Chronic pelvic pain in women is a debilitating, costly condition often treated by physical therapists. The etiology of this condition is multifactorial and poorly understood, given the complex interplay of muscles, bones, and soft tissue that comprise the pelvis. There are few guidelines directing treatment interventions for this condition. In the last decade, several investigators have highlighted the role of psychological variables in conditions such as vulvodynia and painful bladder syndrome. Pain-related fear is the focus of the fear-avoidance model (FAM) of pain, which theorizes that some people are more likely to develop and maintain pain after an injury because of their emotional and behavioral responses to pain. The FAM groups people into 2 classes on the basis of how they respond to pain: people who have low fear, confront pain, and recover from injury and people who catastrophize pain-a response that leads to avoidance/escape behaviors, disuse, and disability. Given the presence of pain-related cognitions in women with chronic pelvic pain, including hypervigilance, catastrophizing, and anxiety, research directed toward the application of the FAM to guide therapeutic interventions is warranted. Isolated segments of the FAM have been studied to theorize why traditional approaches (ie, medications and surgery) may not lead to successful outcomes. However, the explicit application of the FAM to guide physical therapy interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain is not routine. Integrating the FAM might direct physical therapists' clinical decision making on the basis of the pain-related cognitions and behaviors of patients. The aims of this article are to provide information about the FAM of musculoskeletal pain and to provide evidence for the relevance of the FAM to chronic pelvic pain in women.

The purpose of this paper was to examine the relationship of sex and pain-related fear in pain intensity reports to thermal stimuli and whether sex differences in reported pain intensity were mediated by pain-related fear. 177 participants, 124 female (23.5 ± 4.5 years old), filled out a demographic and fear of pain questionnaire (FPQ-III). Experimental pain testing was performed using thermal stimuli applied to the lower extremity. Participants rated the intensity of pain using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Independent t-tests, Sobel's test, and linear regression models were performed to examine the relationships between sex, fear of pain, and pain sensitivity. We found significant sex differences for thermal pain threshold temperatures (t = 2.04,  P = 0.04) and suprathreshold pain ratings for 49°C (t = −2.12,  P = 0.04) and 51°C (t = −2.36,  P = 0.02). FPQ-severe score mediated the effect of suprathreshold pain ratings of 49° (t = 2.00,  P = 0.05), 51° (t = 2.07,  P = 0.04), and pain threshold temperatures (t = −2.12,  P = 0.03). There are differences in the pain sensitivity between sexes, but this difference may be mediated by baseline psychosocial factors such as fear of pain.

IntroductionThe majority of Indian women have a poor dietary folate and vitamin B12 intake resulting in their chronically low vitamin status, which contributes to anaemia and the high incidence of folate-responsive neural-tube defects (NTDs) in India. Although many countries have successfully deployed centrally-processed folate-fortified flour for prevention of NTDs, inherent logistical problems preclude widespread implementation of this strategy in India. Because tea—the second most common beverage worldwide (after water)—is consumed by most Indians every day, and appeared an ideal vehicle for fortification with folate and vitamin B12, we determined if daily consumption of vitamin-fortified tea for 2 months could benefit young women of childbearing-age in Sangli, India.MethodsWomen (average age=20±2 SD) used teabags spiked with therapeutic doses of 1 mg folate pluseither 0.1 mg vitamin B12 (Group-1, n=19) or 0.5 mg vitamin B12 (Group-2, n=19), or mock-fortified teabags (Group-0, n=5) to prepare a cup of tea every day for 2 months, following which their pre-intervention and post-intervention serum vitamin and haemoglobin concentrations were compared.ResultsMost women had baseline anaemia with low-normal serum folate and below-normal serum vitamin B12 levels. After 2 months, women in both Group-1 and Group-2 exhibited significant increases in mean differences in pre-intervention versus post-intervention serum folate levels of 8.37 ng/mL (95% CIs 5.69 to 11.04, p<0.05) and 6.69 ng/mL (95% CI 3.93 to 9.44, p<0.05), respectively; however, Group-0 experienced an insignificant rise of 1.26 ng/mL (95% CI –4.08 to 0.16). In addition, over one-half and two-thirds of women in Group-1 and Group-2, respectively, exhibited increases in serum vitamin B12 levels over 300 pg/mL. There was also a significant post-interventional increase in the mean haemoglobin concentration in Group-1 of 1.45 g/dL (95% CI 0.64 to 2.26, p=0.002) and Group-2 of 0.79 g/dL (95% CI 0.11 to 1.42, p=0.027), which reflected a bona fide clinical response.ConclusionTea is an outstanding scalable vehicle for fortification with folate and vitamin B12 in India, and has potential to help eliminate haematological and neurological complications arising from inadequate dietary consumption or absorption of folate and vitamin B12.

BackgroundExpected pain relief from treatment is associated with positive clinical outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Less studied is the influence on outcomes related to the preference of patients and providers for a specific treatment.ObjectivesWe sought to determine how provider and patient preferences for a manual therapy intervention influenced outcomes in individuals with acutely induced low back pain (LBP).Participants and methodsPain-free participants were randomly assigned to one of two manual therapies (joint biased [JB] or constant touch [CT]) 48 hours after completing an exercise protocol to induce LBP. Expectations for pain relief and preferences for treatment were collected at baseline, prior to randomization. Pain relief was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale. All study procedures were conducted in a private testing laboratory at the University of Florida campus.ResultsSixty participants were included in this study. After controlling for preintervention pain intensity, the multivariate model included only preintervention pain (B=0.12, p=0.07) and provider preference (B=3.05, p<0.0001) and explained 35.8% of the variance in postintervention pain. When determining whether a participant met his or her expected pain relief, receiving an intervention from a provider with a strong preference for that intervention increased the odds of meeting a participant’s expected pain relief 68.3 times (p=0.013) compared to receiving any intervention from a provider with no preference. Receiving JB intervention from any provider increased the odds of meeting expected relief 29.7 times (p=0.023). The effect of a participant receiving an intervention they preferred was retained in the model but did not meet the criteria for a significant contribution.ConclusionOur primary findings were that participant and provider preferences for treatment positively influence pain outcomes in individuals with acutely induced LBP, and joint-biased interventions resulted in a greater chance of meeting participants’ expected outcomes. This is contrary to our hypothesis that the interaction of receiving an intervention for which a participant had a preference would result in the best outcome.

Temporal sensory summation of pain (TSSP) is a proxy measure of windup in humans and results in increased ratings of pain caused by a repetitive, low-frequency noxious stimulus. Aftersensations (ASs) are pain sensations that remain after TSSP has been induced. We examined the within-session and across-session variability in TSSP and AS estimation in healthy participants and in participants with exercise-induced muscle pain in order to determine whether the presence of pain affected the stability of TSSP and ASs. TSSP was estimated by application of 10 repetitive, low-frequency (<0.33 Hz) thermal pulses and measured by the simple slope of pain ratings between the first and fifth pulses. ASs were measured by the presence of any remaining pain sensations up to 1 minute after TSSP was induced. TSSP estimation remained moderately stable in pain-free participants and in participants with pain within a single testing session but demonstrated low stability across sessions in pain-free participants. AS estimation was stable for all groups. Estimation of TSSP and ASs using these protocols appears to be a reliable single-session outcome measure in studies of interventions for acute muscle pain and in experimental studies with healthy participants. This article evaluates the reliability of a commonly used method of estimating TSSP and ASs in both healthy participants and in a clinically relevant model of acute pain. These protocols have the potential to be used as single-session outcome measures for interventional studies and in experimental studies.