Tag: Physical therapy

The influence of patient choice

“Approximately $85 billion are spent annually on spine-oriented conditions, and an additional $10 to $20 billion are attributed to economic losses in productivity…Per-patient costs have increased by 49% from 1997 to 2006.”

Spine related issues cost our country about $1 Trillion over the course of a decade. Seeing as how we are dealing with a pandemic, people now have a better understanding what $1T can do for the country.

It can give each person thousands in financial relief. It can give small businesses hundreds of thousands in relief.

The number seems arbitrary until you actually see what a Trillion dollar bailout looks like.

If we can reduce the impact of back pain on society, we could keep this money in the economy because there wouldn’t be lost productivity, out of pocket spending and other expenses that come with back pain.

Healthcare would forever be changed if we can reduce the economic impact of back pain, as it is the most prevalent issue seen in outpatient clinics, many emergency departments and most primary care physician offices.

There would be so much opportunity to actually focus on maintaining a healthy population instead of trying to solve a pain/disability problem.

“despite the rising costs, there has been no real improvement in terms of disability or reduction in the proportions of individuals who report back or neck pain.”

This is a little bit of a controversial fact for me. Our ability to treat back pain through classification has improved over the years. For instance, a recent study on downstream costs shows that when using MDT there is fewer follow-up visits and extensive diagnostics required.

I don’t think that we will ever stop people from experiencing pain, back pain or any other locations. People experience pain. This is a fact. Pain can be a good sign to keep us from doing things that create pain in the first place. The problem, in my opinion, is when we allow pain to prevent us from doing things that are considered a normal part of life.

For example, most experience pain when touching a hot stove. This can be used as a warning signal that hot stoves are dangerous.

Unfortunately, many experience pain when bending forward. The same logic applies and some believe that they are actually creating harm when bending forward, so it’s avoided altogether.

This is where I believe a good PT can be worth his/her weight in gold. Teaching a patient to return back to normal activities that the patient previously believed to be dangerous could increase the patients quality and possibly quantity of life.

I now want to address the rising costs of treating pain. The next unfortunate issue is that I personally know practitioners that are so out of touch with current research that they continue to treat patients as if it is 1980. We wonder why, as a whole, we are no better at treating patients.

Why do you think this happens?

One reason is that healthcare is a business.

There’s a ton of conspiracy theorists out there that believe the government is hiding the cure for cancer so that the businesses that treat cancer can continue to make money. For some reason this same conspiracy hasn’t made its way down to back pain.

I’m not sure if you saw the amount of money spent on back pain, but if not then go back up to the top of the post.

There’s big money in back pain.

Why should providers want to get you better faster?

In all honesty, I think the providers want you to get better faster. The providers don’t typically make much less if you get better faster.

The business on the other hand stands to lose a lot of money if the patient gets better at a faster rate.

I’ll speak specifically to physical therapy and use real numbers.

On average a clinic with 2 PT sees about 10 new patients per week. Let’s just say that 8 of the 10 are for some version of spine pain.

This would mean that on average we are seeing 400 new cases of spine related pain in a two person clinic per year.

On average, the reimbursement per treatment session in IL is $95-$100 per session.

If the business asks (more like demands) that a PT keeps the patient for 13 sessions, where’s the therapist with less supervisory demands sees the patient for 8 visits, there is a major difference in the overall income for the clinic.

Clinic 1:

400 (new patients) x 13 (visits)= 5,200 visits

At $95/visit

5,200(visits) x $95(per visit)= $494K

Clinic 2:

400(new patients) x 8(visits)=3,200 visits

At $95/visit

3,200(visits) x $95(per visit)=$304K

Are you starting to understand the problem?

The clinic that requires PTs to see a patient for a specific number of visits stands to generate an extra $190K. This is an example for a two therapist clinic.

Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of PTs in the country treating back pain and you see how the costs are artificially inflated.

