Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effect of a physiotherapy program in the management of musculoskeletal disorders in hairdressers: a randomized controlled trial
Bertozzi L, Capra F, Barducci C, Pillastrini P
Italian Journal of Physiotherapy 2011 Sep;1(3):73-79
clinical trial
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

AIM: Hairdressers are considered a high risk category to develop musculoskeletal disorders. Some studies suggest that these musculoskeletal disorders are mainly located in the upper limbs, the lumbar and cervical spine. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of physiotherapy exercises program in the management of musculoskeletal disorders in hairdressers. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was utilized. Twenty-eight hairdressers working in nine shops were randomly divided into two groups (experimental versus control), with each shop as a unit of randomization. All the hairdressers in both groups received an ergonomic brochure. Ergonomic brochure consists of two parts: the first part informs the hairdresser about musculoskeletal disorders of their profession and offers ergonomic and postural advice. The second part contains a detailed description of the exercises and pictures that show the correct execution of exercises. The exercise program was conducted by a physical therapist. Data were collected at baseline and at a six weeks follow-up. The primary and secondary outcome measure recorded was the level of disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Two-way ANOVA was performed to assess the between-groups variance before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Reported results show no significant differences between groups in terms of ODI, RMDQ (primary outcomes), VAS LBP and cervical VAS (secondary outcomes). CONCLUSION: The study does not support the efficacy of the experimental treatment compared to control treatment. We suggest to repeat the study with higher methodological standards.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help