Content uploaded by Mark Kargela
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Kargela on Jul 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iptp20
Download by: [Nova Southeastern University] Date: 30 June 2016, At: 06:31
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
An International Journal of Physical Therapy
ISSN: 0959-3985 (Print) 1532-5040 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iptp20
Listening is therapy: Patient interviewing from a
pain science perspective
Ina Diener PT, PhD, Mark Kargela PT, DPT, OCS, FAAOMPT & Adriaan Louw
PT, PhD
To cite this article: Ina Diener PT, PhD, Mark Kargela PT, DPT, OCS, FAAOMPT & Adriaan Louw
PT, PhD (2016): Listening is therapy: Patient interviewing from a pain science perspective,
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2016.1194648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2016.1194648
Published online: 28 Jun 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2
View related articles
View Crossmark data
PERSPECTIVE
Listening is therapy: Patient interviewing from a pain science perspective
Ina Diener, PT, PhD
a
, Mark Kargela, PT, DPT, OCS, FAAOMPT
b
, and Adriaan Louw, PT, PhD
c
a
Department of Physical Therapy, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa;
b
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA;
c
International Spine and Pain Institute, Story City, IA, USA
ABSTRACT
The interview of a patient attending physical therapy is the cornerstone of the physical examina-
tion, diagnosis, plan of care, prognosis, and overall efficacy of the therapeutic experience. A
thorough, skilled interview drives the objective tests and measures chosen, as well as provides
context for the interpretation of those tests and measures, during the physical examination.
Information from the interview powerfully influences the treatment modalities chosen by the
physical therapist (PT) and thus also impacts the overall outcome and prognosis of the therapy
sessions. Traditional physical therapy focuses heavily on biomedical information to educate
people about their pain, and this predominant model focusing on anatomy, biomechanics, and
pathoanatomy permeates the interview and physical examination. Although this model may have
a significant effect on people with acute, sub-acute or postoperative pain, this type of examina-
tion may not only gather insufficient information regarding the pain experience and suffering, but
negatively impact a patient’s pain experience. In recent years, physical therapy treatment for pain
has increasingly focused on pain science education, with increasing evidence of pain science
education positively affecting pain, disability, pain catastrophization, movement limitations, and
overall healthcare cost. In line with the ever-increasing focus of pain science in physical therapy, it
is time for the examination, both subjective and objective, to embrace a biopsychosocial
approach beyond the realm of only a biomedical approach. A patient interview is far more than
“just”collecting information. It also is a critical component to establishing an alliance with a
patient and a fundamental first step in therapeutic neuroscience education (TNE) for patients in
pain. This article highlights the interview process focusing on a pain science perspective as it
relates to screening patients, establishing psychosocial barriers to improvement, and pain
mechanism assessment.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 November 2015
Revised 21 March 2016
Accepted 18 April 2016
KEYWORDS
Interview; neuroscience;
pain; pain education;
physical therapy; therapeutic
relationship
Introduction
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (MSKP) is one of the most
disabling health disorders in the world that causes personal,
social, and economic burden (Vos et al, 2012). Our biolo-
gical understanding of chronic MSKP has increased sub-
stantially (Moseley, 2007;Nijsetal,2012), but in the
majority of patients with chronic MSKP and dysfunctions,
biomedical explanations are unable to fully appreciate the
complex clinical picture of pain complaints, disability, and
distress (Sterling and Kenardy, 2008;Yunus,2007). Due to
the complexity of chronic MSKP, a comprehensive biopsy-
chosocial approach is required for assessment and treat-
ment (Gatchel et al, 2007;Kamperetal,2015). One
emerging biopsychosocial treatment increasingly used by
physical therapists (PTs) is therapeutic neuroscience edu-
cation (TNE) (Louw, Diener, Butler, and Puentedura, 2011;
Louw, Diener, Landers, and Puentedura, 2014). TNE as a
treatment, is an educational approach focused on helping a
patient understand their pain experience from a
neurobiology and neurophysiology (neuroscience) per-
spective, with the aim to produce a therapeutic effect
(Louw and Puentedura, 2013). The current best-evidence
supports the therapeutic effect of neuroscience education
with studies showing TNE providing strong evidence for
reducing pain, disability, pain catastrophization, and lim-
ited movement (Louw, Diener, Butler, and Puentedura,
2011; Moseley, 2002; Moseley, 2004; Moseley, Nicholoas,
and Hodges, 2004). In line with the emerging evidence for
TNE, studies associated with the utilization of TNE have
focused on a variety of disorders including: chronic low
back pain (Moseley, 2002; Moseley, 2004;Moseley,
Nicholas, and Hodges, 2004); lumbar surgery (Louw,
Diener, Landers, and Puentedura, 2014; Puentedura et al,
2009); whiplash associated disorders (Van Oosterwijck,
Nijs, Meeus, and Paul, 2011); and chronic fatigue syndrome
(Meeus et al, 2010). With clinical application of TNE to
various conditions, interest also shifted to a greater under-
standing of the educational delivery methods and content
CONTACT Ina Diener, PT, PhD idiener@icon.co.za Stellenbosch University, Department of Physical Therapy, 16 Formosa Street, Stellenbosch 7600,
South Africa.
PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2016.1194648
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
(Gallagher, McAuley, and Moseley, 2013;Louw,2014;
Louw, Diener, Butler, and Puentedura, 2011).
However, with the increased focus on TNE as a
treatment, PTs may have shifted their focus too
much on the treatment, leaving behind very impor-
tant aspects of TNE, such as information gleaned
from the interview and physical examination. In
fact, it could be argued that a skilled interview
which embraces and incorporates a biopsychosocial
approach may be a key first step of a successful TNE
treatment. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how a
patient interview is far more than “just”collecting
information, but rather a critical component to estab-
lishing an alliance with a patient and a fundamental
first step in TNE. Also, this paper does not aim to
describe a detailed, complete interview, but rather
highlights a few key interview issues from a pain
science perspective, like creating a therapeutic alli-
ance, screening patients, establishing psychosocial
barriers to improvement, and assessing pain
mechanisms.
Therapeutic alliance
The alliance between PT and the patient can have a
positive effect on treatment outcome (Ferreira et al,
2013;Halletal,2010). A biopsychosocial approach in
healthcare needs the transformation of the interview
toward patient-centered care, which holds the key to
personal, responsive, and fulfilling communication
between patients and clinicians (Roter, 2000). The
PT therefore, first needs to know how the patient is
doing, their perception of their own problem, how the
problem impacts their life, and vice versa, and how
their lifestyle impacts their problem (Jones and Rivett,
2004;Maitland,1986). If this is not established, there
could easily be a mismatch between the patient and
PT which makes forming a therapeutic relationship
very difficult (Ferreira et al, 2013). Patients have the
right to information from their clinicians and clini-
cians have the obligation to convey it in an under-
standable and useful manner (Oliveira et al, 2012). A
meaningful therapeutic relationship cannot occur
without empathy, the ability to perceive and under-
stand something of the patient’s experience of pain,
vulnerability, suffering, and expression of appropriate
concern. “Empathy is the perceptual ability and cog-
nitive skill that establishes virtue and medical benefi-
cence”, and provides the perceptual basis for clinical
reasoning (Oliveira et al, 2012). By reducing clinical
reasoning to its cognitive components, the larger con-
text of the patient’s situation could be ignored, and
the neurophysiological education approach could fail
to acknowledge that clinical reasoning is grounded in
human perception (Darlow et al, 2013). Furthermore,
a strong therapeutic relationship facilitates collabora-
tive decision making, as it will make PTs aware of
their patients’views and preferred choices (Elwyn,
Edwards, and Kinnersley, 1999). Understanding the
patient’s unique experience is essential to discovery
of the patient-specific beliefs and risk factors that will
serve as the “target”when educating a patient about
the biology and physiology of their pain experience in
a TNE approach (Louw, Diener, Butler, and
Puentedura, 2011; Moseley and Butler, 2015).
