I once heard something about indications for spinal manipulation. Who would manipulate? Anyone you would mobilize.
The same holds true for repeated motions or loading/unloading strategies. You would choose to use a repeated loading/unloading strategy on anyone you would mobilize. Here are similarities
- similar indications and contraindications
- both have powerful neurophysiologic (rapid) effects
- both may effect anything from ROM, to strength, pain perception, function, facilitation, inhibition
- patient perception of effectiveness - a hands on/off may or may not be preferred depending on the patient
- the clinician is in control of the maneuver, getting to end range, or controlling dosage, testing/re-testing
Differences in favor of repeated motions
- work better as both a test and a treatment (passive accessory motion does not work well nor is reliable as a test)
- they are easier for the clinician to instruct and/or use as an invention (less psychomotor practice involved)
- the patient can do the same exact maneuver or very similar to get the same effects at home - can't do that with mobilization!
This last point is a cornerstone of The Eclectic Approach. Starting with an assessment/treatment that the patient can use at home is very empowering. Other passive treatments, not so much.