The association between pain diagram area, fear-avoidance beliefs, and pain catastrophising

BACKGROUND: The development of clinical practice guidelines for managing spinal pain have been informed by a biopsychosocial framework which acknowledges that pain arises from a combination of psychosocial and biomechanical factors. There is an extensive body of evidence that has associated various psychosocial factors with an increased risk of experiencing persistent pain. Clinicians require instruments that are brief, easy to administer and score, and capable of validly identifying psychosocial factors. The pain diagram is potentially such an instrument. The aim of our study was to examine the association between pain diagram area and psychosocial factors. METHODS: 183 adults, aged 20–85, with spinal pain were recruited. We administered a demographic checklist; pain diagram; 11-point Numerical Rating Scale assessing pain intensity; Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS); MOS 36 Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). Open source software, GIMP, was used to calculate the total pixilation area on each pain diagram. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between pain diagram area and the following variables: age; gender; pain intensity; PCS total score; FABQ-Work scale score; FABQ-Activity scale score; and SF-36 Mental Health scale score. RESULTS: There were no significant associations between pain diagram area and any of the clinical variables. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that that pain diagram area was not a valid measure to identify psychosocial factors. Several limitations constrained our results and further studies are warranted to establish if pain diagram area can be used assess psychosocial factors

Assessing clinicians' perspectives about the identification and management of antipsychotic medication side-effects: psychometric evaluation of a survey questionnaire

Eliciting clinicians' views about antipsychotic medication side-effects may assist in understanding strategies that could enhance the identification and management of these side-effects. The present paper details the development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire that captures clinicians' perceptions about these issues. An initial item set was derived from a literature review, and then refined by an expert content validity panel that assessed the relevance of the items. The online questionnaire was distributed to Australian mental health nurses and 140 fully completed questionnaires were returned. Principal components analysis yielded two robust scales that conceptually tapped "system responsibility" and "personal confidence". These scales may be used to advance knowledge about how mental health nurses' attitudes towards the assessment and management of antipsychotic medication side-effects influences their clinical behaviour

Living with antipsychotic medication side-effects: The experience of Australian mental health consumers

The present study explores people's experience of living with antipsychotic medication side-effects. Qualitative data were gathered through semistructured interviews with 10 mental health consumers in a community care setting in Australia. The interview transcriptions were content analysed, and enhanced by combining manifest and latent content. Important contextual cues were identified through replaying the audio-recordings. Several main themes emerged from the analysis, including the impact of side-effects, attitudes to the use of medication and side-effects, and coping strategies to manage medication side-effects. Each participant reported between six and seven side-effects on average, which were often pronounced and had a major disruptive impact on their lives. Of these effects, the most commonly mentioned was sedation, which the participants described as leaving them in a ‘zombie'-like state. Most participants expressed an attitude of acceptance about the side-effects. The participants' most common strategy to manage side-effects was to change the dosage of the medication. Other common side-effect management strategies involved using other medications to control side-effects, and diverse self-help techniques, the most common of which was relaxation/distraction techniques

Australian case managers' views about the impact of antipsychotic medication on mental health consumers

This study examined case managers' views about antipsychotic medications and the impact of side-effects on mental health consumers in a community setting. Nine case managers were purposively sampled and interviewed. Content analysis was used to generate a series of themes. The findings indicated that case managers perceived that a lack of consumer insight was one of the main reasons for wanting to reduce, or altogether cease, antipsychotic medication. However, case managers lacked an adequate level of knowledge about antipsychotic medication side-effects. Without a sufficient level of knowledge, case managers may be unable to fully address consumers' concerns

Interrater Reliability of Motion Palpation in the Thoracic Spine

Introduction. Manual therapists commonly use assessments of intervertebral motion to determine the need for spinal manipulation, but the reliability of these procedures demonstrates conflicting results. The objectives of this study were to investigate the interrater reliability of thoracic spine motion palpation for perceived joint restriction and pain. Methods. Twenty-five participants between the ages of 18 and 70, with or without mid-back pain, were enrolled. Two raters motion palpated marked T5–T12 levels using two methods (standardised and pragmatic) and noted any restricted or painful segments. We calculated agreement between two raters by generating raw agreement percentages and Kappa coefficients with 95% confidence intervals. Results. There was poor to low level of agreement between the raters for both joint stiffness and pain localization using both pragmatic and standardized approaches. The results did not improve significantly when we conducted a post hoc analysis where three spinal levels were collapsed as one and right and left sides were also combined. Conclusions. The results for interrater reliability were poor for motion restriction and pain. These findings may have unfavourable implications for all manual therapists who use motion palpation to select patients appropriate for spinal manipulation

Outcomes of usual chiropractic, harm & efficacy, the ouch study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Previous studies have demonstrated that adverse events occur during chiropractic treatment. However, because of these studies design we do not know the frequency and extent of these events when compared to sham treatment. The principal aims of this study are to establish the frequency and severity of adverse effects from short term usual chiropractic treatment of the spine when compared to a sham treatment group. The secondary aim of this study is to establish the efficacy of usual short term chiropractic care for spinal pain when compared to a sham intervention. Methods One hundred and eighty participants will be randomly allocated to either usual chiropractic care or a sham intervention group. To be considered for inclusion the participants must have experienced non-specific spinal pain for at least one week. The study will be conducted at the clinics of registered chiropractors in Western Australia. Participants in each group will receive two treatments at intervals no less than one week. For the usual chiropractic care group, the selection of therapeutic techniques will be left to the chiropractors' discretion. For the sham intervention group, de-tuned ultrasound and de-tuned activator treatment will be applied by the chiropractors to the regions where spinal pain is experienced. Adverse events will be assessed two days after each appointment using a questionnaire developed for this study. The efficacy of short term chiropractic care for spinal pain will be examined at two week follow-up by assessing pain, physical function, minimum acceptable outcome, and satisfaction with care, with the use of the following outcome measures: Numerical Rating Scale, Functional Rating Index, Neck Disability Index, Minimum Acceptable Outcome Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and a global measure of treatment satisfaction. The statistician, outcome assessor, and participants will be blinded to treatment allocation