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.

Self-Management of Chronic Pain: Interventions, Strategies, Barriers, and Facilitators

Background & Purpose: Chronic pain is a prevalent chronic condition for which the best management options rarely provide complete relief. Individuals with chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics (NC) report more severe pain and experience less relief from interventions. Little is known about current self-management practices. The purpose of this dissertation was to inform self-management of chronic pain with and without NC at the individual, health system, and policy levels using the Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions Framework. Methods: The study included a systematic search and review and cross-sectional survey. The review evaluated the evidence for chronic pain self-management interventions and explored the role of health care providers in supporting self-management. The survey was mailed to 8,000 randomly selected Canadians in November 2011, and non-respondents were followed-up in May 2012. Screening questions were included for both chronic pain and NC. The questionnaire captured pain descriptions, self-management strategies, and self-management barriers, and facilitators. Results: Findings of the review suggested that self-management interventions are effective in improving pain and health outcomes. Health care professionals provided self-management advice and referred individuals to self-management interventions. The questionnaire was completed by 1,520 Canadians. Those with chronic pain (n=710) identified primary care physicians as the most helpful pain management professional. Overall, use of non-pharmaceutical medical self-management strategies was low. While use positive emotional self-management strategies was high, individuals with NC were more likely to use negative emotional self-management strategies compared to those without NC. Multiple self-management barriers and facilitators were identified, however those with NC were more likely than those without NC to experience low self-efficacy, depression and severe pain which may impair the ability to self-management. Conclusions: Health care professionals have the opportunity to improve chronic pain outcomes by providing self-management advice, referring to self-management interventions, and addressing self-management barriers and facilitators. Individuals with NC may require additional health services to address their greater self-management challenges, and further research is needed to identify non-pharmaceutical interventions effective in relieving chronic pain with NC. Public policy is needed to facilitate health systems in providing long-term self-management support for individuals with chronic pain.

Scientifi c discourses on chronic pain without organic cause Incorporating gender perspective for pain resignifyng-repoliticizing

Chronic pain, without any organic or physical cause (DC), which in psycho-medical terminology is known as fi bromyalgia, (FM), is diagnosed each year to a considerable number of women in capitalistic societies. Our main interest in the following paper is to go in depth in the elaboration of this symptom, its treatment and the psychosocial effects, both in the social order as well as in the lives of the people who suffer from it. Our main goal in the following paper is to look deeper in the elaboration (conceptualization) of this symptom, its treatment and psychological affects, both in the social order as well as in the lives of the people who suffer from it, we are using linked speeches in Spanish magazines publications. The result has been the emergence of three hegemonic discourse positions: One position “scientist”, one “therapeutic of the conformity” position and one “economic and legalistic” position. Each of these has a specifi c feature, but on the whole, is enhanced, producing effects such as the absence of social context to explain the disease; disregard of gender differences in the management and treatment; the instrumentalization of pain to legitimize their practices and the subjection of women to the “psycho-biomedical” paradigm. In that way, a new signifi cance and politicization of the concept of pain is proposed.