These findings indicate a role for helplessness and passive pain-coping in chronic pain patients and suggest that both may be relevant in the treatment of pain level, disability, and/or depression.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) with conventional treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) in a randomised controlled trial with a blinded assessor.SettingThe study was conducted at a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands.Participants56 adult patients with CRPS-1 participated. Three patients were lost to follow-up.InterventionsPatients received either PEPT in a maximum of five treatment sessions, or conventional treatment following the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline.MeasurementsOutcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 9 months after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was the Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version (ISS-RV), consisting of visual analogue scale for pain (VAS-pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire, active range of motion (AROM) and skin temperature. Secondary outcome measures included Pain Disability Index (PDI); muscle strength; Short Form 36 (SF-36); disability of arm, shoulder and hand; Lower Limb Tasks Questionnaire (LLTQ); 10 m walk test; timed up-and-go test (TUG) and EuroQol-5D.ResultsThe intention-to-treat analysis showed a clinically relevant decrease in ISS-RV (6.7 points for PEPT and 6.2 points for conventional treatment), but the between-group difference was not significant (0.96, 95% CI −1.56 to 3.48). Participants allocated to PEPT experienced a greater improvement in AROM (between-group difference 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.94; p=0.02). The per protocol analysis showed larger and significant between-group effects on ISS-RV, VAS-pain, AROM, PDI, SF-36, LLTQ and TUG.ConclusionsWe cannot conclude that PEPT is superior to conventional treatment for patients with CRPS-1. Further high-quality research on the effects of PEPT is warranted given the potential effects as indicated by the per protocol analysis.Trial registration numbersNCT00817128 and NTR 2090.

Our results suggest that 'pain exposure physical therapy' is effective and safe for patients who are unresponsive to accepted standard therapies. Avoiding the use of a limb due to pain will result in loss of function. Forced usage of limbs restores the function, reverses these adaptive processes and leads to regain of control by practice with a reduction of pain in most cases.

Objective. To develop and evaluate process indicators relevant to biopsychosocial history taking in patients with chronic back and neck pain. Methods. The SCEBS method, covering the Somatic, Psychological (Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior), and Social dimensions of chronic pain, was used to evaluate biopsychosocial history taking by manual physical therapists (MPTs). In Phase I, process indicators were developed while in Phase II indicators were tested in practice. Results. Literature-based recommendations were transformed into 51 process indicators. Twenty MTPs contributed 108 patient audio recordings. History taking was excellent (98.3%) for the Somatic dimension, very inadequate for Cognition (43.1%) and Behavior (38.3%), weak (27.8%) for Emotion, and low (18.2%) for the Social dimension. MTPs estimated their coverage of the Somatic dimension as excellent (100%), as adequate for Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior (60.1%), and as very inadequate for the Social dimension (39.8%). Conclusion. MTPs perform screening for musculoskeletal pain mainly through the use of somatic dimension of (chronic) pain. Psychological and social dimensions of chronic pain were inadequately covered by MPTs. Furthermore, a substantial discrepancy between actual and self-estimated use of biopsychosocial history taking was noted. We strongly recommend full implementation of the SCEBS method in educational programs in manual physical therapy.

Fifty-eight percent of the patients in the TENS group and 42.7% of the sham-TENS group were satisfied with treatment result (chi square=3.8, p=0.05). No differences were found for pain intensity. Patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis and related disorders (especially of the vertebral column) or peripheral neuropathic pain were less satisfied with high frequency TENS (OR=0.12 (95% CI 0.04-0.43) and 0.06 (95% CI 0.006-0.67), respectively). Injury of bone and soft tissue (especially postsurgical pain disorder) provided the best results. Treatment modality or interactions with treatment modality did not predict intensity of pain as a result of treatment. We conclude, that predicting the effect of high frequency TENS in chronic pain depends on the choice of outcome measure. Predicting patients' satisfaction with treatment result is related to the origin of pain. Predicting pain intensity reflects mechanisms of pain behavior and perceived control of pain, independent of treatment modality. Pain catastrophizing did not predict TENS treatment outcome.