No abstract

Inconsistency exists in research findings regarding the use and efficacy of screening assessments for elite-level dancers. The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of physical therapists' perspectives on the use and value of screening assessments and preventative measures in this population in order to inform future research and clinical care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine physical therapists with a caseload of at least 25% dancers aged ≥ 14 years and enrolled in a professional or pre-professional program (i. e., elite- level dancers). Transcribed interviews were analyzed using an Interpretive Description framework. A constant comparative analysis was used to identify similarities and differences among and within the data. Themes and categories were finalized after consensus among research team members. Resulting themes included the values, challenges, barriers, and opportunities of screening and preventative programs. Values extended beyond injury prevention to such matters as performance optimization, development of rapport, communication, and education. Challenges included a lack of research and support from dancers, artistic staff, and the traditional dance culture. Opportunities were seen for improved standardization and innovation of screening procedures. Recommendations to guide clinical practice and research represent an initial step toward improving implementation of screening and preventative programs, which may provide benefits to dancers' health and performance.

Purpose: Although suggested to be an important component of physiologic knee function, the ability to accurately assess tibial rotation range of motion (ROM) is currently limited by a lack of reliability data for clinically practical measurement tools. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the reliability of tibial rotation ROM measurements taken with subjects in sitting and supine positions. Methods: Thirty healthy subjects (mean age 37 ± 12 years) completed maximal active internal and external tibial rotation movements in sitting and supine positions. ROM was assessed on two occasions and by two raters using a gravity- and magnetic-referenced goniometer. Results: There were significant differences between internal and external rotation ROM values (p < .05) and between values obtained with subjects in sitting and supine positions (p < .05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) suggested that test–retest reliability for all measurements was excellent (ICC = 0.83–0.93), whereas interrater reliability was poor to excellent (ICC = 0.39–0.81). Standard errors of measurement ranged from approximately 1 to 2°. Conclusions: These findings suggest that tibial rotation ROM can be assessed reliably by one rater using one test position. However, caution must be adopted when comparing ROM measurements assessed by different raters or in different test positions.

No abstract

No abstract