Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

An Interprofessional Consensus of Core Competencies for Prelicensure Education in Pain Management: Curriculum Application for Physical Therapy

Marie K. Hoeger Bement, Barbara J. St. Marie, Terry M. Nordstrom, Nicole Christensen, Jennifer M. Mongoven, Ian J. Koebner, Scott M. Fishman, Kathleen A. Sluka
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130346 Published 1 April 2014
Marie K. Hoeger Bement
M.K. Hoeger Bement, PT, PhD, Physical Therapy Department, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara J. St. Marie
B.J. St. Marie, PhD, RN, ANP, GNP, ACHPN, Fairview Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Terry M. Nordstrom
T.M. Nordstrom, PT, EdD, Department of Physical Therapy, Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicole Christensen
N. Christensen, PT, PhD, Department of Physical Therapy, Samuel Merritt University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer M. Mongoven
J.M. Mongoven, MPH, Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California–Davis, Sacramento, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian J. Koebner
I.J. Koebner, MSc, MAOM, LAc, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California–Davis.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott M. Fishman
S.M. Fishman, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California–Davis.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen A. Sluka
K.A. Sluka, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, 1-248 MEB, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 (USA).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Core competencies in pain management for prelicensure health professional education were recently established.1 These competencies represent the expectation of minimal capabilities for graduating health care students for pain management and include 4 domains: multidimensional nature of pain, pain assessment and measurement, management of pain, and context of pain (Appendix 1). The purpose of this article is to advocate for and identify how core competencies for pain can be applied to the professional (entry-level) physical therapist curriculum. By ensuring that core competencies in pain management are embedded within the foundation of physical therapist education, physical therapists will have the core knowledge necessary for offering best care for patients, and the profession of physical therapy will continue to stand with all health professions engaged in comprehensive pain management.

Background

One hundred million adults in America have chronic pain.2 This statistic is greater than the number of individuals affected by diabetes, cancer, and heart disease combined.2,3 Chronic pain management costs the United States more than $600 billion per year in health care costs and lost wages2 and creates major human and economic costs for patients, families, and society.1 Inadequate treatment or mismanagement of pain can cause delays in healing as well as long-lasting changes to the peripheral and central nervous systems.4 The Institute of Medicine published a report on pain in 2011 that highlighted it as a national challenge and recognized the need for a cultural transformation to effectively prevent, assess, treat, and understand pain of all types.2 This report addressed the deficit in pain education across all professions and promoted the inclusion of standardized information about pain within an “interprofessional setting.”2 Specific to physical therapy, a faculty survey of accredited physical therapist education programs in North America revealed 4 hours of pain education as the most frequently reported in the curricula.5 Those findings are contrasted with a study of Canadian health sciences programs wherein the 7 physical therapy programs responding reported a mean of 41 hours in pain education.6

Over the last several decades, the science of pain has made significant advances in both basic science and clinical science domains.7–12 For example, the plasticity in the nociceptive system both at the peripheral nociceptor level—termed peripheral sensitization—and in the central nociceptive pathways—termed central sensitization—is commonly recognized by pain researchers and clinical pain specialists.11,13–15 It is also commonly recognized by researchers and pain clinicians that people with chronic pain have enhanced peripheral and central excitability and simultaneously have reduced central pain inhibition.14,15 Furthermore, the influence of psychosocial factors on the pain experience has been extensively documented in a variety of painful conditions.12,13,16–18 As an example, it has become increasingly clear that pain catastrophizing is a predictor of poor outcomes and that fear of movement limits participation in daily activities and exercise.12,19–22

Expert pain clinicians support a mechanism-based treatment approach to pain that would focus on the underlying nociceptive plasticity peripherally or centrally and further address psychosocial factors that enhance the pain experience.15,23,24 Those individuals with high pain catastrophizing or depression prior to treatment, including both those with acute pain (<3 months' duration) and those with chronic pain (>12 months' duration), did not show improvements and had elevated levels of disability following physical therapy interventions.24 Pain clinicians and the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) define several different pain conditions: (1) nociceptive pain arises from actual or threatened damage to non-neural tissue and is due to activation of nociceptors, (2) neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system, and (3) pain of unknown origin persists in the absence of tissue injury or is out of proportion to the initial insult and is thought to have enhanced central excitability, loss of central inhibition, or both.22,25 Understanding these constructs would assist physical therapists in clinical decision making.