During the initial interview, identification of
patient expectation may also help guide the clinical
application of TNE (Louw, Puentedura, and Mintken,
2012; Moseley and Butler, 2015). Specifically, the
exact intervention may not be as important as the
individual expectation for the intervention (Bialosky,
Bishop, and Cleland, 2010;Bishop,Mintken,
Bialosky, and Cleland, 2013; Main, Foster, and
Buchbinder, 2010; Maitland, Hengeveld, Banks, and
English, 2005;Nijsetal,2012). Outcomes, therefore,
may not depend wholly on the type of treatment
provided, but are influenced by individual attitudes
or beliefs regarding the treatment. Manipulation of
expectation is common in the placebo literature and
suggests a causative effect of expectation on pain-
related outcomes that may translate to the clinical
management of musculoskeletal pain conditions
(Louw and Puentedura, 2014). Explaining pain in
neurophysiological terms has been shown to produce
such expectations (Louw, 2014). These expectations
and beliefs are seen as part of the contextual factors
involved in placebo or centrally-mediated mechan-
isms of treatment response.
Communication strategies utilized during the inter-
view should enhance patient participation, contribute
to patient engagement in problem-posing and problem-
solving, and facilitate patient confidence and compe-
tence to make autonomous decisions. With good clin-
ical communication, patients are more satisfied with
the care they receive, there is a better recall and under-
standing of information, and healthcare professionals
experience greater job satisfaction and less work stress
(Bialosky, Bishop, and Cleland, 2010). Patients experi-
encing pain and attending physical therapy may be
particularly vulnerable, and in certain circumstances
are not able, or unwilling, to carry the sole burden of
their medical decisions. Using both active and reflective
listening skills allows the PT to accommodate indivi-
dual patient preferences and help develop and further
patient capacity for autonomous decision making (Hall
et al, 2010).
2I. DIENER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
Screening patients
In line with various national and international efforts for
PTs to gain direct access (Boyles, Gorman, Pinto, and Ross,
2011;Flynn,2003), much attention has focused on training
PTs to screen for risk, and as an initial priority, to do no
harm (Andersson et al, 2010). It is therefore imperative that
PTs also recognize the need to screen individuals suffering
from chronic MSK pain for safety (i.e. red flags) (Figure 1).
Various red flags associated with MSK pain have been
described and are well understood (Downie et al, 2013;
Leerar, Boissonnault, Domholdt, and Roddey, 2007;Ross
and Boissonnault, 2010; Sizer, Brismee, and Cook, 2007).
Screening for red flags in accordance with direct access
standards has also warranted an increased use of review of
systems, to allow for a more comprehensive screen prior to
interview, let alone physical examination and treatment
(Goodman, 2010; Leerar, Boissonnault, Domholdt, and
Roddey, 2007; Ross and Boissonnault, 2010).
Apart from red flags, prior to initiating the interview, the
PT screen for is recommended psychosocial risk factors,
which are also known as yellow flags, as barriers to recovery.
In recent years, it has become apparent that these psycho-
social risk factors may actually be the dominating factor
associated with recovery (Linton and Nordin, 2006;Linton
et al, 2005). The research of Hill et al. (2010 and 2011)
indicates that, although it is important to assess psycholo-
gical distress in patients seeking physical therapy care for
pain, it may be unnecessary to complete multiple question-
naires (e.g. to specifically assess depression, stress, anxiety),
to make this assessment. A simple, straightforward
assessment, such as the short STarT Back Screening Tool
(Hill et al, 2010;Hilletal,2011) or the Short Form Orebro
Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (Linton,
Nicholas, and MacDonald, 2011), prior to the interview
may be all that is required. Both questionnaires may iden-
tify low, medium, or high psychosocial distress as a risk
status (Zimney, Louw, and Puentedura, 2014). This classi-
fication, associated with screening for risk, drives the pro-
posed treatment, including the need to (or not to) include
TNE, as well as the potential extent of the TNE needed. In
the low-risk group, in which pain is associated with low
levels of distress, suitable acute pain management and an
abbreviated TNE may be the only intervention needed
wherethePTmayeducatethepatienttoencourageadap-
tive beliefs and behaviors. Over-investigating and over-
treating this low-risk group may result in worse outcomes
(Graves et al, 2012; Webster, 2013). For the medium-risk
group, in which pain is associated with moderate distress
levels, best practice management is proposed as suitable
pain management, TNE, and targeted functional restora-
tion (Hill et al, 2010;Hilletal,2011). The high-risk group,
in which pain is associated with high distress levels, requires
special attention, directing management to reduce high
levels of fear, anxiety, depressed mood, catastrophizing,
and distress. TNE is well-designed to address these issues
(Louw, Diener, Butler, and Puentedura, 2011;Moseley,
2002; Moseley, Nicholas, and Hodges, 2004;Zimney,
Louw, and Puentedura, 2014), however, the patient may
benefit from additional psychosocial management strate-
gies such as referral to a mental health professional if the PT
Figure 1. Flowchart of the screening process during an interview associated with pain science.
PHYSIOTHERAPYTHEORYANDPRACTICE 3
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
determines that the extent of psychosocial involvement is
beyond their scope of expertise. Motivational interviewing
techniques (Amrhein et al, 2003); careful explanations
regarding biopsychosocial pain mechanisms pertaining to
the individual (Gifford, 1998); exposure training for feared
movements (George and Zeppieri, 2009); and restoration of
normal movement based on the patient’sfears,isthepro-
posed intervention for this group (Hill et al, 2010;Linton,
Nicholas, and MacDonald, 2011).
Traditional biomedical education has been shown
to narrowly frame a PT’s examination and treatment
strictly into biomedical factors and as a result can
have negative effects on the patient’s beliefs and
recommended activity levels (Domenech et al, 2011).
Following a purely biomedical approach will prevent
the PT from appreciating possible psychosocial risk
factors and their contribution to the patient’s presen-
tation which is more reflective of a comprehensive
biopsychosocial approach (Nijs et al, 2012;van
Wilgen et al, 2014). This, coupled with research find-
ings that psychosocial factors often are better predic-
tors of pain, highlights the need for PTs to question
patients to gain a better understanding of their
unique psychosocial risk factors (Carragee, Alamin,
Miller, and Carragee, 2005;Jarviketal,2005).
