Applying a sustainability perspective in the literature on physical therapy in relation to pharmaceuticals: a scoping review

Abstract

Introduction:

Physical therapy encompasses a broad range of treatment options, often utilized in clinical settings where pharmaceutical interventions are standard. The potential for physical therapy to contribute to sustainable healthcare by reducing environmental impact, while maintaining the quality of care, remains underexplored. This study aimed to map existing research comparing physical therapy to pharmaceuticals, with a specific focus on whether these studies address aspects of sustainable development.

Methods:

A scoping review was conducted, systematically searching the PubMed, Cinahl, and Pedro databases using keywords related to physical therapy, pharmaceuticals, and comparative studies. Two assessors independently reviewed and selected relevant studies, followed by data extraction and summarization of results.

Results:

A total of 27 studies were included, varying in design, population, and healthcare context. The most commonly addressed conditions were osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal pain, with analgesics being the most frequently studied pharmaceutical interventions. While several studies touched upon economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, none examined environmental sustainability. This highlights a critical gap in current research.

Discussion:

Future studies are needed to assess how physical therapy, when compared to pharmaceutical treatments, can contribute to sustainable healthcare by offering a low-carbon, resource-efficient alternative without compromising social sustainability through adverse effects. This knowledge could be instrumental in guiding healthcare systems toward more sustainable practices.

Systematic review registration:

A study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework 2023-03-31 (Available from: https://osf.io/we58g).

Introduction

Healthcare accounts for a significant share of global greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., carbon footprint, and the largest share is due to the production, transport and consumption of goods and services such as pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, foods and medical equipment (1, 2). Thus, healthcare has a responsibility to actively participate in the transition towards sustainable development (2), defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, involving economic, environmental and social sustainability (3). A sustainable healthcare builds on the three dimensions of sustainable development (2, 4), and is defined as a system that maintains and improves the health of current generations while minimizing damage to the environment and ensuring health for future generations (4). Four key elements have been identified to enable sustainable healthcare (5): disease prevention and health promotion to reduce the need for healthcare; self-management and empowerment of patients to take a greater role in managing their own health and healthcare; lean service delivery and; prioritizing low carbon alternatives (2).

The three dimensions of sustainable development are further described in the business framework the Triple Bottom Line (6). This framework argues that for a business to be sustainable, it needs to consider not only the economic aspect, but also the environmental and social aspects of operations. In other words, it must consider for example air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and the health and wellbeing of employees and clients (6). Triple Bottom Line has since its’ introduction been employed in studies (2, 4, 7). The Triple Bottom Line has been found particularly interesting in healthcare since health is directly and indirectly determined by ecological and social aspects (8).

From the perspective of physical therapy (PT), individuals have inherent resources to maintain or improve their health on their own or with the facilitation of others (9). In PT, support for behavioral change, maintenance and resumption of activities, function and abilities, and the promotion of patient empowerment are central concepts (7). The concept of empowerment is based on the idea that people themselves have the ability and resources to define their own problems and devise action strategies to deal with them. Behavior change is an important part of health promotion and disease prevention (10), together with patient education and rehabilitation (10). The fact that PT is a treatment option without the direct environmental impact of, for example, pharmaceuticals (11) implies PT is key for sustainable healthcare.

Pharmaceutical care is the responsible provision of pharmaceuticals (e.g., drugs, medicines) for the purpose of achieving outcomes that improve a patient’s quality of life (12). Pharmaceuticals affect physiological processes in the body, usually by binding to various proteins (13). Pharmaceuticals are usually chemically stable substances, allowing them to withstand a certain passage through the body before they reach their area of action (13). These properties and ways of acting in pharmaceuticals are primarily intended to promote treatment outcomes, but they can also have negative effects through various adverse effects in the user as well as a negative impact on the environment (13).