Currently, most physical therapist education programs do not directly address pain science but rather teach management of diseases from a biomechanical approach to the joint or site in question. For example, clinical orthopedic classes are often organized around specific body areas such as the shoulder, knee, or back and address specific tests, manual therapies, and exercises for that particular area. However, patients generally seek medical help, including physical therapy, because of the pain, and nearly all patients have alterations in nociceptive processing and confounding psychosocial factors that need to be addressed. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms, psychosocial constructs, and effective therapies for pain management would improve pain management and quality of life and lower health care costs.26–28

Improving pain education is fundamental for primary care providers, given they play a key role in pain management as the point of entry for most patients.2 Physical therapists are often a point of entry to the health care system for many patients29,30; therefore, adequate pain education will put physical therapists in a unique position to be leaders in the clinical practice of pain management and to facilitate interprofessional pain management health care teams. Physical therapists are increasingly seen as primary care providers, and direct access to physical therapists is a central component of the American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA's) strategic plan, Vision 2020.29

Core Competencies in Pain Management

Core competencies in pain management for prelicensure health professional education were recently established through an interprofessional summit that engaged health care experts.1 The goal of this summit was to identify core competencies in pain management for prelicensure clinical education that can serve as a foundation for the development of comprehensive pain management curricula across all health professions. The structured process took place in 2 phases. The first phase consisted of an executive committee of 7 experts in pain education. The executive committee synthesized current evidence and existing profession-based competencies and developed a draft set of competencies. The second phase consisted of 29 members representing 10 professions who met in person to recommend a set of consensus-based competencies. A 2-day summit for interprofessional consensus on pain management competencies was held in Sacramento, California, in August 2012. Competencies were reviewed as a group, which was followed by small-group discussions led by the executive committee using the World Café model. The full summit group then reassembled to review and discuss each domain and finalize the competencies. A final draft of domains and competencies was sent for review and refinement in October 2012. Additional background and resources to help integrate the interprofessional pain management competency program are available online (see Appendix 2).

The core competencies in pain management intentionally paralleled the framework of the guidelines for pain education published by the IASP in 2012.31 The IASP has established coordinated curriculum guidelines for individual professions, including physical therapy, and an interprofessional curriculum guideline32 (Appendix 2). The curriculum guidelines are outlined around the following content areas: multidimensional nature of pain, pain assessment and measurement, management of pain, and clinical conditions. Furthermore, the interprofessional core competencies summit included key individuals involved in the development of the IASP curriculum guidelines.

The newly established core competencies in pain management facilitate the development of a cohesive and comprehensive foundation for educational programs that can be readily shared among health care teams. When all health care professionals have the same basic expected foundation of pain education, they will be able to improve their practice within their respective disciplines. For example, ensuring that all health care practitioners understand the concept of central sensitization and its impact on chronic pain is likely to expedite clinical decision making. If a patient with chronic pain with central sensitization is prescribed a centrally acting medication, the physical therapists will understand the rationale and impact of this medication on the chronic pain condition. This information includes potential side effects and the impact on nonpharmacological pain approaches implemented by the physical therapist. Ultimately, establishing core competencies for pain education will improve clinical outcomes, regardless of the profession. In support, it has been shown that education of physical therapists in psychosocial risk factors and pain reduced disability for those with the highest risk compared with physical therapists who did not receive the education.33,34 Each profession will contribute its expertise to the 4 domains with the focus of treating the patient in pain.

Description of Each Domain and Relation to Physical Therapy

Although the core competencies apply to prelicensure health professional education across all health professions, the authors explicitly state that they are intended to be flexible and moldable to each profession and each school or curriculum or learning experience that seeks to meet the core competencies as a minimal expected outcome.1 They may be used as a guide for physical therapist educators to evaluate and advance pain education based on the specialized role and needs of the physical therapist student.

Domain 1—Multidimensional Nature of Pain: What Is Pain?