Cognitive or psychological factors such as fear-avoid-
ance, stress, anxiety, beliefs, expectations, catastrophi-
zation, hypervigilance, depression, and maladaptive
coping should be considered during the interview as
they have been shown to have a moderating effect on
treatment outcomes (Linton, 2000; Main, Foster, and
Buchbinder, 2010;Pincus,Burton,Vogel,andField,
2002; Vlaeyen and Crombez, 1999; Wertli et al,
2014a;Wertlietal,2014b). It is important for the
PT to recognize that there is considerable overlap in
these constructs (Campbell et al, 2013). An example
of this overlap may be a patient demonstrating cata-
strophic thinking as a result of the stress and anxiety
they feel in regard to their condition. The stress and
anxiety may be the product of a stressful workplace, a
punitive spouse, or an employer with poor manage-
ment of workplace injuries. Therefore, lifestyle, and
social factors such as work factors, family factors,
culture, sedentary behavior, sleep disturbance, and
inactivity also are important factors to understand
the psychosocial contributions to the patient presen-
tation (Björck-van Dijken, Fjellman-Wiklund, and
Hildingsson, 2008;Edwards,Fillingim,andKeefe,
2001; Main, Foster, and Buchbinder, 2010;Mogil,
2015). The PT needs to be aware of the sensitive
nature of these topics with some patients and there-
fore needs to use sound clinical judgment on when it
is best to incorporate questioning in these areas. The
initial establishment of a therapeutic alliance with the
patient will ensure that the PT considers their per-
ceived level of rapport and trust with the patient prior
to questioning the patient on sensitive topics the
patient may initially be apprehensive or resistant to
discussing.
Health care professionals can have a strong influence
upon the attitudes and beliefs of patients (Darlow et al,
2013). PTs may influence their patients’understanding
of the source and meaning of symptoms, as well as their
prognostic expectations (Sloan and Walsh, 2010). Such
information and advice could continue to influence the
beliefs of patients for many years (Darlow et al, 2013).
Messages increasing the “threat value of pain”could
result in increased vigilance, worry, guilt when adher-
ence was inadequate, or frustration when protection
strategies failed (Louw, Diener, Landers, and
Puentedura, 2014). Alternatively, messages can provide
reassurance, increase confidence, give helpful advice,
and have an overall positive influence on the approach
to movement and activity (Ferreira et al, 2013;
Hasenbring and Pincus, 2015). Words have emotional
power, and may impact the outcomes of treatment in
medical settings. Studies have shown that orthopedic
words trigger specific emotional reactions in healthy
subjects, which are likely similar in patients with ortho-
pedic conditions (Louw, Diener, Landers, and
Puentedua, 2014; Vranceanu, Elbon, and Ring, 2011).
It is important to choose the best words that may
influence perception of the condition and its causes,
foster effective coping strategies, and ultimately impact
response to treatment. During the clinical interaction, it
is important to pick the most positive words; whether
used to name or describe a condition, provide treat-
ment recommendations, or generally communicate
with patients in order to encourage adaptive beliefs
and behaviors. In some cases, the words, descriptions,
and explanations used during a consultation may in
fact be more advantageous than the actual medical
treatment provided (Louw and Puentedura, 2014;
Melzack, 2001). The PT should be aware of other con-
textual factors in the interview and treatment which
can influence treatment effect or placebo mechanisms
such as characteristics of the treatment (theatrics, visual
complexity, and impressive theoretical explanations),
patient and PT characteristics (status and gender), and
the healthcare setting (home, clinic, hospital, room
setup, threatening anatomical models, and posters).
Traditionally, subjective interview questioning in
musculoskeletal health has focused on biomedical, bio-
mechanical, and pathoanatomical factors (Nijs et al,
2012). While this is helpful, it limits the PT’s under-
standing of the patient’s unique pain experience and
4I. DIENER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
shows disregard for contextual, lifestyle, and cognitive
factors that contribute to an individual’s pain experi-
ence. Kendall, Linton, and Main (1997) have created a
mnemonic that can assist a PT in comprehensive ques-
tioning of psychosocial risk factors in a patient –
ABCDEFW: Attitudes and Beliefs; Behaviors;
Compensation Issues; Diagnosis and Treatment;
Emotions; Family; and Work.
Table 1 displays the category of questioning, possible
starter questions suggested by Gifford (2014), and the
potential information that may be obtained in each
area. These initial questions often require follow-up
questions to clarify information in each category.
Assessing pain
Pain is a normal human experience, but also a powerful
driving force to seek help (Gifford, 2014; Moseley, 2007).
Many patients attending outpatient physical therapy ser-
vices attend on the account of a painful experience.
When patients consult a PT with a primary complaint
of pain, pain needs to be assessed (Breivik et al, 2008).
Traditional models have PTs asking questions about the
location of the pain, duration of the pain, nature of the
pain, quality of the pain, behavior of pain, and even
intensity of the pain (Maitland, Hengeveld, Banks, and
English, 2005). In pain science, it is now well established
that a person experiencing pain develops widespread
brain activity associated with the experience, referred to
as the pain neuromatrix (Melzack, 2001;Moseley,2003).
What ignites the pain neuromatrix and ultimately the
patient’s pain experience is part of the individual nature
of each person’s pain (Puentedura and Louw, 2012).
Traditional models use injury, disease, surgery, or emo-
tional models to showcase the ignition of the pain neu-
romatrix. It should, however, be highlighted that the
pain neuromatrix can be ignited by smell, vision, and
words (Puentedura and Louw, 2012). It is believed that
threatening words may ignite the pain neuromatrix, and
the use (and repetitive use) of the actual word “pain”
may cause and increase the activation of the pain neu-
romatrix (Louw, Diener, Landers, and Puentedura, 2014;
Wilson, Williams, and Butler, 2009). Therefore, assessing
pain needs to be done with caution. Even though a “pain
rating”may be needed for third party payers, the astute
PT should sparingly consider using the word “pain”in
the assessment and be cognisant that the “manner in
which they ask”about pain may influence a pain experi-
ence (Breivik et al, 2008). When considering pain rat-
ings, PTs should also be aware that pain ratings are only
subjective expressions of perceived pain and varies in
different cultures (Edwards, Doleys, Fillingim, and
Lowery, 2001;Fortier,Anderson,andKain,2009), and
gender (Fillingim, 2000; Fillingim et al, 2009).
