MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408536246 · doi:10.1080/10669817.2025.2472374

Information needs for people with neck pain seeking physiotherapy neck manipulation or mobilization: an exploratory study

2025· article· en· W4408536246 on OpenAlex
Michelle Lumasag, Anita Gross, Derek Clewley, Pasqualina Santaguida

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeck painMobilizationMedicinePhysical therapyExploratory researchManual therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the foundational needs for a decision aid on receiving physiotherapy neck manipulation and mobilization from a broad age spectrum. METHOD: An e-survey was conducted from January to 30 April 2024, targeted child/infant-parent dyads, adolescents, adults, and adult-caretaker dyads with neck pain who received physiotherapy treatment in Canada and the United States. The survey method captured knowledge and attitudes to manual therapy, treatment expectations (10 items from the Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q), decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)) and participant demographics. Descriptive analyses were used to assess responses. RESULTS: Out of 146 participants who started the survey, 48 adults (mean age 48) completed it fully. Due to low response rates, the survey lacked insights into adolescent, child/infant-parent, or adult-caretaker dyads. Most respondents were familiar with mobilization (86%) and manipulation (82%). Mobilization was preferred (67%) and viewed more favorably compared to manipulation (7%), which was seen as riskier. Stroke was identified as the top risk/adverse event for techniques and was more commonly associated with manipulation (52%) than mobilization (25%). Other perceived risks included soreness, pain, headache, stiffness, tenderness, dizziness, and fatigue, reported more often for mobilization (57%) than manipulation (41%). The TEX-Q showed that respondents' treatment expectations were largely met, indicating positive expectations. Additionally, low scores on the DCS subscales and total scores (mean 16.26, SD 21.00) reflected minimal decisional conflict among respondents. CONCLUSION: The study found that adults with neck pain who received physiotherapy involving neck manipulation or mobilization were well informed about the benefits, risks, and potential major and minor adverse events of their treatment. Their expectations for treatment were generally positive, and they experienced minimal decisional conflict. To further support shared decision-making, we recommend adding a qualitative component, such as structured interviews or focus groups with inter-professional child/infant-parent dyads, to help clinicians improve patient counseling and decision-making guidance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it