What Physiotherapists Specialized in Orthopedic Manual Therapy Know About Nocebo-Related Effects and Contextual Factors: Findings From a National Survey.
conditioning
contextual factors
expectation
nocebo effect
pain
physiotherapy (MeSH)
placebo effects
survey
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
07
2020
accepted:
25
09
2020
entrez:
16
11
2020
pubmed:
17
11
2020
medline:
17
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge of orthopedic manual therapists (OMTs) regarding context factors (CFs) capable of triggering nocebo effects during the treatment and how this knowledge is related to their socio-demographic features. A cross-sectional online survey. National. A 20 items questionnaire composed by open-ended and closed single-choice questions was administered to explore: (a) socio-demographic variables (10 questions); (b) the relation between different CFs and nocebo-related effects (2 questions); and (c) the knowledge of participants about nocebo-related effects and how they managed them in the clinical practice (8 questions). 1288 OMTs were recruited from the database of the Master in Rehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MRDM) of the University of Genova from March to May 2019. Inclusion criteria were: (a) to possess a valid email account; (b) to understand and use as a native language the Italian; (c) to be graduated as OMTs; and (d) to be employed as physiotherapists specialized-OMTs during the survey. 791 responses were received (61.4%); 473 of them were male (59.8%), with an average age of 31.0 ± 7.1 years. OMTs defined nocebo-related effects as the psychosocial context effects around therapy and patient with specific biological bases (72.2%). OMTs know that their clinical practice is pervaded by nocebo-related effects (42.5%), triggered by CFs. Participants communicated nocebo-related effects balancing the positive features of the therapy with the negative ones (50.9%), during the decision of the therapeutic plan (42.7%). They reported associative learning as the main mechanism involved in nocebo-related effects (28.8%). OMTs taught and trained patient's strategies to manage nocebo-related effects (39.6%) through an evaluation and correction of patient's anxieties, doubts and expectations (37.7%). OMTs most frequently considered themselves to have a "medium" education about nocebo-related effects (48.2%) and that their management should be taught during bachelor (78.6%). OMTs believed that nocebo-related effects were present in their clinical practice and that they can be triggered by CFs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33192904
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582174
pmc: PMC7606996
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
582174Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Rossettini, Geri, Palese, Marzaro, Mirandola, Colloca, Fiorio, Turolla, Manoni and Testa.
Références
Arch Physiother. 2020 Jun 11;10:11
pubmed: 32537245
Physiother Theory Pract. 2016 Jul;32(5):332-55
pubmed: 27351541
Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(4):204-210
pubmed: 29895014
Sci Transl Med. 2011 Feb 16;3(70):70ra14
pubmed: 21325618
J Physiother. 2012;58(3):165-72
pubmed: 22884183
J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10 Suppl 1:S71-83
pubmed: 15630824
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016 Nov;24(11):1850-1857
pubmed: 27338671
Physiother Can. 2008 Fall;60(4):349-57
pubmed: 20145767
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 30;13(11):e0208159
pubmed: 30500838
Arch Physiother. 2018 Feb 17;8:3
pubmed: 29468089
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;139:379-406
pubmed: 30146055
Phys Ther. 2014 Apr;94(4):477-89
pubmed: 24309616
J Clin Nurs. 2019 May;28(9-10):1966-1978
pubmed: 30706543
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014 Jun;10(6):348-55
pubmed: 24567065
Am J Clin Hypn. 2015 Jan;57(3):267-84
pubmed: 25928679
J Med Internet Res. 2002 Apr-Nov;4(2):E13
pubmed: 12554560
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;138:271-283
pubmed: 29681330
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Jun 02;3(1):23-7
pubmed: 24987718
JAMA. 2014 Aug 20;312(7):693-4
pubmed: 25003609
J Physiother. 2012;58(4):215-29
pubmed: 23177224
Man Ther. 2016 Aug;24:65-74
pubmed: 27133031
Pain Rep. 2017 Mar-Apr;2(2):
pubmed: 28971165
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;139:211-231
pubmed: 30146048
Nurs Outlook. 2015 Sep-Oct;63(5):601-6
pubmed: 26211845
Health Promot J Austr. 2017 Mar;28(1):77-80
pubmed: 27266857
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;139:129-157
pubmed: 30146045
Environ Res. 2015 Jul;140:449-55
pubmed: 25981871
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 21;19(1):198
pubmed: 30037339
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 16;147(8):573-7
pubmed: 17938396
Pain Rep. 2017 Mar-Apr;2(2):
pubmed: 29034363
Lancet. 2001 Mar 10;357(9258):757-62
pubmed: 11253970
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013 Mar;12(3):191-204
pubmed: 23449306
Nurse Educ Pract. 2020 Jan;42:102670
pubmed: 31775083
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Dec 3;19(1):431
pubmed: 30509231
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Clin J Pain. 2012 Sep;28(7):602-8
pubmed: 22699134
Pain. 2008 May;136(1-2):211-8
pubmed: 18372113
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;139:255-296
pubmed: 30146050
J Physiother. 2020 Jan;66(1):45-53
pubmed: 31843425
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):554-561
pubmed: 32023375
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 15;9(9):e107665
pubmed: 25222607
Neuroscience. 2016 Dec 3;338:19-26
pubmed: 26827944
Physiol Rev. 2013 Jul;93(3):1207-46
pubmed: 23899563
JAMA. 2012 Feb 8;307(6):567-8
pubmed: 22318275
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jan 22;19(1):27
pubmed: 29357856
Physiother Theory Pract. 2016 Jul;32(5):368-84
pubmed: 27351769
Pain. 2010 Nov;151(2):430-9
pubmed: 20817355
Front Pharmacol. 2019 Feb 13;10:77
pubmed: 30814949
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015 Jul;16(7):403-18
pubmed: 26087681