When assessing a patient’s pain, there is however,
important “other”information that needs to be gath-
ered, as it powerfully guides interpretation of the phy-
sical examination and decisions about treatment and
what pain mechanisms may be dominant in the
patient’s presentation (Nijs et al, 2011; Smart, Blake,
Staines, and Doody, 2010). In line with the emerging
research in pain science, it is now well established that
“pain is not pain.”The biopsychosocial model of pain
science has made scientists and PTs aware that in some
patients the pain experience is predominately driven by
nociceptive information and thus will have a more
nociceptive dominant pain mechanism. In other
patients, nociception by virtue of tissue healing,
becomes less dominant, but biological and physiologi-
cal processes in the peripheral nervous system becomes
a dominant issue in a person’s pain experience resulting
in a possible peripheral neuropathic pain mechanism
(Smart et al, 2012b). In yet another patient, peripheral
nociceptive and neuropathic mechanisms are not the
key issues associated with the development and main-
tenance of the pain experience, but more powerfully
driven by the central nervous system, resulting in a
dominant central pain mechanism (Smart et al,
2012a). The importance of being able to identify
which of these three mechanisms are dominant, are
likely more important clinically than “just asking a
pain rating”(Smart, Blake, Staines, and Doody, 2010;
Smart et al, 2012a; Smart et al, 2012b; Smart et al,
2012c). The aforementioned classification of pain by
Smart et al. (2010 and 2012), has demonstrated an
accurate preliminary classification of nociceptive, per-
ipheral neuropathic, and central pain mechanisms
(Table 2).
Therefore, given the screening proposals in this
paper associated with red flags, psychosocial yellow
flags and pain mechanisms, Figure 1 illustrates a poten-
tial start of a flow diagram associated with a pain
science perspective. The PT who prioritizes TNE as a
treatment option needs both guidance to determine
which patients may be suitable for TNE and what the
proper dosing is of the TNE intervention. Upon screen-
ing for psychosocial risk factors (low, medium or high)
and taking into consideration the dominant pain
mechanism (nociceptive, peripheral neurogenic or cen-
tral), the PT can use that information to firstly, guide
the physical examination and secondly, plan the
treatment.
The physical examination should be based on the
information gathered in the interview (Jones and
Rivett, 2004). It is imperative that PTs, as they gain
PHYSIOTHERAPYTHEORYANDPRACTICE 5
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
Table 1. Potential questions for psychosocial risk factors in a patient utilizing the ABCDEFW criteria.
Topic area Question Information gained
Attitudes and
Beliefs
What do you think is the cause of your pain? ●Fear/avoidance
●Catastrophization
●Maladaptive beliefs
●Passive attitude toward rehabilitation
●Expectations of effect of activity or work on pain
Behaviors What are you doing to relieve your pain? ●Use of extended rest
●Reduced activity levels
●Withdrawal from ADLs and social activities
●Poor sleep
●Boom–bust behavior
●Self-medication –alcohol or other substances
Compensation
Issues
Is your pain placing you in financial difficulties? ●Lack of incentive to return to work
●Disputes over eligibility for benefits, delay in income assistance
●History of previous claims
●History of previous pain and time off work
Diagnosis and
Treatment
You have been seen and examined for your pain?
Are you worried that anything may have been missed?
●Health professional sanctioning disability
●Conflicting diagnoses
●Diagnostic language leading to catastrophizing and fear
●Expectation of “fix”
●Advice to withdrawal from activity and/or job
●Dramatization of back pain by health professional producing
dependency on passive treatments
Emotions Is there anything that is upsetting or worrying you about the
pain at this moment?
●Fear
●Depression
●Irritability
●Anxiety
●Stress
●Social anxiety
●Feeling useless or not needed
Family How does your family react to your pain? ●Over-protective partner/spouse
●Solicitous behavior from spouse
●Socially punitive responses from spouse
●Support from family for return to work
●Lack of support person to talk to
Work How is your ability to work affected by your pain? ●History of manual work
●Job dissatisfaction
●Belief work is harmful
●Unsupportive or unhappy current work environment
●Low educational background
●Low socio-economic status
●Heavy physical demands of work
●Poor workplace management of pain issues
●Lack of interest from employer
Table 2. Clinical recognition of dominating pain mechanisms via signs and symptoms.
Nociceptive
Signs and symptoms easily recognized by clinicians. These symptom and examination clusters indicate individuals that have these features are 100 times
more likely to accurately predict a clinical classification nociceptive pain in patients classified with this type of pain (Smart, Blake et al. 2012)
●Proportionate pain
●Aggravating and easing factors
●Intermittent sharp, dull ache or throb at rest
●No night pain, dysesthesia, burning, shooting or electric
Peripheral neurogenic
Symptoms and sign clusters identified indicating patients are 150 times more likely to have a peripheral neurogenic pain states (Smart, Blake et al. 2012)
●Pain in dermatomal or cutaneous distribution
●Positive neurodynamic tests and palpation (mechanical tests)
●History of nerve pathology or compromise
Central Sensitization
Symptoms and sign clusters identified indicating patients are 486 times more likely to have a central sensitization pain state (Smart, Blake et al. 2012)
●Disproportionate pain
●Disproportionate aggravating and easing factors
●Diffuse palpation tenderness
●Psychosocial issues
6I. DIENER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
clinical experience, adjust their examinations, especially
in regard to pain science (Butler, 2000). For example, in
patients with a more dominant nociceptive input
mechanism with low or even medium risk, a physical
examination can focus more on potential biomedical
and biomechanical issues (often referred to as “high
tech”), contributing to the pain state. In this group of
patients the movement tests may often demonstrate the
typical “on-off”behavior of mechanical or inflamma-
tory-mechanical pain. In contrast, a patient with a high
score of psychosocial risk factors and a dominant cen-
tral pain mechanism should be approached using a
physical examination with less emphasis on biomedical
issues, but rather large, physiological movements, often
referred to as a “low tech”examination (Linton, 1998).
In this group of patients it is often difficult to find “the”
pain of the patients, and the pain provocation move-
ments often do not form an interpretable pattern to
identify the structure causing the pain. A PT should
also consider whether pain reproduction during the
physical examination is an appropriate goal for some-
one in this group as it could create negative associa-
tions of physical therapy examination and treatment
with pain and negatively impact a patient’s perception
of physical therapy care as a result.
The same information regarding psychosocial risk
factors and pain mechanisms can be used to guide the
treatment plan. For example, central sensitization has
been proposed as a key factor in determining if a
patient needs TNE (Louw, 2014; Louw, Puentedura,
and Mintken, 2012; Moseley, 2007), and has high psy-
chosocial risk factors (O’Sullivan, Dankaerts,
O’Sullivan, and O’Sullivan, 2015; Zimney, Louw, and
Puentedura, 2014). This understanding of the impor-
tance of psychosocial factors and pain mechanisms
should guide PTs to “go beyond”typical interview
questions. While traditional interviews focus heavily
on the intensity, duration, behavior and nature of the
patient’s pain, questions more associated with the
patient’s beliefs may be needed. More in-depth ques-
tions should include: the patient’s current beliefs
regarding their pain; their perspective on their pain
experience including treatment effects; and perspective
on their outlook in regards to recovery. Table 3 show-
cases potential questions that may help a PT gain
increased understanding of the patient’s experiences
and beliefs (clinical experience of the authors).
In line with pain assessment, pain neuroscience
research has also brought attention to the potential
different role of body charts (George, Bialosky,
Wittmer, and Robinson, 2007; Wand et al, 2013).
