation or mobilization: an exploratory study.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the foundational needs for a decision aid on receiving physiotherapy neck manipulation and mobilization from a broad age spectrum.
methodAn e-survey was conducted from January to 30 April 2024, targeted child/infant-parent dyads, adolescents, adults, and adult-caretaker dyads with neck pain who received physiotherapy treatment in Canada and the United States. The survey method captured knowledge and attitudes to manual therapy, treatment expectations (10 items from the Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q), decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)) and participant demographics. Descriptive analyses were used to assess responses.
resultsOut of 146 participants who started the survey, 48 adults (mean age 48) completed it fully. Due to low response rates, the survey lacked insights into adolescent, child/infant-parent, or adult-caretaker dyads. Most respondents were familiar with mobilization (86%) and manipulation (82%). Mobilization was preferred (67%) and viewed more favorably compared to manipulation (7%), which was seen as riskier. Stroke was identified as the top risk/adverse event for techniques and was more commonly associated with manipulation (52%) than mobilization (25%). Other perceived risks included soreness, pain, headache, stiffness, tenderness, dizziness, and fatigue, reported more often for mobilization (57%) than manipulation (41%). The TEX-Q showed that respondents' treatment expectations were largely met, indicating positive expectations. Additionally, low scores on the DCS subscales and total scores (mean 16.26, SD 21.00) reflected minimal decisional conflict among respondents.
conclusionThe study found that adults with neck pain who received physiotherapy involving neck manipulation or mobilization were well informed about the benefits, risks, and potential major and minor adverse events of their treatment. Their expectations for treatment were generally positive, and they experienced minimal decisional conflict. To further support shared decision-making, we recommend adding a qualitative component, such as structured interviews or focus groups with inter-professional child/infant-parent dyads, to help clinicians improve patient counseling and decision-making guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.