The adverse effects of pharmaceuticals can vary in severity and depend, among other things, on the substance used, who is using them, and in what dose (3). Side effects of pharmaceuticals have a major impact on society, leading to high costs, increased morbidity requiring care, and risk of death (12). The production and consumption of pharmaceuticals contribute to a global problem of pollution in water and soil (5, 6). These pollutants affect human health and the lives of plants and animals and have been identified as major problems in several countries (14–16). The groups of pharmaceuticals most abundant in the environment are analgesics, specifically Non-steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) (17).

The use of pharmaceuticals leads to negative environmental impact and possible negative side effects for the individual. PT as a treatment has been shown to have an effect in several areas where pharmaceuticals are commonly used, such as high blood pressure, depression, diabetes, and osteoarthritis (11, 18). However, there is a lack of collective knowledge about the areas in which PT could influence pharmaceutical use. This is an important area, as this knowledge could contribute the transition to sustainable healthcare. The aim of this study was to investigate what research, in form of scientific articles, is available that study PT in relation to pharmaceuticals. The aim was also to investigate whether this research relates their results to sustainable development regarding environmental-, social- or economic aspects.

Methods

Study design

This study utilized a scoping review methodology to investigate the extent and type of available research. The methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (19) was followed, with some additions from Levac et al. (20). A study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework 2023-03-31 (Available from: https://osf.io/we58g) and the PRISMA ScR Checklist was used when reporting the results (21).

Research questions

The research questions guiding this scoping review were formulated as follows:

• What research exists that compares PT and pharmaceutical treatments, or that assesses pharmaceutical use/prescription as outcomes from PT?

• To what extent are aspects of sustainable development addressed, in articles on PT in relation to pharmaceuticals?

Literature search

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on 2023-02-20 to identify relevant studies. PubMed, Cinahl, and PEDro databases were searched using combinations of keywords related to PT, pharmaceuticals, and comparative studies, with no limitation on the date (Table 1). The search strategy was adjusted based on sample searches, and consultations with a librarian, to optimize search results.

Study selection

Based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies were selected from the search result:

Inclusion Criteria:

• Original articles and study protocols that in some way compare PT and pharmaceuticals as treatment options, with PT explicitly mentioned as PT by the authors, or interventions performed or supervised by a physical therapist, or performed in a PT clinic.

• Studies that evaluate pharmaceutical consumption as an outcome measure via either intake or via prescription, or by evaluating a pharmaceutical treatment as an intervention.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Articles involving animal studies.

• Articles not available in English.

The selection process was performed by two assessors independently (PS and MJ), with the help of Rayyan.ai software, and started with screening of titles and abstracts. Relevant articles were further assessed by reading their full texts. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied individually by the authors. The selection was based on agreement and discrepancies were identified and resolved through discussion within the author group, until consensus was reached.

Data charting

Data from the included studies were extracted and organized into a table. The collected information included author details, year of publication, study location, study design, intervention type, study population, research purpose, methodology, outcome measures, significant results, and aspects of sustainable development.

Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

The included articles were analyzed and presented in relation to the research questions, in terms of their characteristics, physical therapy interventions, types of pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical consumption as an outcome measure, and discussions related to sustainable development. The scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the available research rather than conducting a synthesis of the evidence.

Results

The search in PubMed, Cinahl and PEDro resulted in 1254 articles (Figure 1) of which 45 duplicates were detected and deleted, leaving 1,209 unique articles for title screening. Out of 1,209 articles, 68 were selected for further review of abstract after the title screening based on the study’s inclusion- and exclusion criterium. The abstracts were then reviewed, and 66 studies were selected for full-text review. Finally, 27 articles (22–48) were included after the study selection process, the most common reason for studies not being included was that they did not address PT explicitly as treatment (Figure 1).

