Knowledge and attitudes toward musculoskeletal pain neuroscience of manual therapy postgraduate students in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes influence patients' beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. It is unclear to what extent physiotherapists undertaking a postgraduate master in manual therapy (MT students) possess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience to be able to apply the biopsychosocial model in patients with MSK pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHOD: Self-reported knowledge and attitudes were measured among students (n = 662) at baseline and in all years of the MT postgraduate programs in the Netherlands. The Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain questionnaire (KNAP) was used as a primary measure. Difference in KNAP-scores between baseline (0), year 1, year 2 and year 3 was tested using a one-way ANOVA (hypothesis: 0 < 1<2 < 3). A two factor ANOVA was used to determine the interaction effect of focused pain education and year in the curriculum with KNAP. RESULTS: There was an overall significant difference of KNAP scores with a medium effect size (F(3, 218.18) = 13.56, p < .001, ω2 = 0.059). Differences between years ranged from small to medium. Interaction effect of knowledge and attitudes and focused pain education was significant with a small effect size (F(6) = 2.597, p = .017, ω2 = 0.012). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results. CONCLUSIONS: Positive differences in knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students occur between the progressing years of the curriculum. Differences may be related to the provision of focused pain education

Assessing future health care practitioners’ knowledge and attitudes of musculoskeletal pain; development and measurement properties of a new questionnaire

BACKGROUND: Healthcare practitioner beliefs influence patients' beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. A validated questionnaire based on modern pain neuroscience assessing Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain (KNAP) was unavailable. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and test measurement properties of KNAP. DESIGN: Phase 1; Development of KNAP reflecting modern pain neuroscience and expert opinion. Phase 2; a cross-sectional and longitudinal study among Dutch physiotherapy students. METHOD: In the cross-sectional study (n = 424), internal consistency, structural validity, hypotheses testing, and Rasch analysis were examined. Longitudinal designs were applied to analyse test-retest reliability (n = 156), responsiveness, and interpretability (n = 76). RESULTS: A 30-item KNAP was developed in 4 stages. Test-retest reliability: ICC (2,1) 0.80. Internal consistency: Cronbach's α 0.80. Smallest Detectable Difference 90%: 4.99 (4.31; 5.75). Structural validity: exploratory factor analysis showed 2 factors. Hypotheses testing: associations with the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists biopsychosocial subscale r = 0.60, with biomedical subscale r = -0.58, with the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire r = 0.52. Responsiveness: 93% improved on KNAP after studying pain education. Minimal Important Change: 4.84 (95%CI: 2.77; 6.91). CONCLUSIONS: The KNAP has adequate measurement properties. This new questionnaire could be useful to evaluate physiotherapy students' knowledge and attitudes of modern pain neuroscience that could help to create awareness and evaluate physiotherapy education programs, and ultimately provide better pain management

Knowledge and attitudes toward musculoskeletal pain neuroscience of manual therapy postgraduate students in the Netherlands

Background: Health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes influence patients’ beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. It is unclear to what extent physiotherapists undertaking a postgraduate master in manual therapy (MT students) possess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience to be able to apply the biopsychosocial model in patients with MSK pain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students. Design: A cross-sectional study. Method: Self-reported knowledge and attitudes were measured among students (n = 662) at baseline and in all years of the MT postgraduate programs in the Netherlands. The Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain questionnaire (KNAP) was used as a primary measure. Difference in KNAP-scores between baseline (0), year 1, year 2 and year 3 was tested using a one-way ANOVA (hypothesis: 0 <

Assessing future health care practitioners’ knowledge and attitudes of musculoskeletal pain; development and measurement properties of a new questionnaire

Background: Healthcare practitioner beliefs influence patients’ beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. A validated questionnaire based on modern pain neuroscience assessing Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain (KNAP) was unavailable. Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop and test measurement properties of KNAP. Design: Phase 1; Development of KNAP reflecting modern pain neuroscience and expert opinion. Phase 2; a crosssectional and longitudinal study among Dutch physiotherapy students. Method: In the cross-sectional study (n = 424), internal consistency, structural validity, hypotheses testing, and Rasch analysis were examined. Longitudinal designs were applied to analyse test-retest reliability (n = 156), responsiveness, and interpretability (n = 76). Results: A 30-item KNAP was developed in 4 stages. Test-retest reliability: ICC (2,1) 0.80. Internal consistency: Cronbach’s α 0.80. Smallest Detectable Difference 90%: 4.99 (4.31; 5.75). Structural validity: exploratory factor analysis showed 2 factors. Hypotheses testing: associations with the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists biopsychosocial subscale r = 0.60, with biomedical subscale r = 0.58, with the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire r = 0.52. Responsiveness: 93% improved on KNAP after studying pain education. Minimal Important Change: 4.84 (95%CI: 2.77; 6.91). Conclusions: The KNAP has adequate measurement properties. This new questionnaire could be useful to evaluate physiotherapy students’ knowledge and attitudes of modern pain neuroscience that could help to create awareness and evaluate physiotherapy education programs, and ultimately provide better pain management