Until insurance companies cut back on what is reimbursed, we will not see a change in practice. What we are seeing insurance companies do is a step in the right direction, bu I personally believe that they are doing it incorrectly.

Right now the insurance companies are giving us typically 8-12 visits that are to be used over the course of 6-8 weeks.

What I would like to see is an insurance company give us a stipend of a few thousands of dollars to care for that one patient over the course of the year. Meaning any problem that occurs with that particular patient is our responsibility to rehab. We become accountable for that patients health.

We are seeing this with some Medicare Advantage Plans, and it seems to be effective at countering the rising costs of healthcare.

Until a drastic change in how we get reimbursed happens, we will continue to see the numbers rise like they have.

I just don’t think that the changes that have happened, restricting the number of visits, is enough to make companies take responsibility for actually helping patients.

“The estimated proportion of persons with back or neck problems to self-report physical functioning limitations increased from 20.7% to 24.7% from 1997 to 2005, suggesting that current care models may be insufficient.”

I have personally seen patients reporting increased disability with time.

Part of what has to be considered is “how many of these individuals reporting disability also have secondary gain issues?”

Meaning, how many people reporting increased disability are actually receiving disability payments?

Secondary gain issues would have to be considered a limiting factor when reporting these numbers.

The next aspect to be considered is the affective component of the impairment. Meaning, how many people are experiencing increased disability due to the environment they spend their time and the situations they surround themselves.

It’s like the opposite of herd immunity. I’ve been part of many FB groups specifically designed for support, but the groups offer anything but support. These groups offer misrepresentation of diagnoses and prognoses. Many people looking for support and assurance are met with information about lifelong disability, surgical options and nocebo language.

There’s more to disability than pain.

A persons belief about pain has an impact on disability. We know this.

We really need to look at changing the narrative about back pain.

“Clinical practice guidelines for primary care management of spinal conditions generally suggest initial management strategies of self-care and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications. Referral to specialist, including physical therapist or for diagnostic imaging is only encouraged for those who failed to respond after period of watchful waiting.”

This is part of the problem. Instead of stratifying the patient based on risk factors for developing persistent pain, which I’ve written about one tool previously, they are treating all back pains similarly.

Some patients will get better on their own without any treatment.

Others would benefit from early treatment.

The medical system has to do a better job of separating these groups in order to maximize outcomes and reduce disability numbers.

“recommended best practices based on such clinical practice guidelines are to avoid bedrest, to use opioid medications for a limited time, and to obtain magnetic resonance imaging only for specific presentation of radicular symptoms.”

This seems very basic.

Unfortunately, these aren’t necessarily followed. I have many patients, over my career that are opioid dependent. There is research showing that long term opioid usage can actually increase a person’s sensitivity to pain. Think about that, medication that initially makes a person unable to sense pain, over time makes a person feel more pain (either frequency or intensity).

I believe that the idea that imaging should be minimized until needed has be adopted more so than the short term usage of opioids.

I rarely see patients coming into the clinic for an evaluation that received an MRI prior to physical therapy. Part of this has to do with insurance companies not approving MRIs until conservative care has been attempted. This has to be commended.

Now we just need our profession to stop looking at patients like an ATM and start to see each case as one that could go to surgery if we don’t make progress.

We have to see the months that the patient would be unable to work and function. We have to employ empathy.

The state of the profession currently sees patients as widgets to be accounted for in productivity measures.

Again, this needs to change in order for us to have an impact on the disabling mentality that is growing with regards to back pain.

“… alternative care models offering direct access (The ability to seek and receive the examination, valuation, and intervention by physical therapist without requiring physician referral for legal or insurance coverage) to physical therapy have suggested fewer days of care and lower costs.”

Looking purely at costs, direct access has the potential to save insurance companies and patients money. This savings would come at the expense of the physicians, hospital systems and emergency departments.

But how you ask?