Figure 1

The included studies (22–48) were published between 1998 and 2022 and conducted in 15 different countries, with the most studies conducted in Turkey (23, 37, 39–41, 47, 48) and the USA (24, 25, 34, 46) (Table 2). Most of the studies (17 out of 27) were randomized controlled trials (23, 24, 28–31, 35, 39–42, 44–48), and another four had a randomized design (26, 27, 37, 38), three of the studies where retrospective (25, 34, 36), one was a prospective observational study (43), one was an open-label alternate patient treatment allocation study (33) and two were study protocols (27, 32). The most common diagnoses in the included studies were osteoarthritis (OA), back pain and shoulder pain. The other studies commonly included musculoskeletal diagnoses, but also respiratory and gynecological diagnoses.

In the included studies, many different types of PT interventions were described, comprising various exercise interventions (20 of 27) (22–36, 38, 42–44, 46) and interventions where the patient passively received treatment (15 of 27) (22–24, 27, 36–42, 45–48) (Table 2). Other interventions found in the included studies were patient education (22, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35) and organizational health care changes (Table 2) (34, 43, 44).

Of the pharmaceuticals that appeared in the studies, the most common type was analgesics; primary NSAIDs, followed by cortisone or other injections, muscle relaxants, and pharmaceuticals for depression and anxiety. Other pharmaceuticals that occurred were blood pressure lowering substances, anti-choleric, and pharmaceuticals to facilitate breathing (Table 2).

Twelve of the studies (24, 25, 28–35, 43, 44) had pharmaceutical use- or prescription as an specified outcome measure. Of these studies, nine compared PT with treatment as usual (25, 27–30, 34, 35, 43, 44), one study compared PT with pharmaceutical review (31) and two studies compared PT with pharmaceutical interventions (32, 33). Of the studies that compared PT with usual treatment, three (34, 43) compared PT at the ED with either no-PT ED care or PT at a later stage. Two studies (29, 30) compared PT with standard treatment by a physician, one with standard treatment by physical therapist (27), one compared fast-track rehabilitation with rehabilitation according to routine (28), and two studies (25, 35) compared multimodal therapy and educational programs containing PT with treatment as usual and routine PT.

Fifteen studies compared PT interventions, without pharmaceutical treatment, with pharmaceutical interventions but did not specify pharmaceutical use as a direct outcome measure (22, 23, 26, 36–42, 45–48). In one of these studies the participants still reported their pharmaceutical intake, which was presented in the results (22). Of the 15 studies, nine compared PT with some type of injection (22–24, 36, 39–41, 46, 48) (cortisone, hyaluronic, NaHa, or steroid). The types of pharmaceuticals in the other six studies were: anticholinergics (26), NSAIDs or other analgesics (37, 38, 42, 45), muscle relaxants (37, 42), blood pressure lowering pharmaceuticals (38) and antidepressants (47).

None of the included articles discussed sustainable development, and none performed evaluations from a Triple Bottom Line since environmental aspects of sustainable development were not addressed in any study. Eight of the studies did not address any aspect of sustainable development (22, 23, 29, 30, 36, 39, 41, 45). Economic aspects of sustainable development related to costs and healthcare utilization, were discussed in 17 of the included studies (24, 26–28, 31–35, 37, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 48). Six of those studies compared costs and utilization between their intervention and control groups (2, 24, 27, 28, 35, 44). One study (26) suggests for future studies that cost analyses should be carried out. Social aspects of sustainable development were addressed in 12 of the included studies (25–27, 31–34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47). One study (33) addresses poverty, education level and unequal access to care. Quality of life or physical and mental health were included as outcome measures in eight studies (26, 27, 31–33, 40, 44, 47), but they were not discussed from a sustainable development perspective. Three studies discussed patient abilities and active participation in care (31, 42, 44) and two discussed risks to patients, such as overmedication (25, 34). In one study, TENS was suggested as an alternative for pain management if pharmaceutical treatments where contraindicated (38). Negative effects of prolonged NSAID use, and the positive effects on coping through active patient engagement in PT were highlighted (42). Empowerment and self-management was discussed as possible reasons for lowered use of health care services and resources in PT treatment (44).