The first domain focuses on the fundamental concepts of pain, including the science, nomenclature, experience of pain, and pain's impact on the individual and society. It is necessary to understand the complex biological and psychosocial nature of pain to adequately manage pain. In physical therapy, this knowledge would relate to understanding the basic science of pain and pain management approaches, the biopsychosocial model of pain, and the multidimensional nature of pain. The biological science includes understanding neural plasticity and sensitization, molecular biological changes, and genetics.7–9 The psychological components include how pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, and self-efficacy would affect treatment choices and the underlying biological substrates of these components.12 Social concerns go beyond the individual and include the impact on the family structure and support, health care systems, and finances, as well as the impact of sociopolitical factors in our society on social and cultural beliefs and family support and pain.12,35 Understanding the complex multidimensional nature of pain will allow physical therapists the opportunity to provide a patient-centered interprofessional approach to pain management.

Domain 2—Pain Assessment and Measurement: How Is Pain Recognized?

The second domain relates to how pain is assessed, quantified, and communicated, in addition to how the individual, the health system, and society affect these activities. Given the multidimensional nature of pain, it is critically important that pain be assessed comprehensively.16,36 This approach would include the use of valid and reliable tools not only for assessment of pain but also for the impact of pain on the person. Using measurement tools to assess the severity of pain at rest and during activity (eg, numerical rating scales)37 and the impact of pain on function (eg, Brief Pain Inventory, Six-Minute Walk Test),38–40 psychosocial variables (eg, fear of movement, pain catastrophizing),41–44 or quality of life (eg, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36])45 will provide a better understanding of the multidimensional nature of pain (for a review and summary of tests and measures, see DeSantana and Sluka36). Establishing core assessment tools used in clinical practice and clinical research would enhance comparison and communication among clinicians of multiple disciplines and among clinical researchers. For example, experts in clinical pain research have proposed guidelines for the measurement of pain treatment outcomes aligned around core domains (ie, pain, physical function, emotional function, global improvement, symptoms, and adverse events) in the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).46,47 Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health have developed simple assessment tools for health outcomes (eg, PROMIS) that include pain and its impact on function, emotional health, and quality of life.48

Assessing the variable nature of pain in an individual across time, the effect of treatment on pain, and the clinical context for the pain will guide appropriate and individualized treatment plans. Physical therapists routinely partner with the patient in formulating treatment goals and priorities; this approach is equally critical in forming realistic pain-related goals.49,50 External factors can interfere with effective pain assessment and management and might include patient or provider biases and issues related to health care access or third-party payers.16,51,52 Performing a comprehensive pain assessment at the initial evaluation and subsequent encounters will guide an effective pain management plan that is adaptable to the patients' changing needs.23,36

Domain 3—Management of Pain: How Is Pain Relieved?

This domain focuses on collaborative approaches to decision making, diversity of treatment options, the importance of patient autonomy, risk management, flexibility in care, and treatment based on appropriate understanding of the clinical condition. Management of pain refers to interventions that aim to reduce pain, as well as interventions that aim to improve coping, function, and quality of life. Improvements in coping, function, and quality of life can occur with or without reductions in pain.

Physical therapy plays an integral role in pain management through education, exercise, and application of manual, electrotherapeutic, and physical modalities.53 Many of the competencies listed under the management domain are generally incorporated into existing physical therapist curriculum and apply directly to pain care. Examples include the following: (1) physical therapists are taught to include the patient and their social support in education and decision-making processes, (2) physical therapists are well educated in health promotion and self-management teaching, and (3) physical therapists are well positioned to routinely monitor pain management outcomes and adjust the plan of care when needed.54–56 To assist students in achieving the prelicensure pain management competencies, the curriculum would further reflect self-management strategies that include education on the science of pain,57–60 exercise and exercise progression,61–64 pacing,65–67 and nonpharmacological self-management techniques (eg, exercise, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, heat, cold).14,53,68–72

Additionally, physical therapists should be aware of the value and services of other health professions and incorporate these services into the pain management treatment plan, as a multidisciplinary approach to pain management has been found to be more effective than uniprofessional approaches.73,74 A comprehensive treatment plan for pain management, therefore, would include not only physical therapy management but also collaborative input from an interprofessional team of physicians, nurses, psychologists, and other professionals regarding pharmacological and psychological interventions, further education, and other strategies to influence all facets of patient care.74 For example, although physical therapists do not prescribe or administer most pharmacologic interventions, they should be aware of potential side effects of these interventions, including but not limited to medication overuse, that would impede patient progress.