As it stands, patients would require a referral in most states to be evaluated and treated in a physical therapy environment for longer than 4 weeks. Because of this, a patient would need to go to a physician in order to receive a referral for physical therapy. Each time the patient sees the physician, the costs is about $80.

If PTs has direct access, which in my mind doesn’t just include the ability to be assessed and treated by a physical therapist, but also consists of having that particular patient’s insurance pay for the assessment and treatment, then we would have fewer trips to the emergency department, quick care or physician.

This would save money immediately for the healthcare system and saves the patient time. Instead of waiting to get into a physician and then waiting to see the PT, the patient could walk into the PT office and be assessed within 24-48 hours.

“The majority of the 447 patients included in the analysis chose traditional medical referral (61.7%).”

This is interesting for me to navigate. The group that chose to go the route of direct access ended up saving about $1,500 in total cost of care. This number is misleading though because it didn’t take into account the amount of money that the patient actually paid out of pocket.

For instance, in a 90%/10% coverage plan, the patient would have only paid an extra $150 out of pocket (assuming the deductible was met). That’s a large difference from the patient paying an extra $750 if the patient has an insurance that pays 50%.

Because this $1,500 can vary patient to patient, I’m not sure if it is a good metric to use because it really tells us how much money we are saving the insurance company, instead of telling us how much money we are saving the patient.

I understand the argument that if we save the insurance company money, then we would save the patient money on a lower premium, but I just don’t believe that we will make enough of a dent in healthcare costs to ever drop premiums. It is a business after all and the scenario I more likely see is the business pocketing a larger profit for the money we save them.

This brings us to the next topic : why would patients choose to go to see a physician first before going to PT as a direct access visit?

I think that this would make a good quantitative study to determine what are the factors that correlate with seeing a physician first for back pain prior to seeing a PT.

The other questions to be asked are what would make one choose a chiropractic physician, naprapathic doctor, accupuncturist, massage therapist or physical therapist for specific ailments?

In the end, we know that we have the potential to save the patient money if the patient chooses a direct access (walk into the clinic off of the street) when compared to seeing a physician prior to receiving a referral for physical therapy. Because a majority of patients in this particular study still chose the physician first, there must be other issues in play as to why patients aren’t choosing direct access OR the patients aren’t aware that we could actually save them money.

Link to article

A novel case study

I was just speaking about this case to one of the PTs that works with me this week, and felt it a good learning opportunity to post to the inter webs.

78 year old male was referred to me from another PT. The patient underwent 6 weeks of PT with another therapist also certified in MDT.

I helped train that PT and she felt that the patient should be referred to me to see if there was anything missed during the appointments.

The patient had an extrusion at L3, affecting quad strength. He also had a loss of light touch sensation at the anterior thigh.

His only complaint was pain that would wake him up at 2 AM, which was very intense. He would take a Norco and walk for 30-45 minutes to reduce his pain. He could sleep until 6 or 7 AM, which is when the excruciating pain would return. Again, he would take a Norco and walk. The pain would go away and not return the rest of the day until 2AM. He was very active with Tai Chi and Kung Fu over 10 hrs per week.

His only complaint was pain in the middle of the night.

I couldn’t provoke his pain during the evaluation.

He had already been through 6 weeks of PT without change, so I was only trying to figure out his sleep issue.

I had a working hypothesis

1. Overnight, the disc imbibes fluid and increases in size.

2. It was possible that the change in fluid content was increasing his pain since the pain went away when he was up walking during the night

3. If I could prevent the disc from taking on fluid, his pain might shut off

That was my only thought pattern that made sense for his symptoms.

I had him sleep in a recliner and to call me in 2 days with the result.

He was painfree in the recliner and did not wake at all.

Because he already had 6 weeks with an MDT trained clinician, I didn’t feel that bringing him into the clinic was going to be productive, so I followed by phone.

After two weeks, which is how long it is expected to see results if given the right direction and load, he was able to return to bed without waking.