Discussion

This scoping review found that investigations on PT in relation to pharmaceuticals as treatment hold a variation of characteristics with different study designs, study samples and in a range of areas within healthcare. The perspective of sustainable development was not applied in any of the included studies, and environmental aspects were not considered at all. However, several studies did consider economic or social sustainability to some extent.

Among the 27 included studies, many different types of interventions were described as PT. Physical exercise in different forms, was the most frequent type of PT treatment in the studies and TENS was the second most frequent form of PT intervention. In most of the included articles PT was referred to as specific rehabilitation exercises (22–36), in some it was referred to as TENS (36–43) and, in one study, PT was referred to as electromagnetic field treatment (45). These examples mirror the diversity of interventions within the PT discipline, highlighting the importance to mention PT in the title, abstract or keywords when addressing an intervention within the wide scope of PT, when applicable. Nevertheless, to describe an intervention solely as ‘physical therapy’ would not be of sufficient detail (49). Thus, we argue that a clear description of the intervention, including if it is delivered within the PT discipline is necessary to facilitate systematic study of interventions delivered within the PT profession.

None of the included studies were found to address all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., the Triple Bottom Line. That absence of evaluations regarding environmental sustainability in any study, can be considered a missed opportunity as the high carbon footprint and pollution from pharmaceuticals is a well-known problem where an effective PT alternative could pose an important contribution to sustainable healthcare. The environmental impact of PT on for example facilities and water use should not be ignored, but could be considered minor compared to the total emissions from health care, especially when compared to pharmaceuticals (2). However, some studies did discuss economic and social aspects of sustainable development. Economic evaluations mainly concerned costs and utilization of health care resources where evaluations of social aspects involved patient participation and empowerment as means for reduced healthcare utilization over time. The importance of patient empowerment for sustainable healthcare has been recognized by the WHO and is proposed by the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare as a cornerstone for sustainable healthcare (2, 4). Another aspect of sustainability that was addressed in the included studies was over medication (25) and the negative consequences from side effects were discussed in another (38). In line with this, the inconvenience of side effects from pharmaceuticals compared with PT interventions has been described previously in research of pain management (50), and patients have previously been found to prefer non-pharmacological pain management over opioids as treatment (51). Hence, increasing societal knowledge and awareness of PT as a non-pharmacological, non-invasive pain treatment is essential (52). Evaluation from the triple bottom line has been suggested in PT research (53). For such evaluations, cooperation between physical therapists, environmental scientists and economists could be of great value for assuring that all parts of the triple bottom line are considered in a holistic perspective on sustainable healthcare.

A strength of our study is the systematic methodology and following the stepwise process described by Arksey and O’malley with additions by Levac et al. (19, 20). Combining these two when conducting a scoping review is recommended for a structured methodology (54). The choice of study design was appropriate to be able to chart in which areas comparisons of PT and pharmaceuticals exist, in order to address gaps in knowledge and identify areas where systematic reviews would be possible. There have also been at least two reviewers of all articles at all stages. Making the selection of studies in a team is something recommended by Levac et al. (20).

One limitation of this study is that grey literature was not included. The primary reason we only searched databases is because we were mainly interested in scientific sources. This could have led to publications bias and a possible lack of included studies with non-significant results. Another limitation is only including articles in English, which may have meant that we missed interesting research that could have contributed to our results; the reduction in linguistic and cultural variation could have led to lower generalizability. The result could also be limited due to the choice to only include three databases in the search strategy, as well as the specific choice of databases. Further, the decision to only include studies that used certain terminology concerning PT, it was noted during the exclusion process that many potentially interesting studies were to be excluded. By only including studies where PT was mentioned explicitly, many studies that involved exercise interventions, TENS, acupuncture, and other interventions that may well be referred to as PT were excluded. This is problematic since similar interventions would be stated as PT in the included studies but were excluded due to the lack of mentioning of PT. However, it would not have been appropriate to define PT by naming all possible interventions, considering the wide range shown already in this study. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of carefully consider terminology in studies evaluating PT interventions, to facilitate future systematic research in the field of PT.