Domain 4—Clinical Conditions: How Does Context Influence Pain Management?

This domain focuses on the role of the clinician in the application of the competencies developed in domains 1 through 3 and in the context of varied patient populations, settings, and care teams. Pain is universal across the physical therapist practice domains; therefore, it is essential to use appropriate pain assessment and management techniques that would be unique to the needs of special populations. Pain also occurs across the life span; therefore, using age-specific pain assessments is necessary to gain a better understanding of the impact on the person and family. For instance, one cannot use self-report assessment in infants or individuals with severe cognitive impairments, but there are other assessment tools that are appropriate for these patient populations.36,48,75–78

Within this domain, it is important to understand the scope of practice and contribution of other health professions to the pain management care of the patient. As physical therapists are increasingly becoming an entry point for patients into the health care system,29,30 including those with pain, it is important to know not only when to refer patients for potential problems but also when additional professions should be engaged in the pain management care team. For instance, someone with depression, anxiety, or significant psychosocial concerns might benefit from referral to a pain psychologist,79 whereas someone with fibromyalgia might benefit from referral to a physician, advanced practice nurse, or physician assistant for pharmacological management.80 The physical therapist can develop an individualized treatment plan by partnering with the patient and by obtaining input and services from appropriate health care providers in order to create the greatest benefit to the patient.49,50

Core Values and Physical Therapy

Embedded within each of the 4 domains are core values that parallel the principal values of physical therapy such as advocacy, collaboration, compassion, effective communication, and evidence-based practice (Appendix 3). Throughout their education, physical therapy students learn to demonstrate patient advocacy and communicate respectfully in a therapeutic manner with patients, which clearly improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.49,50 Physical therapists are ideally suited to provide patient education given that it is central to their role and the nature of their involvement with patients and caregivers when providing physical therapy through an episode of care.54 It is critical, therefore, that physical therapists understand the nature of acute and chronic pain with the latest science. Physical therapists also exhibit the ability to coordinate the interventions recommended in the individualized care plan using evidence-based practice.53 Thus, physical therapy students must learn to communicate the latest science underlying pain and its management, communicate in a professional manner, work well with various members of the interprofessional health care team, and understand the roles of other members of the health care team in managing patients' pain.

Integration of Competencies Into a Physical Therapist Curriculum

Pain science, assessment, and management are multidimensional constructs that affect nearly all aspects of patient care and should be a thread throughout the curriculum. A stand-alone course on pain and its management, as an addition to pain management concepts threaded throughout the curriculum, can emphasize detailed pain science, psychosocial barriers to patient management, and the importance of interdisciplinary pain management strategies. Finally, there are challenges that physical therapy educators must overcome to incorporate pain science and management throughout the curriculum and in using competency-based education to fulfill this goal. Incentives will need to be built in throughout all levels of the discipline to emphasize pain management as an important construct in physical therapy.

Competency-based education emphasizes a specified level of performance based on a student's knowledge, skills, and attitude.81,82 The application of these competencies would ensure that physical therapist students effectively perform and demonstrate skills to reduce pain, improve function and quality of life, and reduce comorbidities and costs related to unrelieved pain. The pain management domains and core competencies are meant to be used as a guide and applied to learning activities in the physical therapy prelicensure curriculum and incorporated into outcome assessment. These learning activities include, but are not limited to, didactic approaches, practical examinations, case-based learning opportunities, and simulation or standardized patient encounters throughout the span of physical therapist education.

To instill the importance of pain management to the profession of physical therapy, pain education should occur early and often. The relatively recent endorsement and integration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model from the World Health Organization83 as a foundational model into the education of physical therapists can facilitate the infusion of education about pain throughout a curriculum. Pain within the ICF model is represented as an impairment that influences and is influenced by activity limitations and participation restrictions, as well as environmental and personal factors.83 Therefore, the relevance of virtually all of the pain management domains and core competencies related to health, at both the level of the individual and society, can be explicitly linked to the ICF to facilitate students' learning about pain sciences, assessment, and management as an integral component to the practice of physical therapy consistent with a biopsychosocial approach to health care.

