Pain Education Training in New York State Physical Therapy Programs: What We Do Well, Where the Gaps Are, and What Can Be Improved

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joe Tatta, M. Spoto, Joseph Lorenzetti
{"title":"Pain Education Training in New York State Physical Therapy Programs: What We Do Well, Where the Gaps Are, and What Can Be Improved","authors":"Joe Tatta, M. Spoto, Joseph Lorenzetti","doi":"10.46743/1540-580x/2022.2063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Essential pain education produces graduates who are competent in contemporary pain management. Despite various educational resources, surveys demonstrate minimal pain content in entry-level physical therapist education programs. This paper examines 1) the learning content of pain education and faculty expertise teaching core pain content, 2) whether pain education content is sufficient to prepare physical therapists to meet the needs of contemporary pain management, and 3) whether standardization of pain education in entry level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs is advantageous. Methods: A pain education survey was developed and sent to all accredited DPT program directors in New York State. The survey included questions related to content and hours devoted to teaching 1) pain science, 2) pain education, 3) psychosocial factors, 4) biopsychosocial model, 5) cognitive-behavioral techniques, 6) advanced faculty training, and 7) challenges adding pain education to the curriculum. Results: In total, 10/15 programs responded. (1) 60% reported they do not have a class dedicated to pain science, (2) 60% reported < 10 hours of pain education (3) 60% reported a class on psychosocial factors, (4) 50% reported < 10 hours on the biopsychosocial model, (5) cognitive- behavioral techniques varied between 10-30 hours, (6) 70% of faculty received advanced training, and (7) challenges to adding pain education included time, a dense curriculum, and pain content is not part of NPTE exam questions. Conclusions and Recommendations: New York State accredited DPT programs include pain education, although content, time, and methods vary greatly. Increased standardization for pain education would create consistency across all U.S. DPT programs. Based on the findings from the study, an investigation should be undertaken to determine if more specific standards for pain education are advantageous for the entry level DPT curricula.","PeriodicalId":45065,"journal":{"name":"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2022.2063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Essential pain education produces graduates who are competent in contemporary pain management. Despite various educational resources, surveys demonstrate minimal pain content in entry-level physical therapist education programs. This paper examines 1) the learning content of pain education and faculty expertise teaching core pain content, 2) whether pain education content is sufficient to prepare physical therapists to meet the needs of contemporary pain management, and 3) whether standardization of pain education in entry level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs is advantageous. Methods: A pain education survey was developed and sent to all accredited DPT program directors in New York State. The survey included questions related to content and hours devoted to teaching 1) pain science, 2) pain education, 3) psychosocial factors, 4) biopsychosocial model, 5) cognitive-behavioral techniques, 6) advanced faculty training, and 7) challenges adding pain education to the curriculum. Results: In total, 10/15 programs responded. (1) 60% reported they do not have a class dedicated to pain science, (2) 60% reported < 10 hours of pain education (3) 60% reported a class on psychosocial factors, (4) 50% reported < 10 hours on the biopsychosocial model, (5) cognitive- behavioral techniques varied between 10-30 hours, (6) 70% of faculty received advanced training, and (7) challenges to adding pain education included time, a dense curriculum, and pain content is not part of NPTE exam questions. Conclusions and Recommendations: New York State accredited DPT programs include pain education, although content, time, and methods vary greatly. Increased standardization for pain education would create consistency across all U.S. DPT programs. Based on the findings from the study, an investigation should be undertaken to determine if more specific standards for pain education are advantageous for the entry level DPT curricula.
纽约州物理治疗项目中的疼痛教育培训:我们做得好,差距在哪里,可以改进什么
目的:基本疼痛教育培养能够胜任当代疼痛管理的毕业生。尽管有各种各样的教育资源,调查显示入门级物理治疗师教育计划中疼痛内容最少。本文考察了1)疼痛教育的学习内容和教师专业知识教学的核心疼痛内容,2)疼痛教育内容是否足以培养物理治疗师满足当代疼痛管理的需求,以及3)入门级物理治疗博士(DPT)课程疼痛教育的标准化是否有利。方法:制定疼痛教育调查并发送给纽约州所有认可的DPT项目主任。调查的问题包括:1)疼痛科学,2)疼痛教育,3)心理社会因素,4)生物心理社会模型,5)认知行为技术,6)高级教师培训,以及7)将疼痛教育纳入课程的挑战。结果:总共有10/15个项目有反应。(1) 60%的人没有专门的疼痛科学课程,(2)60%的人报告疼痛教育少于10小时,(3)60%的人报告心理社会因素课程,(4)50%的人报告生物心理社会模型少于10小时,(5)认知行为技术在10-30小时之间变化,(6)70%的教师接受了高级培训,(7)增加疼痛教育的挑战包括时间,密集的课程,疼痛内容不是NPTE考试问题的一部分。结论和建议:纽约州认可的DPT项目包括疼痛教育,尽管内容、时间和方法差异很大。增加疼痛教育的标准化将在美国所有DPT项目中建立一致性。根据研究结果,应该进行调查,以确定更具体的疼痛教育标准是否有利于入门级DPT课程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信