Rethinking 'risk' and self-management for chronic illness

Self-management for chronic illness is a current high profile UK healthcare policy. Policy and clinical recommendations relating to chronic illnesses are framed within a language of lifestyle risk management. This article argues the enactment of risk within current UK self-management policy is intimately related to neo-liberal ideology and is geared towards population governance. The approach that dominates policy perspectives to ‘risk' management is critiqued for positioning people as rational subjects who calculate risk probabilities and act upon them. Furthermore this perspective fails to understand the lay person's construction and enactment of risk, their agenda and contextual needs when living with chronic illness. Of everyday relevance to lay people is the management of risk and uncertainty relating to social roles and obligations, the emotions involved when encountering the risk and uncertainty in chronic illness, and the challenges posed by social structural factors and social environments that have to be managed. Thus, clinical enactments of self-management policy would benefit from taking a more holistic view to patient need and seek to avoid solely communicating lifestyle risk factors to be self-managed

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Experiences of being diagnosed with osteoporosis: a meta-synthesis

Summary: This systematic review provides synthesised knowledge and guidance to health professionals on the experiences and perspectives of being diagnosed with osteoporosis from the patient’s point of view. Using individuals’ experiences and meanings can promote tailored and targeted information and guidance on osteoporosis, bone care and treatment at different stages of the osteoporosis trajectory. Introduction: To be diagnosed with osteoporosis with or without fragility fractures affects individuals differently. The aim of this review was firstly to aggregate existing qualitative evidence regarding an individual’s experience of being diagnosed with osteoporosis at different stages, and secondly, to use a systematic approach to develop a conceptual understanding of central issues relevant for health professionals in order to provide support and guidance to patients/individuals. Methods: This study used a systematic review methodology and methods for qualitative synthesis as recommended by Cochrane and integrated the findings of qualitative research from eight databases (Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, SweMed+, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science) to July 2016. Selection and assessment were performed by three authors while four authors were involved in the analysis. Findings were cross-checked with the original article to ensure consistency with the individual’s accounts. Results: Our findings have revealed that individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis do not perceive osteoporosis as a biomedical trajectory but as a self-perceived continuum of severity and health. To be diagnosed with osteoporosis affects individuals differently depending on, for example, personal experience, pre-conceived notions of or knowledge about the disease, fragility fractures or pain. Hence, individuals will create a meaning of the diagnosis based on self-perceived fracture risk, self-perceived severity of osteoporosis and at the same time, self-perceived health. Conclusions: This meta-synthesis provides knowledge for health professionals on the experiences and perspectives of being diagnosed with osteoporosis from the patient’s point of view. The experience, meaning and significance of osteoporosis must be taken into consideration and can be used to promote tailored and targeted information and guidance on osteoporosis, bone care and treatment at different stages of the osteoporosis trajectory.</p

The Relationship of Perceived Risk and Biases in Perceived Risk to Fracture Prevention Behavior in Older Women

BACKGROUND: A bias in perceived risk for health outcomes, including fracture, exists. PURPOSE: We compared perceived risk and biases in perceived risk for fracture to fracture preventive behavior. METHODS: Women over age 55 (n=2874) completed a survey five times over five years and data was pulled from the medical record. Perceived risk was measured by asking women to rate their risk of fracture compared to similar women. Actual risk was measured using FRAX score. Bias was measured using an interaction between perceived and actual risk. RESULTS: Higher perceived risk was related to lower quality of life and self-reported health, more medication and calcium use, increased bone density scan use and less walking. Bias was only associated with less medication use. Neither perceived risk nor bias predicted medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived risk, but not bias, may predict different fracture prevention behaviors. Clinicians may need to base interventions on risk perceptions