In addition, learning about pain assessment and management within a larger framework of clinical reasoning about pain can facilitate the integration of pain education throughout the curriculum, with clinical reasoning about pain serving as part of the early scaffolding upon which students learn to reason through patient presentations in all practice settings. One example is the research-derived model of clinical reasoning strategies proposed by Edwards and colleagues,84 which emphasizes reasoning that focuses on the interplay between quantitatively and qualitatively assessed aspects of patients' presentations in the clinical reasoning of expert physical therapists, consistent with a biopsychosocial approach. When applied to the assessment and management of patients with pain, it is one example of a clinical reasoning model that can explicitly highlight the development of an understanding of patients' pain experiences that includes both more traditional quantitative assessment and measurement of the pain impairment itself, integrated within a larger, more qualitative understanding of how an individual's pain experience is influenced by and exerts influence on the relevant personal and environmental factors involved. Developing an understanding of a patient's story or narrative has been shown to be a hallmark of effective, collaborative clinical reasoning that results in the development of an individualized patient-centered plan of care.84 When comparing this approach to clinical reasoning with the biopsychosocial framework represented in the pain core competencies, it is reasonable to conclude that an approach to clinical reasoning that integrates quantitative and qualitative reasoning is necessary.85,86

Pain assessment is generally one of the first pain concepts introduced in courses such as introduction to physical therapy, principles of physical therapist practice, and tests and measures. It would be important at this stage to start highlighting how to assess pain from a multidimensional perspective beyond the use of numeric rating scales (eg, verbal analog scale, visual analog scale). Incorporation of assessments and the impact of pain on function and quality of life, as assessed through the Brief Pain Inventory or the SF-36, are directly applicable to designing appropriate treatment plans.36 The physical therapist curriculum is generally aligned around several practice domains: orthopedics, neurology, integumentary, and cardiopulmonary.54 Because the majority of people in each of these practice domains have pain, acute and chronic, it is important to meet the core competencies and incorporate the IASP curriculum guidelines into these courses. Table 1 describes several examples to further illustrate ways in which pain education can be intentionally and explicitly woven into a curriculum through a series of patient/client management courses.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Selected Examples of Ways to Integrate Pain Core Competencies Within a Series of Musculoskeletal Patient/Client Management Courses in a Doctor of Physical Therapy Curriculuma

Most physical therapist education programs integrate pain directly into their existing curriculum. A stand-alone pain management course can supplement the integration of pain education throughout the curriculum to emphasize the underlying science of pain; the complex biological and psychosocial effects of pain; the impact of pain on the patient, family, and society; and the interprofessional management of pain.32 An example of a stand-alone pain course in the physical therapist curriculum would include an emphasis on the science of pain, in-depth assessment, empathetic and therapeutic communication, pain management strategies, and the interdisciplinary nature of pain management (Tab. 2). Alternatively, given the importance of interprofessional care that is integral to these competencies (see domain 4 in Appendix 1), interprofessional learning experiences could be an ideal way to meet the competencies. These learning experiences might include courses in which physical therapist students are educated with physicians, nurses, psychologists, pharmacists, and social workers.87 Another approach could be a case-based learning or assessment approach in which pain is a key feature of the case.88–90 That model could serve as an effective approach for learning effective, evidence-based pain management during clinical learning experiences. Much of the understanding of pain science, assessment, and management principles is not specific to a particular profession but rather spans professions. If all health professions understand and manage pain from the same multidimensional perspective, and if all health professions understand specific roles of each profession in pain management, greater success in the management of pain should occur.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Example of a Stand-alone Pain Mechanisms and Management Course in a Physical Therapy Curriculuma

There are significant challenges for incorporating learning activities focused on pain competencies into physical therapist education either within an existing program or through an interprofessional curriculum. These challenges include the amount of time necessary to educate about pain in the curriculum and research that is needed so that evidence-based practice is standard in the curriculum. Education within a physical therapist curriculum generally spans the 4 key systems important in physical therapist practice (ie, musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, cardiopulmonary, and integumentary) and other systems (eg, renal, immune).