Toward consensus on pain-related content in the pre-registration, undergraduate physical therapy curriculum:a Delphi-study

BACKGROUND: Access to pain education for healthcare professionals is an International Association for the Study of Pain's key recommendation to improve pain care. The content of preregistration and undergraduate physical therapy pain curricula, however, is highly variable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a list, by consensus, of essential pain-related topics for the undergraduate physical therapy curriculum. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted in four rounds, including a Delphi Panel (N = 22) consisting of in pain experienced lecturers of preregistration undergraduate physical therapy of Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, and five Validation Panels. Round 1: topics were provided by the Delphi Panel, postgraduate pain educators, and a literature search. Rounds 2-4: the Delphi Panel rated the topics and commented. All topics were analyzed in terms of importance and degree of consensus. Validation Panels rated the outcome of Round 2. RESULTS: The Delphi Panel rated 257, 146, and 90 topics in Rounds 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This resulted in 71 topics judged as "not important," 97 as "important," and 89 as "highly important." In total, 63 topics were rated as "highly important" by the Delphi Panel and Validation Panels. CONCLUSION: A list was developed and can serve as a foundation for the development of comprehensive physical therapy pain curricula

Toward consensus on pain-related content in the pre-registration, undergraduate physical therapy curriculum: a Delphi-study

BACKGROUND: Access to pain education for healthcare professionals is an International Association for the Study of Pain's key recommendation to improve pain care. The content of preregistration and undergraduate physical therapy pain curricula, however, is highly variable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a list, by consensus, of essential pain-related topics for the undergraduate physical therapy curriculum. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted in four rounds, including a Delphi Panel (N = 22) consisting of in pain experienced lecturers of preregistration undergraduate physical therapy of Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, and five Validation Panels. Round 1: topics were provided by the Delphi Panel, postgraduate pain educators, and a literature search. Rounds 2-4: the Delphi Panel rated the topics and commented. All topics were analyzed in terms of importance and degree of consensus. Validation Panels rated the outcome of Round 2. RESULTS: The Delphi Panel rated 257, 146, and 90 topics in Rounds 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This resulted in 71 topics judged as "not important," 97 as "important," and 89 as "highly important." In total, 63 topics were rated as "highly important" by the Delphi Panel and Validation Panels. CONCLUSION: A list was developed and can serve as a foundation for the development of comprehensive physical therapy pain curricula

No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design: A cross-sectional observational study

Background. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear. Methods. CPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (N D 89) at the neck, forearm and lower leg using the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. In three separate experiments, we compared the impact of (1) design (sequential versus parallel), (2) conditioning stimulus intensity (VAS 40/100 versus VAS 60/100), and (3) test stimulus selection (single versus dual, i.e., mechanical and thermal). Statistical analyses of the main effect of design (adjusted for order) and experiment were conducted using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Results. No significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (-6.1%; 95% CI [-10.1 to -2.1]) and lower leg (-5.9%; 95% CI [-11.7 to -0.1]) but not forearm (-4.5%; 95% CI [-9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs. Conclusions. Differences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect

Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study

Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type. Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1, 1). Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1, 1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers. Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good

Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study

Background Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type. Methods Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1,1). Results Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9–16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from −55 to +32 kPa or from −9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers. Conclusions Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good

Comparing physical therapy students' attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis: an international multi-institutional comparison between 2013 and 2020 academic years

Abstract Background: In 2013, physical therapy students demonstrated low guideline-adherent recom- mendations regarding chronic low back pain (CLBP) for spinal pathology, activity, and work. Objectives: To assess the differences in physical therapy students’ attitudes, beliefs, and adher- ence to guideline recommendations regarding CLBP and knee osteoarthritis between 2013 and 2020. Methods: In 2013 and 2020, second and fourth-year physical therapy students were recruited from 6 Belgian and 2 Dutch institutions. Attitudes and beliefs regarding CLBP and knee OA were evaluated using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), the Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), and a questionnaire regard- ing therapeutic exercise and knee osteoarthritis. A clinical vignette was used to measure guide- line-adherent recommendations regarding spinal pathology, activity, and work. Results: In 2013, 927 second-year and 695 fourth-year students; in 2020, 695 second-year and 489 fourth-year students; were recruited to participate in the study. Compared to 2013, students had less biomedical and stronger biopsychosocial attitudes and beliefs regarding CLBP, more guideline-adherent recommendations for activity, and more biopsychosocial beliefs regarding the benefits of exercise for patients with knee osteoarthritis in both the second and fourth year. Only fourth-year students in 2020 scored significantly better on HC-PAIRS and guideline-adherent recommendation relating to spinal pathology. No differences were found regarding work recommendations. Conclusions: Between 2013 and 2020, physical therapy students made a positive shift towards a more biopsychosocial approach to CLBP and knee osteoarthritis management. Guideline-adher- ent recommendations for CLBP concerning activity improved, however, concerning work and spi- nal pathology, it remained low