Conclusion

There is a need for further research on the role of PT interventions in relation to pharmaceuticals as treatment. Studies are lacking that consider sustainable development, and studies comparing PT and pharmaceuticals that evaluate outcomes from a perspective of sustainable development could contribute with knowledge about how PT can be a low-carbon, resource efficient alternative to pharmaceuticals, without their negative impact on social sustainability in terms of adverse effects, and thus contribute to sustainable healthcare.

References

• 1.

  Fatta-Kassinos D Meric S Nikolaou A . Pharmaceutical residues in environmental waters and wastewater: current state of knowledge and future research. Anal Bioanal Chem. (2011) 399:251–75. doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-4300-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2.

  Mortimer F Isherwood J Wilkinson A Vaux E . Sustainability in quality improvement: redefining value. Future Healthc J. (2018) 5:88–93. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.5-2-88

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3.

  World Commission on Environment and Development ed. Our common future. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press (1987).

  • Google Scholar

• 4.

  Palstam A Sehdev S Barna S Andersson M Liebenberg N . Sustainability in physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Orthop Trauma. (2022) 36:279–83. doi: 10.1016/j.mporth.2022.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5.

  Engel GL . The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. (1977) 196:129–36. doi: 10.1126/science.847460

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6.

  Elkington J . Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manag Rev. (1994) 36:90–100. doi: 10.2307/41165746

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7.

  Vergunst F Berry HL Rugkåsa J Burns T Molodynski A Maughan DL . Applying the triple bottom line of sustainability to healthcare research—a feasibility study. Int J Qual Health Care. (2020) 32:48–53. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz049

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8.

  Mortimer F Isherwood J Pearce M Kenward C Vaux E . Sustainability in quality improvement: measuring impact. Future Healthc J. (2018) 5:94–7. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.5-2-94

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9.

  World physiotherapy . What is physiotherapy [internet]. World physiotherapy; (2022). Available at:https://world.physio/resources/what-is-physiotherapy (Accessed December 25, 2022)

  • Google Scholar

• 10.

  Dean E . Physical therapy in the 21st century (part II): evidence-based practice within the context of evidence-informed practice. Physiother Theory Pract. (2009) 25:354–68. doi: 10.1080/09593980902813416

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11.

  Banerjee S Maric F . Mitigating the environmental impact of NSAIDs - physiotherapy as a contribution to one health and the SDGs. Eur J Phys. (2021) 25:51–5. doi: 10.1080/21679169.2021.1976272

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12.

  Hepler CD Strand LM . Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. (1990) 47:533–43. PMID:

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 13.

  Cizmas L Sharma VK Gray CM McDonald TJ . Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in waters: occurrence, toxicity, and risk. Environ Chem Lett. (2015) 13:381–94. doi: 10.1007/s10311-015-0524-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14.

  Boyd R Steele K Ashby B Karliner J Slotterback S . Health care’s climate footprint. How the health sector contributes to the global climate crisis and opportunities for action [internet]. Health care without harm; ARUP; (2019). Available at:https://noharm-global.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/5961/HealthCaresClimateFootprint_092319.pdf (Accessed December 25, 2022)

  • Google Scholar

• 15.

  Matongo S Birungi G Moodley B Ndungu P . Pharmaceutical residues in water and sediment of Msunduzi River, KwaZulu-Natal. South Africa Chemosphere. (2015) 134:133–40. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.03.093

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16.

  Fekadu S Alemayehu E Dewil R Van der Bruggen B . Pharmaceuticals in freshwater aquatic environments: a comparison of the African and European challenge. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 654:324–37. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.072

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17.

  Pichler PP Jaccard IS Weisz U Weisz H . International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environ Res Lett. (2019) 14:064004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab19e1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18.

  World physiotherapy . Noncommunicable Diseases – Policy statement. (2019). Available at:https://world.physio/sites/default/files/2020-04/PS-2019-Noncommunicable-diseases.pdf (Accessed November 20, 2023)

  • Google Scholar

• 19.