Given that pain can be an impairment that influences activity and participation in any of these systems, it is important that there be a thoughtful consideration of how pain is addressed throughout the curriculum.54,56 Although integration into an existing curriculum is likely the easiest way to address the pain competencies, there may be a lack of expertise within the existing faculty. Implementation may require education of existing faculty in pain science and management, designation of one faculty person with content expertise to coordinate the curricular pain management thread with faculty responsible for the various patient client management courses across all practice domains, hiring new faculty to address the core competencies, or using existing resources to supplement current curriculum. As online courses are developed, it may be possible to adequately address the competencies through these materials. Interprofessional education poses additional and specific challenges, including extra financial resources, communication and scheduling among programs, and buy-in from administration and faculty across colleges within a university setting. Finally, not all of the competencies are evidence based to guide teaching and application. For example, evidence is lacking for the management of acute-on-chronic conditions (domain 3, competency 7). If someone has a total knee replacement, physical therapy rehabilitation tends to be similar regardless of whether the person also has a chronic pain condition such as fibromyalgia. This issue extends to other professions. Surgical protocols, including postsurgical medications, have a tendency to be similar whether or not chronic pain is in the medical history. Thus, the application of the competencies into curricula will continue to evolve as evidence-based practice advances to meet the growing demands for appropriately trained health care providers.

To help guarantee the adoption of the core competencies on pain management into a physical therapist curriculum, additional incentives may be required. Competencies are aligned, measured, and incentivized in health care education to meet the needs of society.82 These authors asserted that accreditation bodies, and by extension the health professions education institutions they accredit, are accountable to society to ensure that priority health needs of society are being met.82 For physical therapy, the accrediting agency is the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE). One criterion CAPTE uses as a foundation for the Evaluative Criteria for Physical Therapy Programs56 is the contemporary practice of physical therapy that is grounded in the current literature. Physical therapists frequently treat people with pain problems in their practices, yet the current evaluative criteria explicitly mention “pain” only in relation to curriculum content on patient examination. Therefore, contemporary entry-level physical therapist curriculum plans should include these core competencies in pain management. Current trends in accreditation toward assessment of student learning outcomes and, increasingly, toward competency-based approaches may provide incentives to ensure competencies, such as the core competencies in pain management, as integral components of entry-level physical therapy education.

The National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) is based on an analysis of practice, most recently conducted in 2011,91 and assesses minimum standards for safe and effective practice. In the prior analysis, “pain” was directly assessed under evaluation and diagnosis. Thus, the incorporation of these pain competencies in the NPTE will occur only to the extent these competencies are reflected in a practice analysis itself, making it difficult for physical therapist education programs to rely on the NPTE to provide a significant incentive to curricular change that would include these competencies. The American Council of Academic Physical Therapy,92 the component of APTA representing the entry-level physical therapist education programs, could endorse the competencies and thus provide an imprimatur for their adoption within physical therapist education.

Moreover, these competencies are applicable beyond prelicensure education because they represent the critical content for pain science, assessment, and management. All health professionals, including physical therapists, should be competent within the 4 domains because of the prevalence of pain in patients seeking physical therapy.2,3 In addition, physical therapists need to be current with pain knowledge to remain experts on the pain management team and, as clinical instructors to physical therapist students and in mentoring new graduates, must be prepared to reinforce and extend students' learning from the academic setting related to up-to-date pain management information. Inclusion into postlicensure education may include continuing education opportunities, licensure renewal, and possibly certificate programs. Pervasive adoption may necessitate requirement for core competency in pain management by accreditors of prelicensure physical therapy schools as well as postgraduate or continuing education programs.

Conclusion

These consensus-derived pain management core competencies provide a foundation for improving pain management throughout the life span, across the health care continuum, and within the diverse backgrounds of the patients. The challenges are not only to adopt and meet these pain management competencies but also to keep them up-to-date with the dynamic needs of society while keeping them relevant to the many essential professional constituents. Future innovative initiatives that are evidence based, and in tune with the current science, will be needed as the competencies evolve to meet the cultural transformation that is occurring in pain management. Moreover, these competencies should be adapted for continuing education to keep the existing physical therapy workforce current in assessment and intervention and integrated into the interprofessional health care team.

Appendix 1.

Appendix 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix 1.

Pain Management Domains and Core Competenciesa

a Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Ltd from: Fishman SM, Young HM, Lucas AE, et al. Core competencies for pain management: results of an interprofessional consensus summit. Pain Med. 2013;14:971–981.

Appendix 2.

Appendix 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix 2.

Resources for Pain Education

Appendix 3.

Appendix 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix 3.