Traditionally upon arrival at a physical therapy clinic
a patient was given a “body chart”and asked to indicate
where they hurt. The intent of the body chart was to
establish the location of the pain (Maitland, 1986). It is
now well established that there are functional and
structural changes in the brain of people struggling
with chronic pain, including structural changes in the
primary somatosensory cortex (S1) (Flor, 2000; Flor,
Braun, Elbert, and Birbuamer, 1997). The reorganiza-
tion of body maps is well studied and reported via brain
scan (Flor, 2000; Lotze and Moseley, 2007). One clinical
manifestation alluded to in regard to altered cortical
maps, is the inability and inaccuracy of patients in
identifying the exact location of their pain (Bray and
Moseley, 2011; Moseley, 2008). In line with this
research it is now proposed that strategies such as two
point discrimination, left/right discrimination, localiza-
tion and body chart drawing may be useful in detecting
cortical changes associated with structural changes of
the brain (Louw, Schmidt, Louw, and Puentedura,
2015; Louw et al, 2015; Luomajoki and Moseley,
2011). Clinically it may be helpful for PTs to reconsider
the use of body charts to develop a potential greater
understanding of the extent of a person’s pain experi-
ence from a cortical representation perspective, poten-
tially influencing physical tests needed as well as
treatment (Catley, Tabor, Wand, and Moseley, 2013).
For example, in a patient with localized, well-defined
pain, it may infer a healthy representation of the
affected body chart, while a more widespread drawing
of a body chart may indicate a reorganization of the
body chart (Figure 2. In the case of the more wide-
spread pain a physical examination should include two-
point discrimination and treatment likely to include
Table 3. Proposed more “in-depth”questions to explore a
patient’s cognitions, beliefs, and experiences regarding their
pain.
Proposed “in-depth”questions
●What do you think is going on with your [fill in area they are seeking help
for]?
●What do you think should be done for your [fill in area they are seeking
help for]?
●Why do you think you still hurt?
●What would it take for you to get better?
●Where do you see yourself in 3 years in regard to [fill in area they are
seeking help for]?
●What have you found to be most helpful for your [fill in area they are
seeking help for]?
●You have obviously seen many people seeking help. What are your
thoughts on this?
●What gives you hope?
●What is your expectation of PT?
●If I could flip a switch and remove all your pain, what things that you
have given up on would you do again?
●How has your pain impacted your family and friends?
●Are you angry at anyone about your [fill in area they are seeking help
for]? Tell me about it.
●Has anyone made you feel like you’re “just making it up”or “it’s in your
head?”Tell me about it.
PHYSIOTHERAPYTHEORYANDPRACTICE 7
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
strategies aimed at restoring the cortical maps (i.e.
sensory discrimination) (Catley, Tabor, Wand, and
Moseley, 2013; Luomajoki and Moseley, 2011).
TNE during the interview
Examination findings should be clearly explained and
conveyed to patients with the intent to reduce threat,
share the plan of care and empower the patient.
Traditional biomedical interviews have now expanded
to include well-studied contributing factors shown to
prolong recovery. Given the complexities of pain, this
interview, however, is far more than “just”asking
“where and how much do you hurt?”A skilled inter-
view implies that the interview also helps with educa-
tion, in essence “already”teaching the patient about
their pain experience, including helping change poor
beliefs regarding pain.
Conclusion
The interview, by virtue of creating a therapeutic alli-
ance, prepares the patient for the physical examination
and treatments. An approach to treating patients with
pain and to reduce the burden on society should
include: an initial triage to screen for serious pathology;
identification of the dominant pain mechanism/s (noci-
ceptive, peripheral neurogenic or central sensitization),
and assessment of psychosocial risk factors (Linton,
1998; Linton, 2000). A thorough subjective examination
is key when it comes to the development of a working
hypothesis, which in turn becomes the cornerstone of
an effective plan of care. The subjective interview
should also aim to identify maladaptive beliefs and
behaviors that can be identified as a potential target
of treatment. Traditional biomedical interviews have
now expanded to include well-studied contributing fac-
tors shown to prolong recovery. Furthermore, the inter-
view is centered on the patient, ensuring empathy,
addressing concerns, and taking into consideration
patient expectations. Each PT can agree; listening is
therapy.
References
Amrhein PC, Miller WR, Yahne CE, Palmer M, Fulcher L
2003 Client commitment language during motivational
interviewing predicts drug use outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71: 862–878.
Andersson GB, Chapman JR, Dekutoski MB, Dettori J,
Fehlings MG, Fourney DR, Norvell D, Weinstein JM
2010 Do no harm: The balance of “beneficence”and
“non-maleficence”. Spine 35: S2–S8.
Bialosky JE, Bishop MD, Cleland JA 2010 Individual expecta-
tion: An overlooked, but pertinent, factor in the treatment
of individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain. Physical
Therapy 90: 1345–1355.
Bishop MD, Mintken PE, Bialosky JE, Cleland JA 2013
Patient expectations of benefit from interventions for
neck pain and resulting influence on outcomes. Journal
of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 43: 457–465.
Björck -van Dijken C, Fjellman-Wiklund A, Hildingsson C
2008 Low back pain, lifestyle factors and physical activity:
A population based-study. Journal of Rehabilitation
Medicine 40: 864–869.
Boyles, RE, Gorman I, Pinto D, Ross MD 2011 Physical
therapist practice and the role of diagnostic imaging.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 41:
829–837.
Bray H, Moseley GL 2011 Disrupted working body schema of
the trunk in people with back pain. British Journal of
Sports Medicine 45: 168–173.
Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA,
Romundstad L, Hals EK, Kvarstein G, Stubhaug A 2008
Assessment of pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia 101:
17–24.
Butler DS 2000 The Sensitive Nervous System, Adelaide,
Noigroup.
Campbell P, Bishop A, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Thomas E,
Foster NE 2013 Conceptual overlap of psychological con-
structs in low back pain. Pain 154: 1783–1791.
Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL, Carragee JM 2005
Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low
Figure 2. Contrasting body chart representations of pain (√
indicates pain-free areas).
8I. DIENER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
back pain disability and remission: A prospective study in
subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine Journal 5:
24–35.
Catley MJ, Tabor A, Wand BM, Moseley GL 2013 Assessing
tactile acuity in rheumatology and musculoskeletal medi-
cine–How reliable are two-point discrimination tests at the
neck, hand, back and foot? Rheumatology 52: 1454–1461.
Darlow B, Dowell A, Baxter GD, Mathieson F, Perry M, Dean
S 2013 The enduring impact of what clinicians say to
people with low back pain. Annals of Family Medicine
11: 527–534.
Domenech J, Sanchez-Zuriaga D, Segura-Orti E, Espejo-Tor
B, Lison J, 2011 Impact of biomedical and biopsychosocial
training sessions on the attitudes, beliefs, and recommen-
dations of health care providers about low back pain: A
randomised clinical trial. Pain 152: 2557–2563.
Downie A, Williams CM, Henschke N, Hancock MJ, Ostelo
RW, de Vet HC, Macaskill P, Irwig L, van Tulder MW,
Koes BW, Maher CG 2013 Red flags to screen for malig-
nancy and fracture in patients with low back pain:
Systematic review. BMJ 347: f7095.
