PosterPDF Available

Usability of the "Mature Organism Model" in comparison to other models - a Critical Appraisal

Authors:
  • Universität zu Lübeck and Sportclinic Zürich

Abstract

The poster is related to our work in the context of the question "Is the MOM superior as an educational tool to other models for analyzing pain mechanisms and their consequences, especially in the Netherlands and in the German-speaking application area?" We used the best available evidence from different databases in addition to a narrative analysis. It corresponds to the style of a critical appraisal and shows the relevance of new research tasks in the field of the use and further development of pain models and theories related to this topic.
Alt A.a, Fassian N.b
a SportClinic Sihlcity, Zürich, CH,
b KU Leuven, BEL
Fig. 1 Mature Organism Model by Louis Gifford Fig. 2 Rehabilitation solving Form by Steiner et al.
Fig. 3 Multi-dimesional load-carriability model
Usability of the "Mature Organism Model" in comparison to other models - Critical Appraisal
Background
Even 23 years after publication of the "mature organism model" (MOM) pain and its consequences, such as disabilities, are still a central
problem in the world. This critical appraisal aims to analyse the clinical and educational usability of the MOM in comparison with other
models. The essential question for developing this work was, "Is the MOM superior as an educational tool to other models for analyzing
pain mechanisms and their consequences, especially in the Netherlands and in the German-speaking application area?"
Method
We conducted a systematically oriented literature search in PubMed, Cochrane and PEDro and additionally via other sources
(books, journals) to identify different models and theories related to multidimensional pain understanding and management. To further
specify the results, we defined the following inclusion criteria: physiotherapeutically applicable models, models related to pain or its
consequences (disabilities), single studies and exclusion criteria: models with biopsychosocial approach, models prior to 1990 and
languages other than English, German and Dutch. We defined two essential factors to recognize the overall usability of the different
models. These include the clinical (tool in practice) vs. the theoretical (tool for education) usability. Secondarily, we analyzed purposes
and domains of the respective models. For this we use the available evidence (tab. 1).
Model
Purpose
Domains
Theoretical
usability
Evidence
MOM
Theoretical analysis and teaching
Pain
High
Gifford 1998, Gifford &
Butler 1997
MCLM
Clinical analysis, patient related specification, therapy
planning
Disability, pain
Low
Bernards et al. 1999,
van Vonderen 2005
RPS
Clinical analysis, patient related specification, therapy
planning
Functionality,
disability, pain
Moderate
Steiner et al. 2002,
Escorpizo et al. 2010
Tab. 1 Comparison of models
Results
We identified two therapeutic analysis models beside the MOM,
which we appraised and compared in terms of their therapeutic
usability and relevance. These included the "rehabilitation problem
solving form” (RPS), the "multi-dimensional load-carriability model”
(MLCM), and the MOM (fig. 1 3). The MOM appears to be an
effective model for theoretical analysis and useful as a teaching tool
for professionals, but no more than other models. The RPS and the
MLCM, in contrast to the MOM, refer not only to pain but also to
disability and functionality. The MOM appears to be less useful as a
clinical analysis model compared to the RPS and MCLM, but at least
as useful as an educational tool.
Conclusion
Models for analyzing the various mechanisms of pain and disability, with less detours, could be more efficient and less confusing in
clinical usability, especially for clinical reasoning or treatment planning. In our view, all models have relevant and different functions for
physiotherapeutic pain management. Although most of the functions of each model overlap, such as the ability to identify multifactorial
causes of pain and their consequences in terms of resilience.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.