The prevalence of thumb problems in Australian physiotherapists is high: An observational study

30Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Question: What is the lifetime and current prevalence of thumb problems in Australian physiotherapists and what are the factors associated with thumb problems? Design: Survey of a random cross-section of physiotherapists. Participants: 1562 (approximately 10% of the total) registered Australian physiotherapists. Outcome measures: General questions covered demographic information, area of practice, hours worked per week, and years worked as a physiotherapist. Specific questions about thumb problems covered thumb affected, symptoms, onset of symptoms, treatment sought, relevance of work-related factors, and joint hypermobility. Results: 1102 (71%) questionnaires were returned and 961 (68%) completed. The lifetime prevalence of thumb problems was 65% and the current prevalence was 41%. Factors that were significantly associated with thumb problems included: working in orthopaedic outpatients (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.8); using manual therapy (OR 2.3 to 3.4, 95% CI 1.7 to 5.1), trigger point therapy (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.0) and massage (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.8); having thumb joint hypermobility (OR 2.2 to 2.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.5); or an inability to stabilise the joints of the thumb whilst performing physiotherapy techniques (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.9 to 5.9). Of those respondents who reported thumb problems, 19% had changed their area of practice and 4% had left the profession as a result of their thumb problems. Conclusion: The prevalence of thumb problems in Australian physiotherapists appears to be high and can be of sufficient severity to impact on careers. © Australian Physiotherapy Association 2006.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McMahon, M., Stiller, K., & Trott, P. (2006). The prevalence of thumb problems in Australian physiotherapists is high: An observational study. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 52(4), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(06)70009-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free