In a recent communication, Maselli and colleagues [] supported the direct access to physical therapy (PT) for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD), providing questionable reasons for the implementation of this model of care.
These authors based their proposal on two studies. One is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) carried out in an academic emergency department (ED) in Canada, which randomized 78 people who accessed the ED for a minor MSKD. One group was evaluated by a physical therapist following a nurse triage under the supervision of an ED physician, and patients of the other group were evaluated by the ED physician []. Patients of both groups were referred to the PT if necessary and were followed up after 3 months with no significant clinical differences found between groups []. The second study cited by the Authors aimed only to investigate the feasibility of a RCT on this topic [].
Regardless of all of the biases related to the cited papers, it should be noted that they both analyzed populations from countries supporting the advocacy for direct access to PT, not for clinical reasons but for political and economic convenience [,]. Additionally, the other studies cited by Maselli et al. address costs instead of the safety and/or efficacy of direct access to PT compared with the physician-led approach (i.e., general-practioner-based, not medical-specialist-based). Moreover, the authors committed a misinterpretation by claiming a “higher level of confidence and appropriateness of physical therapists in the management of MSKD than physicians”. Indeed, Childs et al. [] (cited by Maselli et al.) reported that the level of knowledge of physiotherapists was still lower than that of orthopedists, the only category of medical specialists with expertise in MSKD included in the study.
As for the issue regarding the areas of autonomy of the physical therapists, in Italy, their involvement in prevention, care, and rehabilitation activities for people with disabilities, is always secondary to both the diagnoses and prescriptions performed by the physicians, including in private practices []. It should also be noted that the Italian Law 251/2000, cited in the paper, allows for the functional evaluation by a physical therapist, whereas the diagnosis remains the responsibility of a physician [].
Concerning “Figure 1”, presented by the authors in favor of the direct access to PT, there are two conceptual/practical mistakes: the first mistake is in the referral to a medical specialist (i.e., secondary care referral) for “further investigation (e.g., imaging)”, which is not the routine (see the guidelines for the management of low back pain, LBP) [,]. The second mistake concerns the savings in “secondary care setting treatments (e.g., medication)”, considering that drugs, if prescribed according to appropriateness criteria (i.e., in accordance with guidelines), do not represent a barrier but rather a facilitator for the functioning and general wellbeing of patients (particularly for those with MSKD), as well as in terms of cost effectiveness.
In our opinion, the most limiting aspect of the paper of Maselli et al. is the support of a dated “one-man show” approach (physical therapist only), which contrasts with the modern interdisciplinary and multimodal approach (see international guidelines for the management of LBP and osteoarthritis, OA) [,,,]. According to the above-mentioned guidelines, the best management strategy for people requiring rehabilitation is the biopsychosocial approach []. Indeed, physiotherapy is just one of the rehabilitation interventions (which includes a prescription of physical agents and therapeutic exercises) to be integrated with drug therapy and/or the use of assistive devices, psychological, behavioral, and cognitive interventions.
Finally, we want to remind these authors that the concept of multidisciplinary rehabilitation approach is the basis of strengthening rehabilitation all over the world, as claimed by the WHO Rehabilitation 2030, a call for action [].
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.M., M.C. and G.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M., M.C. and G.B.; writing—review and editing, A.M., M.C. and G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Maselli, F.; Piano, L.; Cecchetto, S.; Storari, L.; Rossettini, G.; Mourad, F. Direct Access to Physical Therapy: Should Italy Move Forward? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gagnon, R.; Perreault, K.; Berthelot, S.; Matifat, E.; Desmeules, F.; Achou, B.; Laroche, M.-C.; Van Neste, C.; Tremblay, S.; Leblond, J.; et al. Direct-Access Physiotherapy to Help Manage Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders in an Emergency Department: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2021, 28, 848–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bishop, A.; Ogollah, R.O.; Jowett, S.; Kigozi, J.; Tooth, S.; Protheroe, J.; Hay, E.M.; Salisbury, C.; Foster, N.E.; STEMS Study Team. STEMS pilot trial: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the addition of patient direct access to physiotherapy to usual GP-led primary care for adults with musculoskeletal pain. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e012987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matías-Guiu, J.; García-Ramos, R. Editorial bias in scientific publications. Neurologia 2011, 26, 1–5, (In English and Spanish). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scanff, A.; Naudet, F.; Cristea, I.A.; Moher, D.; Bishop, D.V.M.; Locher, C. A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior. PLoS Biol. 2021, 19, e3001133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Childs, J.D.; Whitman, J.M.; Sizer, P.S.; Pugia, M.L.; Flynn, T.W.; Delitto, A. A Description of Physical Therapists’ Knowledge in Managing Musculoskeletal Conditions. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2005, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Associazione Italiana Fisioterapisti. II Profilo Professionale del Fisioterapista. Available online: https://aifi.net/professione/profilo-professionale/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
- LEGGE 10 Agosto 2000, n. 251 Disciplina Delle Professioni Sanitarie Infermieristiche, Tecniche, Della Riabilitazione, Della Prevenzione Nonche’ Della Professione Ostetrica. (GU Serie Generale n.208 del 06-09-2000). Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2000/09/06/000G0299/sg (accessed on 10 January 2022).
- National Guideline Centre (UK). Low Back Pain and Sciatica in over 16s: Assessment and Management; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Qaseem, A.; Wilt, T.J.; McLean, R.M.; Forciea, M.A.; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians; Denberg, T.D.; Barry, M.J.; Boyd, C.; Chow, R.D.; Fitterman, N.; et al. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann. Int. Med. 2017, 166, 514–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kolasinski, S.L.; Neogi, T.; Hochberg, M.C.; Oatis, C.; Guyatt, G.; Block, J.; Callahan, L.; Copenhaver, C.; Dodge, C.; Felson, D.; et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020, 72, 220–233; Erratum in Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021, 73, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bannuru, R.R.; Osani, M.C.; Vaysbrot, E.E.; Arden, N.K.; Bennell, K.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; Kraus, V.B.; Lohmander, L.S.; Abbott, J.H.; Bhandari, M.; et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2019, 27, 1578–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF); World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Rehabilitation 2030 Initiative. Rehabilitation 2030 a Call for Action. Available online: https://www.who.int/rehabilitation/CallForAction2.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 13 January 2022).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).