A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain

Objectives: Cognitive-behavioral pain management programs typically achieve improvements in pain cognitions, disability, and physical performance. However, it is not known whether the neurophysiology education component of such programs contributes to these outcomes. In chronic low back pain patients, we investigated the effect of neurophysiology education on cognitions, disability, and physical performance. Methods: This study was a blinded randomized controlled trial. Individual education sessions on neurophysiology of pain (experimental group) and back anatomy and physiology (control group) were conducted by trained physical therapist educators. Cognitions were evaluated using the Survey of Pain Attitudes (revised) (SOPA(R)), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Behavioral measures included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and 3 physical performance tasks; (1) straight leg raise (SLR), (2) forward bending range, and (3) an abdominal drawing-in task, which provides a measure of voluntary activation of the deep abdominal muscles. Methodological checks evaluated non-specific effects of intervention. Results: There was a significant treatment effect on the SOPA(R), PCS, SLR, and forward bending. There was a statistically significant effect on RMDQ; however, the size of this effect was small and probably not clinically meaningful. Discussion: Education about pain neurophysiology changes pain cognitions and physical performance but is insufficient by itself to obtain a change in perceived disability. The results suggest that pain neurophysiology education, but not back school type education, should be included in a wider pain management approach.

Situating Learning: (Re)examining the Notion of apprenticeship in Coach Education

The last two decades has seen a proliferation in the provision of and importance attached to coach education in many Western countries. Pivotal to many coach education programmes is the notion of apprenticeship. Increasingly, mentoring is being positioned as a possible tool for enhancing coach education and professional expertise. However, there is a paucity of empirical data on interventions in and evaluations of coach education programmes. In their recent evaluation of a coach education programme, Cassidy, Potrac & McKenzie conclude that the situated learning literature could provide coach educators with a generative platform for the (re)examination of apprenticeships and mentoring in a coach education context. This paper discusses the merits of using Situated Learning theory and the associated concept of Communities of Practice (CoP) to stimulate discussion on developing new understandings of the practices of apprenticeship and mentoring in coach education.

Applications of motion study in developmental disabilities: A review

Motion study is an engineering technology that analyzes human body motions. During the past decade (1990-1999) a series of studies investigated the role of motion study in developmental disabilities. This article reviews the literature on the applications of motion study in the field. A historical and conceptual review of motion study leading to the current status of studies is presented followed by a review of the research literature. Two main eras of research focus were identified. The first era (1990-1995) of studies established the superior effectiveness and efficiency of tasks designed with motion study or motion study-related principles over traditional site-based task designs. The second era (1995-1999) of studies examined the interaction between motion study-based task designs and other variables such as choice, preference, and functionally equivalent and competing task designs and communicative alternatives. Our review found that applying motion study principles as an antecedent guide and practice to eliminating or reducing ineffective motions and simplifying effective motions resulted in positive task outcomes with most of the participants.

How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review

Review date: Review period January 1992-December 2001. Final analysis July 2004-January 2005. Background and review context: There has been no rigorous systematic review of the outcomes of early exposure to clinical and community settings in medical education. Objectives of review: (1) Identify published empirical evidence of the effects of early experience in medical education, analyse it, and synthesize conclusions from it. (2) Identify the strengths and limitations of the research effort to date, and identify objectives for future research. Search strategy: Ovid search of. BEI, ERIC, Medline, CIATAHL and EMBASE Additional electronic searches of: Psychinfo, Timelit, EBM reviews, SIGLE, and the Cochrane databases. Hand-searches of: Medical Education, Medical Teacher, Academic Medicine, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Journal of Educational Psychology. Criteria: Definitions: Experience: Authentic (real as opposed to simulated) human contact in a social or clinical context that enhances learning of health, illness and/or disease, and the role of the health professional. Early: What would traditionally have been regarded as the preclinical phase, usually the first 2 years. Inclusions: All empirical studies (verifiable, observational data) of early experience in the basic education of health professionals, whatever their design or methodology, including papers not in English. Evidence from other health care professions that could be applied to medicine was included. Exclusions: Not empirical; not early; post-basic; simulated rather than 'authentic' experience. Data collection: Careful validation of selection processes. Coding by two reviewers onto an extensively modified version of the standard BEME coding sheet. Accumulation into an Access database. Secondary coding and synthesis of an interpretation. Headline results: A total of 73 studies met the selection criteria and yielded 277 educational outcomes; 116 of those outcomes (from 38 studies) were rated strong and important enough to include in a narrative synthesis of results; 76% of those outcomes were from descriptive studies and 24% from comparative studies. Early experience motivated and satisfied students of the health professions and helped them acclimatize to clinical environments, develop professionally, interact with patients with more confidence and less stress, develop self-reflection and appraisal skill, and develop a professional identity. It strengthened their learning and made it more real and relevant to clinical practice. It helped students learn about the structure and function of the healthcare system, and about preventive care and the role of health professionals. It supported the learning of both biomedical and behavioural/social sciences and helped students acquire communication and basic clinical skills. There were outcomes for beneficiaries other than students, including teachers, patients, populations, organizations and specialties. Early experience increased recruitment to primary care/rural medical practice, though mainly in US studies which introduced it for that specific purpose as part of a complex intervention. Conclusions: Early experience helps medical students socialize to their chosen profession. It. helps them acquire a range of subject matter and makes their learning more real and relevant. It has potential benefits for other stakeholders, notably teachers and patients. It can influence career choices.

Introduction: Arguments for a more grounded approach in management education

The article mentions the aims and objectives of the "Academy of Management Learning & Education" and introduces four essays in this issue. Milton R. Blood focuses on the role of business schools in generating actionable knowledge. Peter Navarro asserts that macroeconomics is necessary in MBA programs. Scott Julian and Joseph C. Ofori-Dankwa comment on business school accreditation and competition status. Michael Harmon offers an argument that competition status is negatively affecting research, teaching, and social objectives.