Edwards CL, Fillingim RB, Keefe F 2001 Race, ethnicity and
pain. Pain 94: 133–137.
Edwards RR, Doleys DM, Fillingim RB, Lowery D 2001
Ethnic differences in pain tolerance: Clinical implications
in a chronic pain population. Psychosomatic Medicine 63:
316–323.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kennersley P 1999 Shared decision-mak-
ing in primary care: The neglected second half of the con-
sultation. British Journal of General Practice 49: 477–482.
Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Maher CG, Refshaug KM, Latimer
J, Adams RD 2013 The therapeutic alliance between clin-
icians and patients predicts outcome in chronic low back
pain. Physical Therapy 93: 470–478.
Fillingim RB 2000 Sex, gender, and pain: women and men
really are different. Current Review of Pain 4: 24–30.
Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams
B, Riley JL 2009 Sex, gender, and pain: A review of recent
clinical and experimental findings. Journal of Pain 10:
447–485.
Flor H 2000 The functional organization of the brain in
chronic pain. Progress in Brain Research 129: 313–322.
Flor H, Braun C, Elbert T, Birbuamer N 1997 Extensive
reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in chronic
back pain patients. Neuroscience Letters 224: 5–8.
Flynn TW 2003 Direct access: The time has come for action.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 33:
102–103.
Fortier MA, Anderson CT, Kain ZN 2009 Ethnicity matters
in the assessment and treatment of children’s pain.
Pediatrics 124: 378–380.
Gallagher L, McAuley J, Moseley GL 2013 A randomized-
controlled trial of using a book of metaphors to reconcep-
tualize pain and decrease catastrophizing in people with
chronic pain. Clinical Journal of Pain 29: 20–25.
Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, Fuchs PN, Turk DC 2007
The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: Scientific
advances and future directions. Psychological Bulletin 133:
581–624.
George SZ, Bialosky JE, Wittmer VT, Robinson ME 2007 Sex
differences in pain drawing area for individuals with
chronic musculoskeletal pain. Journal of Orthopaedic and
Sports Physical Therapy 37: 115–121.
George SZ, Zeppieri G 2009 Physical therapy utilization of
graded exposure for patients with low back pain. Journal
of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 39: 496–
505.
Gifford LS 1998 Pain, the tissues and the nervous system.
Physiotherapy 84: 27–33.
Gifford LS 2014 Aches and Pain, Cornwall, Wordpress.
Goodman CC 2010 Screening for gastrointestinal, hepatic/
biliary, and renal/urologic disease. Journal of Hand
Therapy 23: 140–157.
Hall AM, Ferreira ML, Clemson L, Ferreira P, Latimer J,
Maher CG 2010 The influence of the therapist-patient
relationship on treatment outcome in physical rehabilita-
tion: A systematic review. Physical Therapy 90: 1099–1110.
Hasenbring MI, Pincus T 2015 Effective reassurance in pri-
mary care of low back pain: What messages from clinicians
are most beneficial at early stages? Clinical Journal of Pain
31: 133–136.
Hill JC, Vohora K, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Hay EM 2010
Comparing the STarT back screening tool’ssubgroup allo-
cation of individual patients with that of independent
clinical experts. Clinical Journal of Pain 26: 783–787.
Hill JC, Whitehurst DGT, Lewis M, Bryan S, Dunn KM,
Foster NE, Konstantinou K, Main CJ, Mason E,
Somerville S, Sowden G, Vohora K, Hay EM 2011
Comparison of stratified primary care management for
low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): A
randomised controlled trial. Lancet 378: 1560–1571.
Jarvik JG, Hollingworth W, Heagerty PJ, Haynor DR, Boyko
EJ, Deyo RA 2005 Three-year incidence of low back pain
in an initially asymptomatic cohort: Clinical and imaging
risk factors. Spine 30: 1541–1549.
Jones MA, Rivett DA 2004 Clinical reasoning for manual
therapists, Edinburgh, Butterworth Heinemann.
Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets,RJ, Ostelo RW,
Guzman J, van Tulder MW, 2015 Multidisciplinary biopsy-
chosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane
systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 350: h444.
Kendall NA, Linton SJ, Main C 1997 Guide to Assessing
Psychosocial Yellow Flags in Acute Low Back Pain: Risk
Factors for Long-term Disability and Work Loss. Accident
Rehabilitation & Compensation Insurance Corporation of
New Zealand and the National Health Committee,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Leerar PJ, Boissonnault W, Domholdt E, Roddey T 2007
Documentation of red flags by physical therapists for
patients with low back pain. Journal of Manual and
Manipulative Therapy 15: 42–49.
Linton SJ 1998 The socioeconomic impact of chronic back
pain: Is anyone benefiting? Pain 75: 163–168.
Linton SJ 2000 A review of psychological risk factors in back
and neck pain. Spine 25: 1148–1156.
Linton SJ, Boersma K, Jansson M, Svard L, Botvalde M, 2005
The effects of cognitive-behavioral and physical therapy
preventive interventions on pain-related sick leave: A ran-
domized controlled trial. Clinical Journal of Pain 21: 109–
119.
Linton SJ, Nicholas M, MacDonald S 2011 Development of a
short form of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening
Questionnaire. Spine 36: 1891–1895.
PHYSIOTHERAPYTHEORYANDPRACTICE 9
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
Linton SJ Nordin E 2006 A 5-year follow-up evaluation of the
health and economic consequences of an early cognitive
behavioral intervention for back pain: A randomized, con-
trolled trial. Spine 31: 853–858.
Lotze M, Moseley GL 2007 Role of distorted body image in
pain. Current Rheumatology Reports 9: 488–496.
Louw A 2014 Therapeutic neuroscience education via e-mail:
a case report. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 30: 588–
596.
Louw A, Diener I, Butler DS, Puentedura EJ 2011 The effect
of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and
stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 92: 2041–2056.
Louw A, Diener I, Landers MR, Puentedura EJ 2014
Preoperative pain neuroscience education for lumbar radi-
culopathy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial with
1-year follow-up. Spine 39: 1449–1457.
Louw A, Diener I, Puentedura E 2014 Comparison of termi-
nology in patient education booklets for lumbar surgery.
International Journal of Health Sciences 2: 47–56.
Louw A, Farrell K, Wettach L, Uhl J, Majkowski K, Welding
M 2015 Immediate effects of sensory discrimination for
chronic low back pain: A case series. New Zealand Journal
of Physiotherapy 43: 58–63.
Louw A, Puentedura E 2013 Therapeutic Neuroscience
Education, Minneapolis, OPTP.
Louw A, Puentedura E 2014 Therapeutic Neuroscience
Education, Pain, Physiotherapy and the Pain
Neuromatrix. International Journal of Health Sciences 2:
33–45.
Louw A, Puentedura EJ, Mintken P 2012 Use of an abbre-
viated neuroscience education approach in the treatment
of chronic low back pain: a case report. Physiotherapy
Theory and Practice 28: 50–62.
