Developing Consensus for an Upper and Lower Limb Athlete Pain Assessment Framework – A Real-time Delphi Study with International Sports Physiotherapists - Purcell, Ciarán; Fullen, Brona M; Ward, Tomás; Caulfield, Brian M (medRxiv, 2024)
Objectives There is no current consensus on the key items sports physiotherapists should consider when completing a comprehensive biopsychosocial upper or lower limb pain assessment with athletes. We sought to develop recommendations to inform a framework for the assessment of upper and lower limb pain in athletes.Design Real-time DelphiMethods We recruited sports physiotherapists currently working with athletes through the International Society of Sports Physical Therapists and Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists. Participants voted on 86 pain assessment items chosen using best available evidence. The real-time Delphi method facilitated independent anonymous voting, commenting and immediate review of consensus. Participants indicated level of agreement for inclusion in an upper and lower limb athlete pain assessment framework on a 6-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, and how often they are/will be required in practice on a 5-point scale from Never to Always. Criteria for consensus agreement and inclusion were i) >70% sports physiotherapists voting agree/strongly agree AND ii) median vote selected by physiotherapists was Agree or Strongly Agree.Results 41 sports physiotherapists (female n=20, male n=21), visited the survey an average of 5.3 times (±5), resulting in a completion rate of 98%. 64 assessment items (neurophysiological n=20, biomechanical n=15, affective n=8, cognitive n=3, socioenvironmental n=10, general assessment aspects of assessment n=8) met the criteria for consensus. Frequency of use in practice was Always for 28 items Often for 32 items and Sometimes for 4 items.Conclusion We have presented stakeholder-generated recommendations and priorities for athlete pain assessment.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by funding from Science Foundation Ireland under the grant for the Insight SFI Research Centre for Data Analytics (SFI/12/RC/2289_P2) Funders had no role in the data collection, analysis or interpretation and will have no role in approving the final manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Institutional Review Board Ethical permission was granted for our study by the UCD Human Research Ethics Committee. (LS-22-40-Purcell-Caulfield)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData are available through the Open Science Framework (OSF) which is a public open access repository and can be accessed at 10.17605/OSF.IO/D8T3N