  Arksey H O’Malley L . Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. (2005) 8:19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20.

  Levac D Colquhoun H O’Brien KK . Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. (2010) 5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21.

  Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O'Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D et al . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018) 169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22.

  Bisset L Beller E Jull G Brooks P Darnell R Vicenzino B . Mobilisation with movement and exercise, corticosteroid injection, or wait and see for tennis elbow: randomised trial. BMJ. (2006) 333:939. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38961.584653.AE

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23.

  Arslan S Celiker R . Comparison of the efficacy of local corticosteroid injection and physical therapy for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Rheumatol Int. (2001) 21:20–3. doi: 10.1007/s002960100127

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24.

  Rhon DI Boyles RB Cleland JA . One-year outcome of subacromial corticosteroid injection compared with manual physical therapy for the management of the unilateral shoulder impingement syndrome: a pragmatic randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. (2014) 161:161–9. doi: 10.7326/M13-2199

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25.

  Brose SW Schneck H Bourbeau DJ . An interdisciplinary approach to reducing opioid prescriptions to patients with chronic pain in a spinal cord injury center. PM R. (2019) 11:135–41. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.09.030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26.

  Lauti M Herbison P Hay-Smith J Ellis G Wilson D . Anticholinergic drugs, bladder retraining and their combination for urge urinary incontinence: a pilot randomised trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. (2008) 19:1533–43. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0686-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27.

  Galán-Martín MA Montero-Cuadrado F Lluch-Girbes E Coca-López MC Mayo-Iscar A Cuesta-Vargas A . Pain neuroscience education and physical exercise for patients with chronic spinal pain in primary healthcare: a randomised trial protocol. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. (2019) 20:505. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2889-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28.

  den Hertog A Gliesche K Timm J Muhlbauer B Zebrowski S . Pathway-controlled fast-track rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective clinical study evaluating the recovery pattern, drug consumption, and length of stay. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. (2012) 132:1153–63. doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1528-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29.

  van Baar ME Dekker J Oostendorp RA Bijl D Voorn TB Bijlsma JW . Effectiveness of exercise in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: nine months’ follow up. Ann Rheum Dis. (2001) 60:1123–30. doi: 10.1136/ard.60.12.1123

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30.

  van Baar ME Dekker J Oostendorp RA Bijl D Voorn TB Lemmens JA et al . The effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a randomized clinical trial. J Rheumatol. (1998) 25:252432–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 31.

  Hay EM Foster NE Thomas E Peat G Phelan M Yates HE et al . Effectiveness of community physiotherapy and enhanced pharmacy review for knee pain in people aged over 55 presenting to primary care: pragmatic randomised trial [with consumer summary]. BMJ. (2006) 333:995. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38977.590752.0B

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32.

  Clausen B Holsgaard-Larsen A Søndergaard J Christensen R Andriacchi TP Roos EM . The effect on knee-joint load of instruction in analgesic use compared with neuromuscular exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial (the EXERPHARMA trial). Trials. (2014) 15:444. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-444

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33.

  Joshi MN Joshi R Jain AP . Effect of amitriptyline vs. physiotherapy in management of fibromyalgia syndrome: what predicts a clinical benefit?J Postgrad Med. (2009) 55:185–9. doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.57399

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34.

  Kim HS Kaplan SH McCarthy DM Pinto D Strickland KJ Courtney DM et al . A comparison of analgesic prescribing among ED back and neck pain visits receiving physical therapy versus usual care. Am J Emerg Med. (2019) 37:1322–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.10.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35.

  Gallefoss F . The effects of patient education in COPD in a 1-year follow-up randomised, controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. (2004) 52:259–66. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00100-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36.

  Sadeghifar A Saied A Abbaspour V Zandrahimi F . Comparison of the efficacy of physiotherapy, subacromial corticosteroid, and subacromial hyaluronic acid injection in the treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome: a retrospective study. Curr Orthop Pract. (2022) 33:442–6. doi: 10.1097/BCO.0000000000001150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37.

