Provider Communication Regarding Psychosocial Factors Predicts Pain Beliefs in Parent and Child.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of provider communication about psychosocial causes of abdominal pain and recommendations for psychosocial intervention during a gastroenterology clinic visit in predicting families' causal beliefs and perceptions of treatment acceptability. METHOD: Participants were 57 children with a diagnosed or suspected abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder (FGID) presenting for an outpatient gastroenterology follow-up visit and their accompanying parent. Children and parents completed questionnaires assessing child anxiety and abdominal pain severity, recall of provider communication about causes of abdominal pain and recommendations for intervention, their own causal beliefs about pain, and perceived acceptability of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and standard medical treatment (SMT) after reading descriptions of each treatment. Providers completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions and communication about the causes of the child's abdominal pain and perceived acceptability of CBT. RESULTS: Provider communication about psychosocial causes and interventions was reported infrequently by parents, children, and providers. Parents rated psychosocial causes for abdominal pain as less likely than physical causes, and children and parents rated CBT as less acceptable than SMT. Parents' recall of provider communication about psychosocial causes was associated with their own causal beliefs about pain and their perceived acceptability of CBT. Children's and parents' recall of provider recommendations for psychosocial intervention was associated with their perceived acceptability of CBT. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the importance of provider communication about psychosocial contributors to abdominal pain and psychosocial interventions for children with FGIDs. Medical and mental health providers can partner to deliver care to children with FGIDs using a biopsychosocial approach.

Protective ventilation to reduce inflammatory injury from one lung ventilation in a piglet model.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that protective ventilation strategy (PVS) as defined by the use of low stretch ventilation (tidal volume of 5 ml x kg(-1) and employing 5 cm of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) during one lung ventilation (OLV) in piglets would result in reduced injury compared to a control group of piglets who received the conventional ventilation (tidal volume of 10 ml x kg(-1) and no PEEP). BACKGROUND: PVS has been found to be beneficial in adults to minimize injury from OLV. We designed the current study to test the beneficial effects of PVS in a piglet model of OLV. METHODS: Ten piglets each were assigned to either 'Control' group (tidal volume of 10 ml x kg(-1) and no PEEP) or 'PVS' group (tidal volume of 5 ml x kg(-1) during the OLV phase and PEEP of 5 cm of H2O throughout the study). Experiment consisted of 30 min of baseline ventilation, 3 h of OLV, and again 30 min of bilateral ventilation. Respiratory parameters and proinflammatory markers were measured as outcome. RESULTS: There was no difference in PaO2 between groups. PaCO2 (P < 0.01) and ventilatory rate (P < 0.01) were higher at 1.5 h OLV and at the end point in the PVS group. Peak inflating pressure (PIP) and pulmonary resistance were higher (P < 0.05) in the control group at 1.5 h OLV. tumor necrosis factor-alpha (P < 0.04) and IL-8 were less (P < 0.001) in the plasma from the PVS group, while IL-6 and IL-8 were less (P < 0.04) in the lung tissue from ventilated lungs in the PVS group. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, PVS decreases inflammatory injury both systemically and in the lung tissue with no adverse effect on oxygenation, ventilation, or lung function.