Islands of pain in a sea of change: Behaviour analysis and bereavement,

The paper Bereavement: A behavioural process (Dillenburger & Keenan, 1994) was first published within a vacuum of behaviour analytic thinking or research in this field. The paper was meant to be a first step in stimulating others to contribute to the understanding of one of the most complex, yet most universal, human behavioural processes. The only behaviour analyst addressing the issues directly was Calkin (1990). Recently, after reading our original 1994 paper, Beth Sulzer-Azaroff suggested that we should solicit comments directly from the behaviour analytic community. This we did with the help of Erik Arntzen and now the reprint and the commentaries in this edition of the European Journal of Behaviour Analysis (EJBA) fully embrace and extend the contribution of behaviour analysis to the understanding of the behavioural process that is bereavement.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.

Utilization of analgesics, sedatives, and pain scores in infants with a prolonged hospitlaization: A prospective descriptive cohort study

Aim
Describe the utilization of analgesic and sedative medications and documentation of pain scores in a cohort of critically ill infants in a neonatal intensive care unit.

Method
A prospective, longitudinal, cohort study of infants with a predicted length of stay =28 days. Dosages and routes of administration of analgesic and sedative medications and documentation of pain scores were collected on a daily basis.

Results
55 infants were enrolled into the study. Oral sucrose was administered to all 55 infants, 51 infants (93%) were administered enteral acetaminophen and 50 (91%) infants were administered morphine during their hospitalization. Sedatives were administered to 42 infants (76%); 36 (65%) were administered chloral hydrate and 32 (58%) were administered intravenous midazolam. With the exception of the first week of admission, when there was highest utilization of opioids and lower use of sucrose, acetaminophen and sedatives, the pattern of administration of analgesic and sedative agents remained relatively constant throughout the hospitalization. Pain scores were documented for 36 (65%) infants during their hospitalisation, however for these 36 infants, pain scores were infrequently recorded.

Conclusion
There was substantial and varied analgesic and sedative use in this cohort of infants, yet infrequent documentation of pain assessment scores. These practices highlight important clinical implications for sick infants requiring careful consideration of pain and distress management.