This patient returned to therapy for a different issue a year later and we had a conversation about his back (he was seeing a different therapist). His strength recovered and he didn’t require surgery.

Moral of the story:

1. Sometimes you have to think outside of the box

2. Don’t let the image dictate treatment

3. Only treat the patient if we can improve their lot in life

4. Always develop a relationship with the patient you are treating.

Life purpose and changes

“If you want to change the world, you have to enroll others in your plans and vision.”

Adam Robinson

About 2 years ago I started a blog. It was just for fun and the premise behind the blog is this “the only knowledge wasted is the knowledge not shared”. I saw this quote on a t-shirt; a blog was born.

My goal is to provide high quality content to readers through this blog in order to assist them with making decisions regarding choosing a health care practitioner. The secondary goal is to educate physical therapists at least up to the point of at patients. It sounds cynical that I believe that some patients have more knowledge than the PT, but I also believe that the patient has more to lose and more at stake than the PT.

The PT only has a paycheck at stake, maybe a reputation. The patient has life limitations and issues that may prevent them from truly experiencing life. That way more at stake than the PT has on the line. In this fashion, I have seen patients becoming smarter over the years through forums, FB groups, reading blogs and watching videos.

The reason why I say high quality content is because there are a lot of lies and misinformation on the World Wide Web (internet). Healthcare professionals prey on the weak and ignorant to take their money using scare tactics and unrealistic hype.

I ain’t got nothing to sell you other than making you a better human through work. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I have increasing demands on my time with a family, managing multiple clinics, treating patients and community involvement.

My posts will become fewer and fewer as I try to fit them into my life instead of fitting my life around my work.

Love your life or change it

Dr. Vince Gutierrez, PT

ACL rehab

“At 13 months post ACLR (Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction), individuals exhibited average knee extensor moments that were 17% smaller in the surgical limb during a bilateral squat against body-weight resistance”

ACL injuries tend to be noted in some non-contact sports such as soccer and basketball. Contact sports, such as football, also have ACL tears noted during contact, such as a tackle that makes the knee buckle inwards.

The patient with an ACL tear will typically opt for surgery if he/she plans on returning to some type of sporting activity. There is a debate as to whether or not to have the surgery if there will be no return to sporting activity.

After the ACL surgery, the research above notes that patients are less likely to use the surgical side during a squatting activity (think getting up from the toilet) and will push more with the non-surgical side.

This makes sense to me. After the surgery, the patient is in a locked long leg brace and is unable to move fluidly on the affected leg. The patient will not spend as much time on the surgical leg because of this and will transfer the weight to the non-surgical side. It becomes a learned habit to transfer the weight to the non-surgical side, but this is just my opinion.

 

“The persistence of under-loading is concerning, as asymmetrical limb loading during landing tasks has been linked to increased risk for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reinjury”

This is important! If we never get the patient to load the leg in order to improve strength and motor control (ability move in the way that the brain dictates), then the patient is at a higher risk of future injuries.

Let me clarify: if you squat and allow your legs to go wet noodle during the squat, it will look like a knocked-kneed version of a squat. This is not inherently horrible, but when asking the body to absorb a large load in this positon, when not trained to absorb this load, may lead to an injury. It all comes down to progressively loading specific positions in order to learn how to hold this position.

This is a major component of Olympic weightling compared to powerlifting. In the performance of the snatch (the most explosive movement in sports), maintaining proper position is extremely important for completing the lift. In powerlifting, the position may be able to be off a little and the athlete can overcome the small error in position.

With regards to ACL rehabilitation, it is important that we ensure that the patient is able to have enough strength to maintain positions without the load (bodyweight jumps, external weight, etc) dictating positional changes.

 

“…the bilateral multijoint nature of a squat allows for compensations that can shift the task demands to the nonsurgical limb (interlimb compensation) or to adjacent joints within the surgical limb (intralimb compensation) to reduce knee extensor moments.”

The bodyweight squat can be performed differently and switches the load from either the hip to the knee.

If you watch someone squat (recommended for all people that will attempt to squat), the person should both watch the knee and the hip. If you look at opening and closing, this will be much easier.

  1. Watch the knee to see how much the knee “closes” or how much the angle changes from the calf to the hamstring
  2. Watch the hip to see how much the hip “closes” or how much the angle changes from the trunk to the thigh

Which joint moves more?

This will help the reader to understand whether the knee joint muscles or hip joint muscles will be the dominant movers during the squat. Those that have knee issues will tend to move the hip joint muscles more than knee joint muscles.

I’ll make a video on this at a later date.

 

“…individuals 1 month post ACLR performed bilateral sit-to-stand tasks with a 38% reduction in vertical ground reaction forces (vGRFs) in the surgical limb”

This very simply means that the person is pushing less with the surgical leg than the non-surgical leg.

This means that the surgical leg is taking less force through it and will not be able to generate the same amount of power. Also, it is typical to see the patient weight shifting towards the non-surgical leg.

“reduced knee extensor moments have been found along with increased hip extensor moments…may rely on interlimb compensations to unload the knee during early rehabilitation but adopt intralimb compensations as they progress through rehabilitation.”

This goes back to the differences in a powerlifting based squat and an Olympic weightlifting based squat. The more upright the torso, the more that the knee takes a load and the less upright the torso, the more the back and hips will take the load.

I am having this exact conversation with a patient currently following an ACLR, attempting to get the patient to increase the load on the knee.

“During early rehabilitation, strategies for restoring symmetrical weight bearing during bilateral tasks should be emphasized and reinforced even during submaximal tasks…efforts should be made to continue to focus on sagittal plane knee loading and avoid compensation with the hip extensors.”

I tend to use a mirror for visual feedback in order to allow the patient to see the weight shift between the legs. This tends to fix the problems for weight shifting. We then progress to doing the squatting motion away from a mirror in order to build in positional awareness without the need for visual cues.

In order to improve the knee to hip ratio regarding which joint moves more, the cues will switch from sitting back on a chair (similar to a box squat which is hip hinge emphasizd) to emphasizing sitting between the feet (similar to an overhead squat) which is more knee joint driven.

If you don’t have a PT that understands how to squat, this may be a difficult movement to restore with physical therapy alone.

It may be prudent to ask your PT to describe a squat prior to starting therapy in order to ensure that your therapist has at least a baseline knowledge of squatting.

If the therapist doesn’t start describing multiple techniques for squatting based on body shape, then the therapist may not be well versed in the movement.

If you have any questions about squatting or ACLR rehabilitation…comment below.

Article: https://www.jospt.org/doi/abs/10.2519/jospt.2018.7977

 

You can find me at Primarycarejoliet.com and wherever you subscribe to podcasts at A physio’s perspective: movementthinker.

GHOST RIDER

Ghost rider

This article will apply mostly to medical researchers. It is boring to read, but this is the type of stuff that I had to write while in the Doctorate program. I can sound smart at times. Enjoy or use it for toilet paper.

 

Alexander LL. Ghostbusting. AMWA Journal. 2008;23(2):54-55

  1. “’Biomedical communicators who contribute substantially to the writing or editing of a manuscript should be acknowledged with their permission and with disclosure of any pertinent professional or financial relationships’”

This quote still doesn’t denote that ghostwriting is a horrible topic. For instance, a person can ghostwrite by not giving permission to be acknowledged, based on the above quote.

  1. “There are two types of ghostwriting. Writing a paper for which you receive no author credit (but for which you get paid) and authoring a paper to which you contribute no work. The first type of ghostwriting is not illegal and is hardly unethical…the second type of ghostwriting is more troublesome’” This touches on the topic of payment. One of the other articles that we were to read also discusses payment and stated to the effect that being paid for services does not take the place of authorship.

 

Yoshikawa TT, Ouslander JG. Integrity in Publishing: Update on Policies and Statements on Authorship, Duplicate Publications, and Conflicts of Interest. JAGS. 2007; 55(2):155-157.

 

  1. “The principles of this document, including those related to overlapping (duplicate) publications, authorship, and disclosure of potential COI, apply equally to manuscripts for consideration in this Journal or in a separate supplement.”

I appreciate the straightforwardness of the above statement. There is no ambiguity in the statement and it simply states that these rules apply only to this journal.

  1. “authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet all three conditions.”

The statement of “substantial contributions” has not been defined. This is left to interpretation in multiple studies. The use of the word “or” is powerful in that the author can partake in one of the three listed activities in the first sentence, but doesn’t have to partake in all activities. The author would have to be active in the drafting of the article and the final approval of the article for publication.

  1. “Within the Acknowledgments section and under the subheading ‘Authors’ Contributions,’ all authors’ specific areas of contributions should be listed”

I have read a lot of research articles over the years and do not recall reading this in any of the sections.

 

Wen Q, Gao, Y. Viewpoint: Dual Publication and Academic Inequality. Int J Applied Linguistics. 2007;17(2):221-225.

  1. “Some of our colleagues believe that submission of the same research findings in different languages is a violation of academic ethics: such a practice constitutes self-plagiarism”.

The authors are starting to make their case that they do not believe that submission in a separate language is plagiarism.

  1. ”We are among those who believe otherwise. In our view, this practice has little to do with self-plagiarism and does not violate intellectual ethics.”

I would disagree with this statement, as the authors are not performing anything new in the study, but simply translating a study from its original language. This should be listed in the article that the study is a translation and not an original work.

  1. “for the above reasons, we strongly propose a relaxation in the rule that international journals only publish “original” papers that have not been published anywhere before, taking into consideration the disadvantaged position of …”

I personally have an issue with this statement, as it is asking for a “relaxation of rules”. We discussed this semester how some ethical issues come to the forefront. It is persons like this, whom are able to rationalize plagiarism that ethics in action always has to remain at the forefront.

 

Geelhoed RJ, Phillips JC, Fischer AF, et al. Authorship Decision Making: An Empirical Investigation. Ethics & Behavior. 207;17(2): 95-115.

  1. “Both the 1992 and 2002 versions of the code state that ‘authors take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed’, with the 2002 version also qualifying the last word with the adjective substantially.

Again the word substantially is included, but is left open to interpretation.

  1. “Significant differences between groups regarding authorship decisions were noted when faculty assigned significantly more credit to students than did student participants and students assigned significantly more credit to the advisor than did faculty.”

I find this statement interesting. The faculty may be trying to assist the students with authorship publication, but this may set a poor

precedent, which continues to proliferate. For example, many of us have stated that faculty should serve as mentors, but would we agree that it isn’t appropriate to give first authorship to someone that did not perform all of the prerequisite work required to have the first authorship position.

  1. “38% of author positions were misplaced relative to their contribution…seven authors in the sample were given authorship credit when they had made no contributions to the study.”

This is a good example of how authorship may be misunderstood or confusing for some.

  1. “discussing authorship in the planning stage of a project while allowing for changes”

This is an excellent point that the discussion regarding authorship should start at the initiation of the planning phase for the study in order to reduce confusion or dissension

  1. “untenured faculty were more likely to report ath both power diffentials and a sense of loyalty or obligation influenced the decision-making process…untenured faculty more frequently reported that unwarranted authorship had been granted than did tenured faculty”

This demonstrates that a person’s place in the “pecking order” may dictate authorship.

 

Louis KS, Holdsworth JM, Anderson MS, Campbell EG. Everyday Ethics in Research: Translating Authorship Guidelines into Practice in the Bench Sciences. J Higher Education. 2008;79(1):88-112.

  1. “Issues related to authorship extend beyond disciplinary boundaries and relate to intellectual ownership and the competitive nature of the academic enterprise…academic researchers are awarded funding, prestige, prizes, promotions and tenure based almost exclusively on their publication history”

This may be the first issue with research. There is a “prize” at the end of the tunnel. We discussed in previous weeks regarding conflicts of interest. The fact that the “teachers” stand to profit from the research should be stated in the publication of the research.

  1. “most scientists are reluctant to exclude people from authorhip”

This is interesting. In our class, we discuss how the authorship should earned based on the requirements of publication, but scientists see no harm with assisting with the advancement of others, although they may have not performed the requisite work for authorship.

  1. high-impact compared to major journals

This is the first that I have seen a comparison such as this. I like how they defined each.

  1. Fairness “Authorship credit should be based only on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation…”

This is how we all seem to interpret the research based on the answers submitted for publication. Based on this alone, there should only be one author of the publication.

  1. “My rule of thumb that is somebody who would read the paper and be able to defend it, or defend their part of it”

This is an interesting part, in that some scientists don’t believe that all three must be met. An author only has to be able to defend the part in which he/she participated. This goes against the initial rule that an author must have had a say in the publication of the article, as this is not stated in the scientists opinion.

  1. “(Adding authors) has no negative effect on my reputation as a scientist if there are four names rather than three names (on a paper), but it can make a huge difference to a student or even a technician”

I agree with this statement. If someone performed work on the paper and the work was deemed substantial to the group, then the person should be added. This needs to be discussed prior to starting the study though.

  1. “Scientists have little, if any, motive to deny authorship”

This comment is comical. In PT, it is not uncommon to read 7-8 names in a study. This may be due to that fact that little is lost from including additional authors.

  1. Based on this article, all of the authors listed in the assignment may be entitled to authorship credit.

 

Washburn JJ. Encouraging Research Collaboration Through Ethical and Fair Authorship: A Model Policy. Ethics and Behavior. 2008;18(1):44-58.

  1. “It may be possible to avoid problems with authorship credit by explicitly discussing authorship credit and order, preferably at the outset of research collaborations.”

This point continues to be emphasized in articles. It appears that basic communication may be lacking in research.

  1. “they propose that for the same level of authorship credit, a greater contribution should be expected fro contributors with greater competence and less of a contribution should be expected from contributors with less competence”

This brings the issue of fair vs. equal. I don’t understand how this type of statement can be made. How can one grade fairness in terms of the sliding scale of competency?

  1. “…the policy proposes that contributions be weighted such that contributors with greater competence must make greater contributions for the same authorship position than those with less competence”

I completely disagree with this type of authorship. Someone with little input could be placed as the lead author because, although they provided little in terms of the actual publication, they have little experience, which would balance out the production performed. It doesn’t seem appropriate.

If it hurts it must be bad, or good, or whatever. Vincent Gutierrez, PT, cert. MDT

Louw A, Puentedura EJ, Zimney K, Schmidt S. Know Pain, Know Gain? A perspective on Pain Neuroscience Education in Physical Therapy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46(3):131-134.

 

  1. “Pain is a normal human experience and essential to survival”

This portion is rarely spoken of in PT school and we spend our time in school learning how to shut down the pain, either in an ideal way of dealing with a mechanical problem or in a way in which we “trick” the brain of not seeing the pain for a short period of time. When working with patients, I often describe the gate control theory as the “Three Stooges” way of treating pain. For instance, if you have a headache and I hit your foot with a hammer, what happened to your headache. I stole the example from my dad, because this is how he would always respond if I told him my arm was sore after baseball practice. This was way back in the 1980’s and he was a laborer by trade. The gate control theory makes sense to most people, but we can also see the example and understand that it is probably not the best way to fix a problem, as we end up with a broken foot from the hammer.

 

  1. “The pain neuromatrix explained our knowledge and understanding of the functional and structural changes in the brains of people suffering from chronic pain”

To simplify, we have pain because our brains tell us that something is painful. This could be due to past experiences, actual painful stimuli eliciting Nociception, super excited nerves , so on and so forth.

 

  1. “biomedical models may induce fear and anxiety, which may further fuel fear avoidance and pain catastrophization”

It is very common for a patient to come into the clinic and say that he/she is avoiding a particular activity because of a history of a herniated disc. There is research that shows that a herniated disc can become “unherniated” (for a lack of a more layman’s term) over the course of 6 months. The patients are never educated regarding this point. Once a herniation, always a herniation is just not true. This biomedical or pathoanatomical (patho=bad and anatomical = body parts) model of health care is outdated and simply is not as useful to use with the general public because research demonstrates that the patient may become “sick listed” and from there stop participating in previously enjoyable activities.

 

  1. “a plethora of papers have been dedicated to a mere 20-millisecond delay of abdominal muscle contraction, yet despite the enormous amount of time, money and energy spent on this science, clinically it has yet to provide results superior to those of any other form of exercise for low back pain”

Doing the vacuum pose while lying down is no better than doing a general squat or learning how to utilize your diaphragm during breathing mechanics. As the layperson, there are many people that want to take your money in the health care industry. (I hate to say it like this, but healthcare is a huge business and the public needs to see it as so.) When the new fad comes out to solve back pain, don’t buy into the infomercial and as a matter of fact, turn off the t.v. and go get a book from the local library. You will spend hundreds of dollars less than what is proposed on the infomercial and be better off after having read the book. Nothing beats knowledge and the smarter you are at taking care of yourself, the better armed you are when you actually get in front of a health care practitioner. Remember, it is a business and we all want your money if you will give it to us. A better use of your time is to come educated so that I don’t have to teach you the basics of posture for 30 minutes, but can instead can teach you how to perform more high level movement patterns instead of sitting properly to reduce your pain. Oh wait, pain is normal. I’d lose my job if I sold this to all of my patients, but instead the patients need to be educated between hurt and harm.

 

  1. “In all health care education, be it smoking cessation, weight loss, or breaking addiction, the ultimate goal is behavior change.”

Speaking as a physical therapist, I can’t stress to the patients enough how the therapy experience is a team. Smart people call it therapeutic alliance, but I’ll settle for team. My part is to educate the patient and attempt to solve the puzzle of the patient’s pain, but it is the patient’s job to take the information that they have gained during the session and go home and apply it to their daily lives. For a patient to do nothing at home, AKA make no changes in behavior, and come to the following session thinking that the pain will go away is similar to :

 

https://spencergarnold.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/snatch-miracle.jpg

 

Patients may come hoping for a miracle, but it is not to be. The patient and therapist have to work together to attempt to solve the pain problem. If one side of the team is not doing their part, then the PT has to be willing to discharge the patient or the patient has to be willing to fire the PT.

 

  1. “…when PNE (Pain Nueroscience Education [pain is a normal human response]) is paired combined with either exercise or manual therapy, it is far superior in reducing pain compared to education alone”

From this I take that teaching the patient and then moving the patient is better than just teaching the patient. We can all agree that low level exercise is good for people. If we don’t agree with this, then we are saying that it is safer long term to live like a slug then to get up and walk around the living room. It just isn’t so. People will refuse to get up and walk around the living room when they start experiencing low back tightness, leg fatigue, or the dreaded “Fran cough” (look it up and btw I am an advocate professionally speaking). We as a society have to start moving more and learn about how our body is supposed to work. This can not be done from infomercials that have pictures of pulsating backs or frowning stomach fat.

And this is my two cents for the night.
If you are in need of physical therapy or would like to sign up for a complementary discovery session (a conversation to determine if therapy is right for you), contact me. 

Functional Therapy and Rehabilitation 

(Now part of the Goodlife family)

903 N 129th Infantry Dr. 

Joliet Il 60435

815-483-2440