Purpose: Rehabilitation science programs utilize cognitive and non-cognitive factors to select students who can complete the didactic and clinical portions of the program and pass the licensure exam. Cognitive factors such a prior grade point average and standardized test scores are known to be predictive of academic performance, but the relationship of non-cognitive factors and performance is less clear. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the relationship of non-cognitive factors to academic and clinical performance in rehabilitation science programs.Methods: A search of 7 databases was conducted using the following eligibility criteria: graduate programs in physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, United States-based programs, measurement of at least 1 non-cognitive factor, measurement of academic and/or clinical performance, and quantitative reporting of results. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text, and data were extracted.Results: After the comprehensive screening, 21 articles were included in the review. Seventy-six percent of studies occurred in PT students. Grit, self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and stress were the most commonly studied factors. Only self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and personality traits were examined in clinical and academic contexts. The results were mixed for all non-cognitive factors. Higher grit and self-efficacy tended to be associated with better performance, while stress was generally associated with worse outcomes.Conclusion: No single non-cognitive factor was consistently related to clinical or academic performance in rehabilitation science students. There is insufficient evidence currently to recommend the evaluation of a specific non-cognitive factor for admissions decisions.

Background: Understanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy. Methods: An electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2. Results: Of the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies). Conclusion: This study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.

Introduction: The ideal procedure for isolated patellofemoral arthritis is a controversial topic. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an option that aims to restore normal kinematics to the knee while preserving bone. PFA has been shown to have benefits compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in this patient population but has historically had a high failure rate. Revision rates are improving with modern implants and tight indications but still remain higher than TKA. This review summarizes current thinking around PFA using modern implants and techniques in 2023, provides an implant-specific analysis, and assesses how we can improve outcomes after PFA based on the current literature. The aim was to provide an outline of the evidence around PFA on which surgeons can make decisions to optimize patient outcome in this young and active population. Methods: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for concepts of patellofemoral joint arthroplasty. After abstract and text review, a screening software was used to assess articles based on inclusion criteria for studies describing indications, outcomes, and techniques for isolated PFA using modern implants, with or without concomitant procedures. Results: A total of 191 articles were included for further examination, with 62 articles being instructional course lectures, systematic reviews, technique articles, narrative reviews, expert opinions, or meta-analyses. The remaining articles were case reports, trials, or cohort studies. Articles were used to create a thorough outline of multiple recurrent topics in the literature. Conclusions: PFA is an appealing option that has the potential to provide a more natural feeling and functioning knee for those with isolated PF arthritis. The high rate of revision is a cause for concern and there are several technical details that should be stressed to optimize results. The uncertain outcome after revision to TKA also requires more investigation. In addition, the importance of strict selection criteria and firm indications cannot be stressed enough to optimize longevity and attempt to predict those who are likely to have progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. The development of new third-generation implants is promising with excellent functional outcomes and a much lower rate of maltracking and implant complications compared with earlier generations. The impact of these implants and improvement in surgical techniques on the revision rate of PFA will be determined from longer-term outcomes.

Background: Early sport specialization, involving intensive focus on a single sport for greater than 8 months per year at a prepubescent age, has become increasingly common in young athletes. While early sport specialization is often regarded as essential for success, there is growing concern that the potential risks to young athletes may outweigh the perceived benefits. Although numerous studies have explored early sport specialization, there has been no summative review on the topic in regard to the comprehensive impact on outcomes in these athletes. This study aims to systematically review the literature to determine the impacts of early specialization on injury, function, performance, sport success, and psychological outcomes. Methods: A review of Medline (PubMed) was conducted to search for studies relating to early sport specialization in pediatric patients (time of specialization < 18 years old) and outcomes. Extracted information included injury outcomes with a focus on overuse injuries, functional outcomes, performance outcomes, sport success, and psychological outcomes. For studies that reported relevant statistics, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All studies were described qualitatively. Results: An initial search resulted in a total of 826 studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 93 studies were included. A total of 62,327 athletes were included in the study. The average age of study participants was 15.9 years, with an average age at specialization of 11.6 years. Early sport specialization was associated with increased risk of injury, worse functional and physical performance, decreased or no benefit to sport success, and poor psychological outcomes. Conclusions: Early sport specialization was associated with increased risk of injury and negative impacts on functional and physical performance measures. There was also no clear advantage regarding sport success. Early sport specialization was linked to harmful effects on athlete psychological well-being. Late specialization, multisport participation, and following training volume guidelines can aid in mitigating these risks.