Increasingly there seems to be issues about research, and its role (including scope and limitations) with regard to generating evidence as the basis for properly informed professional practice.
This appears to have driven the need for a defined “evidence trail” to have been created in developing research protocols.
The NMAHM® has an evidence trail, and some research into the Approach has also been undertaken.
The Evidence Trail
Research is about gathering evidence, and the research process basically starts with the fact that a response to an introduced change is observed. From this basic observation the next usual step is to establish whether the changed response is a regular response, and repeatable feature in relation to the input tested/ “treatment” applied. This process may then progress to establishing a defined method of measuring and charting the features, with the highest research standard commonly regarded as the randomised control trial (RCT).
Review of research into movement and/or handling & moving over the years evidences apparent difficulty and technical limitations in considering what requires to be measured, how to actually measure, and how to interpret the findings.
Clarification of these points may lie in reviewing the evidence trail” and verifying the degree of congruence within it from the first observation and upwards throughout the research hierarchy to fully support what is to be measured and how.
The evidence trail for the NMAHM® can be traced to the early 1930's, and the original work of T. McClurg Anderson. Lack of defined knowledge of his original thinking has required critical reflection of his teachings, the underlying concept and philosophy of his Approach, his suggested practices, and theory-practice gaps in the light of factual and experimental evidence of that era, and throughout subsequent developments to contemporary factual and experimental evidence. It is this critically reflective process which has continued to inform the development of the NMAHM® initially by John Vasey MCSP, DipTP and Lesley Crozier MCSP, DipTP, and latterly by MovES~Movement Education Services Ltd.
Other evidence arises from tracking the progress of students, and particularly those who have completed the longer MovES NMAHM® course processes in terms of perceived health, safety and reported well-being and more defined aspects such as ability to move, symptom reduction and gains in range of movement.
Course assignments (undertaken by students who have completed the accredited course process) into identifying changes in practice have also generated much positive evidence regarding innovation (adding NMAHM® into specific and! or general practice), albeit that caution must always be applied to study work undertaken by people who are still within their skills development phase.
Whether by risk assessment alone, or from feedback arising from the person(s) involved in comparing different methods of exercising, moving, and/or moving & handling the figures reported appear to closely mirror the findings of MovES Ltd with regard to people's preference for the NMAHM® above their own habitual movement style.
Persons undertaking the longer course processes, or receiving clinic-based treatment have also been tracked in terms of their perceptions of general health and well-being in relation to the Approach, and of the influence of the NMAHM® with regard to their musculo-skeletal health.
Information gathered through these various aspects has provided a huge resource of information that continues to support the long-standing concept, philosophy and rationale of the NMAHM® and its recommended practices, and informed the reasoning underpinning the development of MovES Ltd NMAHM® education processes.
On a more formal research basis several defined mini-studies have been undertaken by MovES Ltd (see below, and FAQ's).
The first 2 concentrated on force-plate findings in relation to lifting small loads: each evidenced apparently significant findings with reduced forces, and less perturbation consistently being identified in NMAHM® compared with either subject- preferred (habitual) movement style, or imposed (squat i.e. bent-knees/ s style.
The 3rd study comprised both force-plate data, plus kinematic tracking applied o comparing 4 different movement methods of lifting a small light object, on 4 different occasions and in random order. Statistical analysis showed high levels of reproducible effects within the movement methods, significant reductions in forces generated by the NMAHM® compared to top-heavy, squat, and modified squat methods. The only method evidenced, and statistically significantly supported to reduce torque in the lumbar/ lumbo-sacral regions at the point of pick-up of load was the NMAHM®.
In the general, and particularly in movement-related areas of contemporary, and recent research it is interesting to note that several factors considered by and within the NMAHM® within its ongoing development over the decades are currently being investigated. Where defined conclusions have been validly evidenced, many of these areas of formal research appear to be supportive of the principles and practices of the NMAHM®.
|