  Bakilan F Ortanca B . Patient satisfaction in chronic low Back pain: a comparison between pharmacological treatment, physiotherapy and neural therapy. J Phys Med Rehabil Sci. (2021) 24:238–43. doi: 10.31609/jpmrs.2020-80720

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38.

  Hamzat TK Ajala AO Fehintola FA . Management of patients with concurrent hypertension and osteoarthritis of the knee: comparative effect of using non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs and physical therapy. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther. (2011) 5:64–8.

  • Google Scholar

• 39.

  Koc Z Ozcakir S Sivrioglu K Gurbet A Kucukoglu S . Effectiveness of physical therapy and epidural steroid injections in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine Phila Pa. (1976) 34:985–9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819c0a6b

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40.

  Atamaz F Kirazli Y Akkoc Y . A comparison of two different intra-articular hyaluronan drugs and physical therapy in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. (2006) 26:873–8. doi: 10.1007/s00296-005-0096-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41.

  Paker N Tekdos D Kesiktas N Soy D Paker N Tekdös D et al . Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of TENS versus intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized study. Adv Ther. (2006) 23:342–53. doi: 10.1007/BF02850139

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42.

  Naikmasur VG Guttal KS Bhargava P Bathi RJ . Comparative evaluation of physiotherapy and pharmacotherapy in the management of temporomandibular joint myofascial pain. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther. (2009) 3:12–7.

  • Google Scholar

• 43.

  Henderson J Gallagher R Brown P Smith D Tang K . Emergency department after-hours primary contact physiotherapy service reduces analgesia and orthopaedic referrals while improving treatment times. Aust Health Rev. (2020) 44:485–92. doi: 10.1071/AH18259

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44.

  Gagnon R Perreault K Berthelot S Matifat E Desmeules F Achou B 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) 28:848–58. doi: 10.1111/acem.14237

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45.

  el Refaye GE Botla AM Al-Din Hussein H Hamada HA Wadee AN . Electromagnetic field versus diclofenac drugs on primary dysmenorrhea: a single-blind randomized controlled trial: electromagnetic field versus diclofenac drugs on primary dysmenorrhea. J Clin Anal Med. (2019) 102:202–6. doi: 10.4328/JCAM.5890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46.

  Deyle GD Allen CS Allison SC Gill NW Hando BR Petersen EJ et al . Physical therapy versus glucocorticoid injection for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:1420–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905877

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47.

  Gür A Karakoc M Nas K Cevik R Sarac J Ataoglu S . Effects of low power laser and low dose amitriptyline therapy on clinical symptoms and quality of life in fibromyalgia: a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int. (2002) 22:188–93. doi: 10.1007/s00296-002-0221-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48.

  Uygur E Aktaş B Eceviz E Yilmazoğlu EG Poyanli O . Preliminary report on the role of dry needling versus corticosteroid injection, an effective treatment method for plantar fasciitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Foot Ankle Surg. (2019) 58:301–5. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.08.058

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49.

  Jull G Moore AP . Physiotherapy is not a treatment technique. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. (2021) 56:102480. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102480

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50.

  Brown-Taylor L Beckner A Scaff KE Fritz JM Buys MJ Patel S et al . Relationships between physical therapy intervention and opioid use: a scoping review. PM&R. (2022) 14:837–54. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12654

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51.

  Gallup, inc . Americans prefer drug-free pain management over opioids. (2017)

  • Google Scholar

• 52.

  Mintken PE Moore JR Flynn TW . Physical therapists’ role in solving the opioid epidemic. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. (2018) 48:349–53. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.0606

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53.

  Palstam A Andersson M Lange E Grenholm A . A call to include a perspective of sustainable development in physical therapy research. Phys Ther. (2021) 101:pzaa228. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa228

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54.

  Colquhoun HL Levac D O’Brien KK Straus S Tricco AC Perrier L et al . Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. (2014) 67:1291–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar