558 research outputs found
The development of the Dutch version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire
No full textBackground: Disturbed body perception may play a role in the aetiology of chronic low back pain (LBP). The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) is currently the only self-report questionnaire to assess back-specific body perception in individuals with LBP.
Objectives: To perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the FreBAQ into Dutch.
Design: Psychometric study.
Methods: A Dutch version of the FreBAQ was generated through forward-backward translation, and was completed by 73 patients with LBP and 73 controls to assess discriminant validity. Structural validity was assessed by principal component analysis. Internal consistency was assessed by the Cronbach\u27s alpha coefficient. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationship with clinical measures (Numerical Rating Scale pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia). Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subgroup (n = 48 with LBP and 48 controls) using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC 95%)
Results: The Dutch FreBAQ showed one component with eigenvalue \u3e2. Cronbach\u27s alpha values were respectively 0.82 and 0.73 for the LBP and control group. ICC values were respectively 0.69 and 0.70 for the LBP and control group. In the LBP group, the SEM was 3.9 and the MDC (95%) was 10.8. The LBP group (ODI 22 ± 21%) scored significantly higher on the Dutch FreBAQ than the control group (ODI 0%) (11 ± 7 vs. 3 ± 9, p \u3c 0.001). Within the LBP group, higher Dutch FreBAQ scores correlated significantly with higher ODI scores (rho = 0.30, p = 0.010), although not with pain (rho = 0.10, p = 0.419) or kinesiophobia (r = 0.14, p = 0.226).
Conclusions: The Dutch version of the FreBAQ can be considered as unidimensional and showed adequate internal consistency, sufficient test-retest reliability and adequate discriminant and construct validity in individuals with and without LBP. It can improve our understanding on back-specific perception in the Dutch-speaking population with LBP
The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Italian version in people with chronic low back pain
No full textBackground and aim: There is evidence to suggest that assessing back-specific altered self-perception may be useful when seeking to understand and manage low back pain (LBP). The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) is a patient-reported measure of back-specific body perception that has never been adapted and psychometrically analysed in Italian. Hence, the objectives of this research were to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of this outcome measure (namely, the FreBAQ-I), to make it available for use with Italians suffering from chronic LBP. Methods: The FreBAQ-I was developed by forward and backward translation, review by a committee skilled in patient-reported measures and test of the pre-final version to assess its clarity, acceptability, and relevance. The statistical analyses examined: structural validity based on Rasch analysis; hypotheses testing by investigating correlations of the FreBAQ-I with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS), and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) (Pearson's correlations); reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC (2,1)); and measurement error by determining the minimum detectable change (MDC). After the development of a consensus-based translation of the FreBAQ-I, the new outcome measure was delivered to 100 people with chronic LBP. Results: Rasch analysis confirmed the substantial unidimensionality and the structural validity of the FreBAQ-I. Hypothesis testing was considered good as at least 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed; correlations: RMDQ (r = 0.35), PI-NRS (r = 0.25), PCS (r = 0.41) and TSK (r = 0.38). Internal consistency was acceptable (alpha = 0.82) and test-retest repeatability was excellent (ICC (2,1) = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.92). The MDC95 corresponded to 6.7 scale points. Conclusion: The FreBAQ-I was found to be a unidimensional, valid, and reliable outcome measure in Italians with chronic LBP. Its application is advised for clinical and research use within the Italian speaking community
Benedict XVI’s Ecumenical Dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church
No full textThe author of this article presents Benedict XVI’s ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole through the speeches, declarations, and homilies that he delivered to representatives of the Eastern Church. This dialogue is undoubtedly significant. As a pope, Benedict XVI fostered and authoritatively promoted this interchange by initiating meetings, participating in communal prayer, teaching, treating those who he encountered with fraternal friendship and charity, and overcoming various obstacles. The Holy Father emphasized the theological studies that the two Churches share in common, because complete and visible communion cannot exist without unity of faith. As always – and particularly as the theologian and as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – he taught that both Churches could celebrate the Eucharist together only when they are fully united. When would this happen? According to Benedict XVI, such union is a gift from God for which the faithful must pray and toward which they must work by: evangelizing together, mutually resisting ideologies hostile to Christianity and humanity, ensuring peace and justice among Christians and those who follow other religions, and cooperating in charitable care of the poor, the sick, and the needy.The Catholic Academy in WarsawBenedict XVI. “Address to the Delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Rome.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050630_deleg-costantinopoli.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address of the Holy Father at the Ecumenical Encounter in the Holy Trinity Church in Warsaw.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060525_incontro-ecumenico.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Members of the Delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060629_costantinopoli.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address at the Meeting with the Patriarch Bartholomew I in the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George.” https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20061129_bartholomew-i.htmlBenedict XVI, Bartholomew I. “Common Declaration.” . http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061130_dichiarazione-comune.htmlBenedict XVI. “Homily in the Patriarchal Church of Saint George.” 30, http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20061130_divine-liturgy.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address at the Meeting with Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece in Rome.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20061214_archbishop-athens.htmlBenedict XVI. “Messaggio.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/pont-messages/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20061221_medio-oriente.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Joint Commission.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/february/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20070201_catholics-orthodox.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070609_congr-orientchurch.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090627_patr-costantinopoli.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Members of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070201_catholics-orthodox.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address at the Meeting with Chrysostomos II, Archbishop of Nea Justiniana and All Cyprus in Rome.” http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070616_chrysostomos-ii.htmlBenedict XVI, “Archbishop Chrysostomos, Common Declaration.” http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070616_chrysostomos-ii.htmlBenedict XVI. “Welcoming Address to Bartholomew I who arrived in Rome for the opening of the Pauline Year.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080628_vespri.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to Bartholomew I.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081018_bartolomeo-i.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090627_patr-costantinopoli.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address at the Ecumenical Celebration in Paphos.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100604_celebrazione-ecum.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100628_ecumenical-patriarchate.htmlBenedict XVI. “Light of the World: A Conversation With Peter Seewald. Kraków: Znak 2011.Benedict XVI. “Address to the Joint International Commission.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110128_commission-theological-dialogue.htmlBenedict XVI. “Homily Delivered During the Liturgy of Vespers for the Conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20110125_week-prayer.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110628_patriarcato-ecumenico.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address in Freiburg.” September 24, 2011. http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110924_zdk-freiburg.htmlBenedict XVI. “Address to the Joint Commission.” http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130125_comm-theological-dialogue.htmlGlaezer, Z. “Prymat biskupa Rzymu w perspektywie prawosławnej. Ekumeniczne nadzieje.” Studia Nauk Teologicznych 10(2015): 161-185.Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Prymat Następcy Piotra w tajemnicy Kościoła.” Vatican City 1999.Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Informacja dotycząca wyrażenia ‘Kościoły siostrzane.’” Vatican City 2000.Rabczyński, P. “‘Fides querens dialogum.’ Prymat biskupa Rzymu w dialogu z Kościołami Wschodu.” Teologia w Polsce 13,2(2019): 165-185.Ratzinger, J. Opera omnia, Volume 8/2: Kościół – znak wśród narodów. Pisma eklezjologiczne i ekumeniczne, Edited by K. Góźdź, M. Górecka. Lublin 2013, 699-715.1918721
Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?
No full textCopyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a
considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions
for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied
interventions and approaches.
Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of
effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A
common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic
non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application
of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This
argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient.
An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited
efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important
that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous
problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the
disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective
because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in
chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of
cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the
chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention.
Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of
researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain
population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may
need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed
Developing, testing and refining a physiotherapy model of care for acute low back pain
No full textThis thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.This thesis is concerned with the physiotherapy management of acute low back pain. Various national guidelines contain conflicting views regarding the role of physiotherapy in the management of acute low back pain. The discrepancies involve primarily the content and timing of physiotherapy intervention. There is a need to place the physiotherapy management of acute low back pain on a more firm research base. A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to develop a best practice model of care for acute low back pain. This model was tested in a randomised controlled trial. Subjects involved in the treatment model demonstrated significantly better short-term outcomes than subjects given advice only. Furthermore, subjects treated early demonstrated significantly better long-term
outcome than subjects who waited six weeks for their treatment. Changes in pain and
physical function were found to be the factors most closely associated with good outcome in the short-term. Good outcome in the long term was associated with improvement in a number of physical and psychological variables. It is recommended that changes be made to the treatment model to facilitate improvement in pain relief and maintenance of physical and social function to further enhance treatment effectiveness.This study was funded by a grant from the NHS R&D committee
Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Maladaptive Perceptions Model
No full textHigh quality evidence suggests that current approaches to the management of CLBP show only limited effectiveness; one explanation of this finding is that current models of management are misdirected or incomplete. This talk proposes a model of CLBP underpinned by data on the psychological contributors to the LBP experience and recent evidence of neuroplastic changes in the brains of people with CLBP (see below). The model suggests that maladaptive cognitive perception about the nature of the back problem and future consequences drive behaviours that might bring about maladaptive neuroplastic changes. These central nervous system changes may enhance sensitivity, influence normal attentional processing and potentially create a state of maladaptive self perception of the back, in terms of how the back feels to the individual, the control they feel they have over their back and the meaning of sensory information from the back. Maladaptive cognitive perception and maladaptive self perception are potentially mutually reinforcing and contribute to the maintenance of the CLBP experience. Identification of these issues in the clinical setting and the implications of this model to the rehabilitation of people with CLBP will also be discussed
The Effect of fuel and poison management on nuclear power systems
No full textStatement of responsibility on title page reads: N.B. McLeod, M. Benedict, K. Uematsu, H.L. Witting, and K.S. Ram"September 15, 1961."Submitted by the first author as a Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, 1962"NYO-9715, TID 4500 Category, UC-80 Reactor Technology.""This work was done in part at the MIT Computation Center."Includes bibliographical references (p. 492-496)Report; June, 1959 - September, 1961Contract no. AT(30-1)-207
Considering Precision and Utility When we Talk About Pain. Comment on Cohen et al
No full textLetter to the EditorGraham L. Moseley, Neil Pearson, Roland Reezigt, Victoria J. Madden, Mark R. Hutchinson, Martin Dunbar, Anneke J. Beetsma, Hayley B. Leake, Pete Moore, Laura Simons, Lauren Heathcote, Cormac Ryan, Carolyn Berryman, Amelia K. Mardon, Benedict M. Wan
- …