Core Values/Principlesa

a Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Ltd from: Fishman SM, Young HM, Lucas AE, et al. Core competencies for pain management: results of an interprofessional consensus summit. Pain Med. 2013;14:971–981.

Footnotes

  • Dr Hoeger Bement, Dr St. Marie, Ms Mongoven, Mr Koebner, Dr Fishman, and Dr Sluka provided concept/idea/project design. All authors provided writing. Dr Hoeger Bement and Dr St. Marie provided project management. Dr Sluka provided clerical support. Dr Hoeger Bement and Dr Nordstrom provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).

  • Dr Nordstrom received research funding from the American Physical Therapy Association. Dr Fishman and Ms Mongoven received a grant from the Mayday Fund to support an interprofessional expert summit and development of core competencies for pain management. Dr Sluka received research funding from Medtronic and Grüenenthal, received research supplies (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation units and electrodes) provided by DJO Inc, receives royalties from IASP Press for a book titled Pain Mechanisms and Management for the Physical Therapist, is an Editorial Board member for Physical Therapy, and is secretary for the American Pain Society. Dr St. Marie received research funding from the Nurse Practitioner Healthcare Foundation/Purdue Pharma to determine the experience of individuals living with chronic pain who may be experiencing misuse or overuse of their opioid medications prescribed in primary care and is on the board of directors of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing.

  • Received August 6, 2013.
  • Accepted November 26, 2013.
  • © 2014 American Physical Therapy Association

