A myriad of methods to determine temporal summation of pain in people with musculoskeletal pain and healthy participants: a scoping review.

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) is a human proxy for wind-up of dorsal horn neurons as assessed in animals. The common paradigm for eliciting TSP is evoked by repetitive nociceptive stimuli of equal intensity. Various stimulation and assessment protocols have been used. This scoping review aims to provide insight into key elements of TSP stimulation and assessment: modality, instruments, test location, familiarization, train characteristics, and calculations. PubMed, Embase, and Ebsco/CINAHL were searched for studies that measured TSP in adults with musculoskeletal conditions and healthy people. Four hundred six studies were included. Mechanical stimuli were the most commonly used modality (250 studies), followed by thermal stimuli (125 studies). Forty-six different instruments were used. Disregarding studies on widespread musculoskeletal pain and healthy participants, 40 studies evaluated TSP at painful sites, 77 in remote areas, and 66 in both locations. Of the 13 tested locations in patients, the hand (74 studies), lower leg (64 studies), and forearm (59 studies) were most commonly tested. A single practice round was the most common familiarization method (46 studies). Repeated stimuli were applied using 31 different frequencies (0.03-200 Hz) and sustained stimulations ranging from 5 to 1080 seconds were used. Twenty-two different train lengths, 63 different calculations (37 absolute, 19 relative, and 7 alternatives using data directly), and 14 different outcome measures (eg, self-reported pain rating scales and reflex thresholds) were used. Temporal summation of pain protocols vary excessively, hindering the comparison and pooling of results. None of the studies provided substantiation for their protocol choice.

Meaningful contributions of rehabilitation for people with persistent pain; a reflexive thematic analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the meaningful contributions of rehabilitation for participants living with persistent pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phenomenological methodology was used. Thirteen purposefully selected participants, who self-identified as substantially improved from persistent pain due to rehabilitation, were interviewed in-depth. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analyses. RESULTS: Participants included three men and ten women, age ranging from 22-69 years, pain duration was 2-30 years. Seven interconnected themes were developed: 1) indication of negative pain and health care experiences, 2) supporting working alliance with healthcare professionals, 3) Pain Dialogue, 4) improved self-awareness and self-regulation, 5) different view on pain, 6) autonomy and personal growth and 7) hope and new perspective. Integration of these themes provided a framework for understanding meaningful contributions of rehabilitation from the participants' perspective. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified seven interconnected themes enhancing meaningful contributions of rehabilitation for participants who have substantially improved from persistent pain. These findings provide a novel conceptual understanding of how rehabilitation can foster recovery. The themes strongly support person-centred care, an understanding of Pain Dialogue and personal growth through the lens of the lived experience. The quality of the therapeutic relationship is considered a central vehicle for improved health outcomes.

A rehabilitation participant perspective can contribute to better outcomes in pain rehabilitation.A shift from a pain-centred to a person-centred approach should be considered to enhance meaningful contributions of rehabilitation.Pain Education should be reconceptualized into Pain Dialogue.The quality of the therapeutic relationship can be regarded as a key driver for the effectiveness of person-centred care and Pain Dialogue.

Comparing physical therapy students' attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis: an international multi-institutional comparison between 2013 and 2020 academic years.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, physical therapy students demonstrated low guideline-adherent recommendations regarding chronic low back pain (CLBP) for spinal pathology, activity, and work. OBJECTIVES: To assess the differences in physical therapy students' attitudes, beliefs, and adherence to guideline recommendations regarding CLBP and knee osteoarthritis between 2013 and 2020. METHODS: In 2013 and 2020, second and fourth-year physical therapy students were recruited from 6 Belgian and 2 Dutch institutions. Attitudes and beliefs regarding CLBP and knee OA were evaluated using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), and a questionnaire regarding therapeutic exercise and knee osteoarthritis. A clinical vignette was used to measure guideline-adherent recommendations regarding spinal pathology, activity, and work. RESULTS: In 2013, 927 second-year and 695 fourth-year students; in 2020, 695 second-year and 489 fourth-year students; were recruited to participate in the study. Compared to 2013, students had less biomedical and stronger biopsychosocial attitudes and beliefs regarding CLBP, more guideline-adherent recommendations for activity, and more biopsychosocial beliefs regarding the benefits of exercise for patients with knee osteoarthritis in both the second and fourth year. Only fourth-year students in 2020 scored significantly better on HC-PAIRS and guideline-adherent recommendation relating to spinal pathology. No differences were found regarding work recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2020, physical therapy students made a positive shift towards a more biopsychosocial approach to CLBP and knee osteoarthritis management. Guideline-adherent recommendations for CLBP concerning activity improved, however, concerning work and spinal pathology, it remained low.

Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study.

Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type. Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1,1). Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers. Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.

Toward consensus on pain-related content in the pre-registration, undergraduate physical therapy curriculum: a Delphi-study.

BACKGROUND: Access to pain education for healthcare professionals is an International Association for the Study of Pain's key recommendation to improve pain care. The content of preregistration and undergraduate physical therapy pain curricula, however, is highly variable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a list, by consensus, of essential pain-related topics for the undergraduate physical therapy curriculum. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted in four rounds, including a Delphi Panel (N = 22) consisting of in pain experienced lecturers of preregistration undergraduate physical therapy of Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, and five Validation Panels. Round 1: topics were provided by the Delphi Panel, postgraduate pain educators, and a literature search. Rounds 2-4: the Delphi Panel rated the topics and commented. All topics were analyzed in terms of importance and degree of consensus. Validation Panels rated the outcome of Round 2. RESULTS: The Delphi Panel rated 257, 146, and 90 topics in Rounds 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This resulted in 71 topics judged as "not important," 97 as "important," and 89 as "highly important." In total, 63 topics were rated as "highly important" by the Delphi Panel and Validation Panels. CONCLUSION: A list was developed and can serve as a foundation for the development of comprehensive physical therapy pain curricula.

Knowledge and attitudes toward musculoskeletal pain neuroscience of manual therapy postgraduate students in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes influence patients' beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. It is unclear to what extent physiotherapists undertaking a postgraduate master in manual therapy (MT students) possess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience to be able to apply the biopsychosocial model in patients with MSK pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHOD: Self-reported knowledge and attitudes were measured among students (n = 662) at baseline and in all years of the MT postgraduate programs in the Netherlands. The Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain questionnaire (KNAP) was used as a primary measure. Difference in KNAP-scores between baseline (0), year 1, year 2 and year 3 was tested using a one-way ANOVA (hypothesis: 0 < 1<2 < 3). A two factor ANOVA was used to determine the interaction effect of focused pain education and year in the curriculum with KNAP. RESULTS: There was an overall significant difference of KNAP scores with a medium effect size (F(3, 218.18) = 13.56, p < .001, ω2 = 0.059). Differences between years ranged from small to medium. Interaction effect of knowledge and attitudes and focused pain education was significant with a small effect size (F(6) = 2.597, p = .017, ω2 = 0.012). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results. CONCLUSIONS: Positive differences in knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students occur between the progressing years of the curriculum. Differences may be related to the provision of focused pain education.

No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear. METHODS: CPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (N = 89) at the neck, forearm and lower leg using the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. In three separate experiments, we compared the impact of (1) design (sequential versus parallel), (2) conditioning stimulus intensity (VAS 40/100 versus VAS 60/100), and (3) test stimulus selection (single versus dual, i.e., mechanical and thermal). Statistical analyses of the main effect of design (adjusted for order) and experiment were conducted using linear mixed models with random intercepts. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (-6.1%; 95% CI [-10.1 to -2.1]) and lower leg (-5.9%; 95% CI [-11.7 to -0.1]) but not forearm (-4.5%; 95% CI [-9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect.

Assessing future health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes of musculoskeletal pain; development and measurement properties of a new questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare practitioner beliefs influence patients' beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. A validated questionnaire based on modern pain neuroscience assessing Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain (KNAP) was unavailable. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and test measurement properties of KNAP. DESIGN: Phase 1; Development of KNAP reflecting modern pain neuroscience and expert opinion. Phase 2; a cross-sectional and longitudinal study among Dutch physiotherapy students. METHOD: In the cross-sectional study (n = 424), internal consistency, structural validity, hypotheses testing, and Rasch analysis were examined. Longitudinal designs were applied to analyse test-retest reliability (n = 156), responsiveness, and interpretability (n = 76). RESULTS: A 30-item KNAP was developed in 4 stages. Test-retest reliability: ICC (2,1) 0.80. Internal consistency: Cronbach's α 0.80. Smallest Detectable Difference 90%: 4.99 (4.31; 5.75). Structural validity: exploratory factor analysis showed 2 factors. Hypotheses testing: associations with the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists biopsychosocial subscale r = 0.60, with biomedical subscale r = -0.58, with the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire r = 0.52. Responsiveness: 93% improved on KNAP after studying pain education. Minimal Important Change: 4.84 (95%CI: 2.77; 6.91). CONCLUSIONS: The KNAP has adequate measurement properties. This new questionnaire could be useful to evaluate physiotherapy students' knowledge and attitudes of modern pain neuroscience that could help to create awareness and evaluate physiotherapy education programs, and ultimately provide better pain management.