Pain is a primary symptom driving patients to seek physical therapy, and its attenuation commonly defines a successful outcome. A large body of evidence is dedicated to elucidating the relationship between chronic stress and pain; however, stress is rarely addressed in pain rehabilitation. A physiologic stress response may be evoked by fear or perceived threat to safety, status, or well-being and elicits the secretion of sympathetic catecholamines (epinephrine and norepinepherine) and neuroendocrine hormones (cortisol) to promote survival and motivate success. Cortisol is a potent anti-inflammatory that functions to mobilize glucose reserves for energy and modulate inflammation. Cortisol also may facilitate the consolidation of fear-based memories for future survival and avoidance of danger. Although short-term stress may be adaptive, maladaptive responses (eg, magnification, rumination, helplessness) to pain or non–pain-related stressors may intensify cortisol secretion and condition a sensitized physiologic stress response that is readily recruited. Ultimately, a prolonged or exaggerated stress response may perpetuate cortisol dysfunction, widespread inflammation, and pain. Stress may be unavoidable in life, and challenges are inherent to success; however, humans have the capability to modify what they perceive as stressful and how they respond to it. Exaggerated psychological responses (eg, catastrophizing) following maladaptive cognitive appraisals of potential stressors as threatening may exacerbate cortisol secretion and facilitate the consolidation of fear-based memories of pain or non–pain-related stressors; however, coping, cognitive reappraisal, or confrontation of stressors may minimize cortisol secretion and prevent chronic, recurrent pain. Given the parallel mechanisms underlying the physiologic effects of a maladaptive response to pain and non–pain-related stressors, physical therapists should consider screening for non–pain-related stress to facilitate treatment, prevent chronic disability, and improve quality of life.

Gait dysfunction is a common target for pharmacological, behavioral, and surgical interventions in persons with Parkinson disease. However, the responsiveness of gait speed, that is, clinically important difference, is not well described in the literature for this population. The purpose of this study was to determine the magnitude of meaningful difference in gait speed using multiple methods of assessment and utilizing a large sample of participants inclusive of various stages of disease severity. Gait speed was measured using an instrumented walkway in 324 ambulatory persons with idiopathic Parkinson disease. Cross-sectional analysis of the clinically important difference for gait speed was performed using distribution- and anchor-based approaches: disability (Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale), disease stage (Modified Hoehn and Yahr Scale), and severity (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale). Using distribution-based analyses and effect size metrics, the small important difference in gait speed was 0.06 m/s, moderate was 0.14 m/s, and large was 0.22 m/s. Applying previously established cut-points for small, moderate, and large change in the motor scale score, the associated changes in gait speed that might be expected are 0.02, 0.06, and 0.10 m/s. Our data revealed that the clinically important difference in gait speed among persons with Parkinson disease on medication ranged from 0.05 m/s to 0.22 m/s by distribution-based analysis and ranged from 0.02 m/s to 0.18 m/s per level within the anchor-based metrics. These data will aid in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve gait speed in persons with Parkinson disease.Video Abstract available. See video (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A77) for more insights from the authors.

Manual therapy (MT) is a passive, skilled movement applied by clinicians that directly or indirectly targets a variety of anatomical structures or systems, which is utilized with the intent to create beneficial changes in some aspect of the patient pain experience. Collectively, the process of MT is grounded on clinical reasoning to enhance patient management for musculoskeletal pain by influencing factors from a multidimensional perspective that have potential to positively impact clinical outcomes. The influence of biomechanical, neurophysiological, psychological and nonspecific patient factors as treatment mediators and/or moderators provides additional information related to the process and potential mechanisms by which MT may be effective. As healthcare delivery advances toward personalized approaches there is a crucial need to advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms associated with MT effectiveness.

Background: Psychologically informed practice emphasizes routine identification of modifiable psychological risk factors being highlighted.Objective: The purpose of this study was to test the predictive validity of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) in comparison with single-construct psychological measures for 6-month clinical outcomes.Design: This was an observational, prospective cohort study.Methods: Patients (n=146) receiving physical therapy for low back pain were administered the SBT and a battery of psychological measures (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity scale and work scale [FABQ-PA and FABQ-W, respectively], Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS], 11-item version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK-11], and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) at initial evaluation and 4 weeks later. Treatment was at the physical therapist's discretion. Clinical outcomes consisted of pain intensity and self-reported disability. Prediction of 6-month clinical outcomes was assessed for intake SBT and psychological measure scores using multiple regression models while controlling for other prognostic variables. In addition, the predictive capabilities of intake to 4-week changes in SBT and psychological measure scores for 6-month clinical outcomes were assessed.Results: Intake pain intensity scores (β=.39 to .45) and disability scores (β=.47 to .60) were the strongest predictors in all final regression models, explaining 22% and 24% and 43% and 48% of the variance for the respective clinical outcome at 6 months. Neither SBT nor psychological measure scores improved prediction of 6-month pain intensity. The SBT overall scores (β=.22) and SBT psychosocial scores (β=.25) added to the prediction of disability at 6 months. Four-week changes in TSK-11 scores (β=−.18) were predictive of pain intensity at 6 months. Four-week changes in FABQ-PA scores (β=−.21), TSK-11 scores (β=−.20) and SBT overall scores (β=−.18) were predictive of disability at 6 months.Limitations: Physical therapy treatment was not standardized or accounted for in the analysis.Conclusions: Prediction of clinical outcomes by psychology-based measures was dependent upon the clinical outcome domain of interest. Similar to studies from the primary care setting, initial screening with the SBT provided additional prognostic information for 6-month disability and changes in SBT overall scores may provide important clinical decision-making information for treatment monitoring.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Objectives: The objectives of this study were (1) to examine patients' general expectations for treatment by physical therapists and specific expectations for common interventions in patients with neck pain, and (2) to assess the extent to which the patients' general and specific expectations for treatment, particularly spinal manipulation, affect clinical outcomes. Background: Patient expectations can have a profound influence on the magnitude of treatment outcome across a broad variety of patient conditions. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial of interventions for neck pain. Prior to beginning treatment for neck pain, 140 patients were asked about their general expectations of benefit as well as their specific expectations for individual interventions. Next, we examined how these expectations related to the patients' ratings of the success of treatment at 1 and 6 months after treatment. Results: Patients had positive expectations for treatment by a physical therapist, with more than 80% of patients expecting moderate relief of symptoms, prevention of disability, the ability to do more activity, and to sleep better. The manual therapy interventions of massage (87%) and manipulation (75%) had the highest proportion of patients who expected these interventions to significantly improve neck pain. These were followed by strengthening (70%) and range-of-motion (54%) exercises. Very few patients thought surgery would improve their neck pain (less than 1%). At 1 month, patients who were unsure of experiencing complete pain relief had lower odds of reporting a successful outcome than patients expecting complete relief (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11, 0.99). Believing that manipulation would help and not receiving manipulation lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.72) compared to believing manipulation would help and receiving manipulation. Six months after treatment, having unsure expectations for complete pain relief lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.7), whereas definitely expecting to do more exercise increased the odds of success (OR = 11.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 74.7). Regarding self-reported disability assessed with the Neck Disability Index, patients who believed manipulation would help and received manipulation reported less disability than those who did not believe manipulation would help and both received manipulation (mean difference, −3.8; 95% CI: −5.9, −1.5; P = .006) and did not receive manipulation (mean difference, −5.7; 95% CI: −9.3, −2.1; P = .014). There was also an interaction between time and the expectation for complete relief. Conclusion: General expectations of benefit have a strong influence on clinical outcomes for patients with neck pain. Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 2b-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(7):457–465. Epub 18 March 2013. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4492