Louw A, Schmidt SG, Louw C, Puentedura EJ 2015 Moving
without moving: Immediate management following lumbar
spine surgery using a graded motor imagery approach: A
case report. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 31: 509–517.
Luomajoki H, Moseley GL 2011 Tactile acuity and lumbo-
pelvic motor control in patients with back pain and
healthy controls. British Journal of Sports Medicine 45:
437–440.
Main CJ, Foster N, Buchbinder R 2010 How important are
back pain beliefs and expectations for satisfactory recovery
from back pain? Best practice and research. Clinical
Rheumatology 24: 205–217.
Maitland GD 1986 Vertebral Manipulation, London,
Butterworths.
Maitland GD, Hengeveld E, Banks K, English K 2005
Maitland’s vertebral manipulation, 7th ed. London,
Elsevier.
Meeus M, Nijs J, Van Oosterwijck J, Van Alsenoy V, Truijen
S 2010 Pain physiology education improves pain beliefs in
patients with chronic fatigue syndrome compared with
pacing and self-management education: A double-blind
randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 91: 1153–1159.
Melzack R 2001 Pain and the neuromatrix in the brain.
Journal of Dental Education 65: 1378–1382.
Mogil JS 2015 Social modulation of and by pain in humans
and rodents. Pain 156 Suppl 1: S35–S41.
Moseley GL 2002 Combined physiotherapy and education is
efficacious for chronic low back pain. Australian Journal of
Physiotherapy 48: 297–302.
Moseley GL 2003 A pain neuromatrix approach to patients
with chronic pain. Manual Therapy 8: 130–140.
Moseley GL 2004 Evidence for a direct relationship between
cognitive and physical change during an education inter-
vention in people with chronic low back pain. European
Journal of Pain 8: 39–45.
Moseley GL 2007 Reconceptualising pain acording to modern
pain sciences. Physical Therapy Reviews 12: 169–178.
Moseley GL 2008 I can’t find it! Distorted body image and
tactile dysfunction in patients with chronic back pain. Pain
140: 239–243.
Moseley GL Butler DS 2015 Fifteen years of explaining pain:
The past, present, and future. Journal of Pain 16: 807–813.
Moseley GL, Nicholas MK, Hodges PW 2004 A randomized
controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in
chronic low back pain. Clinical Journal of Pain 20: 324–330.
Nijs J, Roussel N, van Wilgen CP, Koke A, Smeets R 2012
Thinking beyond muscles and joints: Therapists’and
patients’attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic musculos-
keletal pain are key to applying effective treatment. Manual
Therapy 18: 96–102.
Nijs J, van Wilgen CP, Van Oosterwijck J, van Ittersum M,
Meeus M 2011 How to explain central sensitization to
patients with ‘unexplained’chronic musculoskeletal pain:
Practice guidelines. Manual Therapy 16: 413–418.
Oliveira VC, Refshauge KM, Ferreira ML, Pinto RZ,
Beckenkamp PR, Negrao Filho RF, Ferreira PH 2012
Communication that values patient autonomy is associated
with satisfaction with care: A systematic review. Journal of
Physiotherapy 58: 215–229.
O’Sullivan K, Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan L, O’Sullivan PB 2015
Cognitive functional therapy for disabling nonspecific
chronic low back pain: Multiple case-cohort study.
Physical Therapy 95: 1478–1488.
Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP 2002 A systematic review
of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in
prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine 27: E109–E120.
Puentedura EJ, Brooksby CL, Wallmann HW, Landers MR
2009 Rehabilitation following lumbosacral percutaneous
nucleoplasty: a case report. Journal of Orthopaedics and
Sports Physical Therapy 40: 214–224.
Puentedura EJ, Louw A 2012 A neuroscience approach to
managing athletes with low back pain. Physical Therapy in
Sport 13: 123–133.
Ross MD, Boissonnault WG 2010 Red flags: To screen or not
to screen? Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy 40: 682–684.
Roter D 2000 The medical visit context of treatment deci-
sion-making and the therapeutic relationship. Health
Expectations 3: 17–25.
Sizer PS, Brismee JM, Cook CE 2007 Medical screening for
red flags in the diagnosis and management of musculoske-
letal spine pain. Pain Practice 7: 53–71.
Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Doody C 2010 Clinical indi-
cators of ‘nociceptive’,‘peripheral neuropathic’and ‘cen-
tral’mechanisms of musculoskeletal pain. A Delphi survey
of expert clinicians. Manual Therapy 15: 80–87.
Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Doody C 2012 Self-reported
pain severity, quality of life, disability, anxiety and
10 I. DIENER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
depression in patients classified with ‘nociceptive’,‘periph-
eral neuropathic’and ‘central sensitisation’pain. The dis-
criminant validity of mechanisms-based classifications of
low back (+/-leg) pain. Manual Therapy 17: 119–125.
Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Thacker M, Doody C 2012a
Mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain:
Part 1 of 3: Symptoms and signs of central sensitisation in
patients with low back (+/-leg) pain. Manual Therapy 17:
336–344.
Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Thacker M, Doody C 2012b
Mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain:
Part 2 of 3: Symptoms and signs of peripheral neuropathic
pain in patients with low back (+/-leg) pain. Manual
Therapy 17: 345–351.
Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Thacker M, Doody C 2012c
Mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain:
Part 3 of 3: Symptoms and signs of nociceptive pain in
patients with low back (+/- leg) pain Manual Therapy 17:
352–357.
Sterling M, Kenardy J 2008 Physical and psychological
aspects of whiplash. Important considerations for primary
care asessment. Manual Therapy 13: 93–102.
Van Oosterwijck J, Nijs J, Meeus M, Truijen S, Craps J, Van
den Keybus N, Paul L 2011 Pain neurophysiology educa-
tion improves cognitions, pain thresholds, and movement
performance in people with chronic whiplash: A pilot
study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development 48: 43–58.
van Wilgen P, Beetsma A, Neels H, Roussel N, Nijs J, 2014
Physical therapists should integrate illness perceptions in
their assessment in patients with chronic musculoskeletal
pain; a qualitative analysis. Manual Therapy 19: 229–234.
Vlaeyen JW, Crombez G 1999 Fear of movement/(re)injury,
avoidance and pain disability in chronic low back pain
patients. Manual Therapy 4: 187–195.
Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C,
Ezzati M, Shibuya K, Salomon JA, Abdalla S, Aboyans V,
Abraham J, Ackerman I, Aggarwal R, Ahn SY, Ali MK,
Alvarado M, Anderson HR, Anderson LM, Andrews KG,
Atkinson C, Baddour LM, Bahalim AN, Barker-Collo S,
Barrero LH, Bartels DH, Basanez MG, Baxter A, Bell ML,
Benjamin EJ, Bennett D, Bernabe E, Bhalla K, Bhandari B,
Bikbov B, Bin Abdulhak A, Birbeck G, Black JA, Blencowe
H, Blore JD, Blyth F, Bolliger I, Bonaventure A, Boufous S,
Bourne R, Boussinesq M, Braithwaite T, Brayne C, Bridgett
L, Brooker S, Brooks P, Brugha TS, Bryan-Hancock C,
Bucello C, Buchbinder R, Buckle G, Budke CM, Burch
M, Burney P, Burstein R, Calabria B, Campbell B, Canter
CE, Carabin H, Carapetis J, Carmona L, Cella C, Charlson
F, Chen H, Cheng AT, Chou D, Chugh SS, Coffeng LE,
Colan SD, Colquhoun S, Colson KE, Condon J, Connor
MD, Cooper LT, Corriere M, Cortinovis M, de Vaccaro
KC, Couser W, Cowie BC, Criqui MH, Cross M,
Dabhadkar KC, Dahiya M, Dahodwala N, Damsere-Derry
J, Danaei G, Davis A, De Leo D, Degenhardt L, Dellavalle
R, Delossantos A, Denenberg J, Derrett S, Des Jarlais DC,
Dharmaratne SD, Dherani M, Diaz-Torne C, Dolk H,
Dorsey ER, Driscoll T, Duber H, Ebel B, Edmond K,
Elbaz A, Ali SE, Erskine H, Erwin PJ, Espindola P,
Ewoigbokhan SE, Farzadfar F, Feigin V, Felson DT,
Ferrari A, Ferri CP, Fevre EM, Finucane MM, Flaxman
S, Flood L, Foreman K, Forouzanfar MH, Fowkes FG,
Franklin R, Fransen M, Freeman MK, Gabbe BJ, Gabriel
SE, Gakidou E, Ganatra HA, Garcia B, Gaspari F, Gillum
RF, Gmel G, Gosselin R, Grainger R, Groeger J, Guillemin
F, Gunnell D, Gupta R, Haagsma J, Hagan H, Halasa YA,
Hall W, Haring D, Haro JM, Harrison JE, Havmoeller R,
Hay RJ, Higashi H, Hill C, Hoen B, Hoffman H, Hotez PJ,
Hoy D, Huang JJ, Ibeanusi SE, Jacobsen KH, James SL,
Jarvis D, Jasrasaria R, Jayaraman S, Johns N, Jonas JB,
Karthikeyan G, Kassebaum N, Kawakami N, Keren A,
Khoo JP, King CH, Knowlton LM, Kobusingye O,
Koranteng A, Krishnamurthi R, Lalloo R, Laslett LL,
Lathlean T, Leasher JL, Lee YY, Leigh J, Lim SS, Limb E,
Lin JK, Lipnick M, Lipshultz SE, Liu W, Loane M, Ohno
SL, Lyons R, Ma J, Mabweijano J, MacIntyre MF,
Malekzadeh R, Mallinger L, Manivannan S, Marcenes W,
March L, Margolis DJ, Marks GB, Marks R, Matsumori A,
Matzopoulos R, Mayosi BM, McAnulty JH, McDermott
MM, McGill N, McGrath J, Medina-Mora ME, Meltzer
M, Mensah GA, Merriman TR, Meyer AC, Miglioli V,
Miller M, Miller TR, Mitchell PB, Mocumbi AO, Moffitt
TE, Mokdad AA, Monasta L, Montico M, Moradi-Lakeh
M, Moran A, Morawska L, Mori R, Murdoch ME,
Mwaniki MK, Naidoo K, Nair MN, Naldi L, Narayan
KM, Nelson PK, Nelson RG, Nevitt MC, Newton CR,
Nolte S, Norman P, Norman R, O’Donnell M, O’Hanlon
S, Olives C, Omer SB, Ortblad K, Osborne R, Ozgediz D,
Page A, Pahari B, Pandian JD, Rivero AP, Patten SB,
Pearce N, Padilla RP, Perez-Ruiz F, Perico N, Pesudovs
K, Phillips D, Phillips MR, Pierce K, Pion S, Polanczyk GV,
Polinder S, Pope CA, 3rd, Popova S, Porrini E, Pourmalek
F, Prince M, Pullan RL, Ramaiah KD, Ranganathan D,
Razavi H, Regan M, Rehm JT, Rein DB, Remuzzi G,
Richardson K, Rivara FP, Roberts T, Robinson C, De
Leon FR, Ronfani L, Room R, Rosenfeld LC, Rushton L,
Sacco RL, Saha S, Sampson U, Sanchez-Riera L, Sanman E,
Schwebel DC, Scott JG, Segui-Gomez M, Shahraz S,
Shepard DS, Shin H, Shivakoti R, Singh D, Singh GM,
Singh JA, Singleton J, Sleet DA, Sliwa K, Smith E, Smith
JL, Stapelberg NJ, Steer A, Steiner T, Stolk WA, Stovner LJ,
Sudfeld C, Syed S, Tamburlini G, Tavakkoli M, Taylor HR,
Taylor JA, Taylor WJ, Thomas B, Thomson WM,
Thurston GD, Tleyjeh IM, Tonelli M, Towbin JA,
Truelsen T, Tsilimbaris MK, Ubeda C, Undurraga EA,
van der Werf MJ, van Os J, Vavilala MS,
Venketasubramanian N, Wang M, Wang W, Watt K,
Weatherall DJ, Weinstock MA, Weintraub R, Weisskopf
MG, Weissman MM, White RA, Whiteford H, Wiersma
ST, Wilkinson JD, Williams HC, Williams SR, Witt E,
Wolfe F, Woolf AD, Wulf S, Yeh PH, Zaidi AK, Zheng
ZJ, Zonies D, Lopez AD, Murray CJ, AlMazroa MA,
Memish ZA 2012 Years lived with disability (YLDs) for
1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: A
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
2010. Lancet 380: 2163–2196.
Vranceanu A Elbon M, Ring D 2011 The emotive impact of
orthopedic words. Journal of Hand Therapy 24: 112–117.
PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE 11
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
WandBM,KeevesJ,BougoinC,GeorgePJ,SmithAJ,O’Connell
NE, Moseley GL 2013 Mislocalization of sensory information
in people with chronic low back pain: A preliminary investiga-
tion. Clinical Journal of Pain 29: 737–743.
Wertli MM, Eugster R, Held U, Steurer J, Kofmehl R, Weiser S
2014a Catastrophizing-A prognostic factor for outcome in
patients with low back pain: A systematic review. Spine
Journal 14: 2639–2657.
Wertli MM, Rasmussen-Barr E, Weiser S, Bachmann LM,
Brunner F 2014b The role of fear avoidance beliefs as a prog-
nostic factor for outcome in patients with nonspecific low back
pain: A systematic review. Spine Journal 14: 816–836.
Wilson D, Williams M, Butler D 2009 Language and the pain
experience. Physiotherapy Research International 14: 56–65.
Yunus MB 2007 Role of central sensitization in symptoms
beyond muscle pain, and the evaluation of a patient with
widespread pain. Best practice and research. Clinical
Rheumatology 21: 481–497.
Zimney K, Louw A, Puentedura EJ 2014 Use of Therapeutic
Neuroscience Education to address psychosocial factors asso-
ciated with acute low back pain: a case report. Physiotherapy
Theory and Practice 30: 202–209.
12 I. DIENER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 06:31 30 June 2016
