Consumer Perceptions of Home-Based Percussive Massage Therapy for Musculoskeletal Concerns: Inductive Thematic Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent concern among diverse populations, from the average individual to the elite athlete. Handheld percussive massage therapy devices like massage guns have gained much popularity in both medical and athletic settings. Its application has been prominently recognized in injury prevention and rehabilitation. The expansion of the market to provide handheld percussive therapy devices with varying features and price points has encouraged professional and novice use. While percussive therapy holds similarities to more studied therapeutic modalities, like vibration therapy and soft tissue mobilization, there is limited evidence-based information on the indications and contraindications. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use a qualitative analysis of consumer perceptions to understand the perceived therapeutic potential of percussive massage therapy as a home-based intervention for musculoskeletal concerns of everyday users and elite athletes. Additionally, we aim to gain insight on valuable characteristics supporting its therapeutic potential as well as pertinent limitations. METHODS: The TOLOCO massage gun (TOLOCO) was identified as the best-selling percussive massage therapy device on Amazon. We performed an inductive thematic qualitative analysis on the top 100 positive comments and the top 100 critical comments of the device between June 2020 and April 2023 to determine 4 relevant themes. RESULTS: The 4 themes identified upon qualitative analysis were pain management, versatility, accessibility, and safety and user education. Consumer reviews indicated use for this percussive therapy device in adolescents, adults, and older people across a spectrum of activity levels. Consumers reported the therapeutic potential of percussive massage therapy in managing wide-ranging musculoskeletal concerns like acute pain, chronic pain, nonsurgical injury rehabilitation, postsurgical injury rehabilitation, and injury prevention. Consumers highlighted the versatility of the device to address person-specific needs as a key feature in supporting its perceived therapeutic benefits. Additionally, consumers frequently commented on the affordability and availability of this device to increase accessibility to home-based care. Some critical reviews emphasized a concern for the quality of the device itself. However, this concern did not translate to the overall modality of percussive massage therapy. Of note, despite strong approval for its therapeutic potential, consumer reviews lacked evidence-based insights on appropriate usage. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based percussive massage therapy holds value with its perceived efficacy in pain management for acute and chronic conditions, as well as in injury prevention and rehabilitation. As a low-cost and readily available device for everyday users and high-performing athletes, percussive massage therapy works toward establishing increased health care accessibility and optimizing health care usage. This home-based intervention can serve to reduce the significant personal and economic burden of prevalent musculoskeletal concerns. However, the limited scientific research on percussive massage therapy raises concerns about the lack of evidence-based care and indicates the need for future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".