Selecting Contexts. One Method of Selecting Contexts for Theatre Historiography

In principle, the world and life itself are the contexts of theatrical events. The term context is broad and thus seems hardly usable. It only makes sense to use the term when terminologies and methodologies determine which parts of their contexts are to be incorporated and analysed for which theatrical event. This presentation exemplifies a method which is particularly suitable for sensibly selecting the most important contexts for research in theatre history. The complexity of the representation increases continuously from The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life to Brecht’s “Street Scene” and “Everyday Theatre”, portrayals of rulers in feasts and parades to Hamlet productions by the Royal Shakespeare Company or a Wagner opera in Bayreuth. The different forms of theatre thus constitute a continuum which spans from “everyday theatre” to “art theatre”. The representation of the world in this continuum is sometimes questioned by the means of theatre, for example when Commedia dell’arte takes a critical stance towards the representative theatre of the humanists or when playful devices such as reversal, parody and fragmentation challenge the representative character of productions, which is applied by the Vice character for instance. There is a second component that has an impact on the continuum without a theatrical device: attitude, opinion, norms and bans which originate from society. As excerpts of contexts, they refer to single forms of theatre in the continuum. This results in a complex system of four components which evolves from the panorama between the antipodes “everyday theatre” and “art theatre” as well as both spheres of influence of which only one uses theatrical devices. All components interact in a specific time frame in a specific place in a specific way in each case, which can then be described as the theatricality in this time frame. This presentation will deal with what the concept is capable of doing.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.