References

  1. ↵
    1. Fishman SM,
    2. Young HM,
    3. Lucas AE,
    4. et al
    . Core competencies for pain management: results of an interprofessional consensus summit. Pain Med. 2013;14:971–981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education, Institute of Medicine. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2011.
  3. ↵
    1. Gaskin DJ,
    2. Richard P
    . The economic costs of pain in the United States. J Pain. 2012;13:715–724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Cheatle MD,
    2. O'Brien CP
    . Opioid therapy in patients with chronic noncancer pain: diagnostic and clinical challenges. Adv Psychosom Med. 2011;30:61–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Scudds RJ,
    2. Scudds RA,
    3. Simonds MJ
    . Pain in the physical therapy curriculum: a faculty survey. Physiother Theory Pract.2001;17:239–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Watt-Watson J,
    2. McGillion M,
    3. Hunter J,
    4. et al
    . A survey of prelicensure pain curricula in health science faculties in Canadian universities. Pain Res Manag. 2009;14:439–444.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. Sluka KA
    . Central mechanisms involved in pain processing. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009:41–72.
  8. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. Sluka KA
    . Peripheral mechanisms involved in pain processing. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009:19–40.
  9. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. Sluka KA
    . Definitions, concepts, and models of pain. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009:3–18.
  10. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. Frey Law LA,
    2. George SZ
    . Individual differences and pain variability. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Managment of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009:73–94.
  11. ↵
    1. Basbaum AI,
    2. Bautista DM,
    3. Scherrer G,
    4. Julius D
    . Cellular and molecular mechanisms of pain. Cell. 2009;139:267–284.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Gatchel RJ,
    2. Peng YB,
    3. Peters ML,
    4. et al
    . The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:581–624.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Roussel NA,
    2. Nijs J,
    3. Meeus M,
    4. et al
    . Central sensitization and altered central pain processing in chronic low back pain: fact or myth? Clin J Pain. 2013;29:625–638.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Nijs J,
    2. Van Houdenhove B,
    3. Oostendorp RA
    . Recognition of central sensitization in patients with musculoskeletal pain: application of pain neurophysiology in manual therapy practice. Man Ther. 2010;15:135–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Woolf CJ
    . Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 suppl):S2–S15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Foster NE,
    2. Delitto A
    . Embedding psychosocial perspectives within clinical management of low back pain: integration of psychosocially informed management principles into physical therapist practice—challenges and opportunities. Phys Ther. 2011;91:790–803.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Keefe FJ,
    2. Porter L,
    3. Somers T,
    4. et al
    . Psychosocial interventions for managing pain in older adults: outcomes and clinical implications. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:89–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Nicholas MK,
    2. George SZ
    . Psychologically informed interventions for low back pain: an update for physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2011;91:765–776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Walton DM,
    2. Macdermid JC,
    3. Giorgianni AA,
    4. et al
    . Risk factors for persistent problems following acute whiplash injury: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43:31–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Edwards RR,
    2. Cahalan C,
    3. Mensing G,
    4. et al
    . Pain, catastrophizing, and depression in the rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011;7:216–224.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Kent P,
    2. Kjaer P
    . The efficacy of targeted interventions for modifiable psychosocial risk factors of persistent nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2012;17:385–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. Kosek E
    . Medical management of pain. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009:231–255.
  23. ↵
    1. Main CJ,
    2. George SZ
    . Psychologically informed practice for management of low back pain: future directions in practice and research. Phys Ther. 2011;91:820–824.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Bergbom S,
    2. Boersma K,
    3. Overmeer T,
    4. Linton SJ
    . Relationship among pain catastrophizing, depressed mood, and outcomes across physical therapy treatments. Phys Ther. 2011;91:754–764.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Merskey H,
    2. Bogduk N
    . Classification of Chronic Pain: Description of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definition of Pain Terms. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 1994.
  26. ↵
    1. Belfer I
    . Nature and nurture of human pain. Scientifica (Cairo). 2013;2013:415279. doi: 10.1155/2013/415279.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Thomas SP,
    2. Johnson M
    . A phenomenologic study of chronic pain. Wet J Nurs Res. 2000;22:683–705.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Trafton JA,
    2. Oliva EM,
    3. Horst DA,
    4. et al
    . Treatment needs associated with pain in substance use disorder patients: implications for concurrent treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;73:23–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    American Physical Therapy Association. Vision 2020. 2013. Available at: http://www.apta.org/Vision2020/. Accessed November 2013.
  30. ↵
    1. Pendergast J,
    2. Kliethermes SA,
    3. Freburger JK,
    4. Duffy PA
    . A comparison of health care use for physician-referred and self-referred episodes of outpatient physical therapy. Health Serv Res. 2012;47:633–654.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP Interprofessional Pain Curriculum Outline. Available at: http://www.iasp-pain.org/Education/CurriculumDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=2057. Accessed November 2013.
  32. ↵
    International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP Curriculum Outline on Pain for Physical Therapy. Available at: http://www.iasp-pain.org/Education/CurriculumDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=2055. Accessed November 2013.
  33. ↵
    1. Hunter J,
    2. Watt-Watson J,
    3. McGillion M,
    4. et al
    . An interfaculty pain curriculum: lessons learned from six years experience. Pain. 2008;140:74–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Overmeer T,
    2. Boersma K,
    3. Denison E,
    4. Linton SJ
    . Does teaching physical therapists to deliver a biopsychosocial treatment program result in better patient outcomes? A randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2011;91:804–819.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. St. Marie BJ
    . Coexisting addiction and pain in people receiving methadone for addiction. West J Nurs Res. 2013 Jul 15 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1177/0193945913495315.
  36. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. DeSantana JM,
    2. Sluka KA
    . Pain assessment. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009:95–132.
  37. ↵
    1. Price DD,
    2. McGrath PA,
    3. Rafii A,
    4. Buckingham B
    . The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain. 1983;17:45–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Cleeland CS,
    2. Ryan KM
    . Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23:129–138.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Steffen TM,
    2. Hacker TA,
    3. Mollinger L
    . Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82:128–137.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Novy DM,
    2. Simmonds MJ,
    3. Lee CE
    . Physical performance tasks: what are the underlying constructs? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:44–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Waddell G,
    2. Newton M,
    3. Henderson I,
    4. et al
    . A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52:157–168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Swinkels-Meewisse EJ,
    2. Swinkels RA,
    3. Verbeek AL,
    4. et al
    . Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire in acute low back pain. Man Ther. 2003;8:29–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Sullivan M,
    2. Bishop S,
    3. Pivik J
    . The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524–532.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    1. Nicholas MK
    . The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain. 2007;11:153–163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Ware JE Jr,
    2. Sherbourne CD
    . The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Dworkin RH,
    2. Turk DC,
    3. Farrar JT,
    4. et al
    . Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113:9–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    1. Turk DC,
    2. Dworkin RH,
    3. Allen RR,
    4. et al
    . Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106:337–345.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Cook KF,
    2. Dunn W,
    3. Griffith JW,
    4. et al
    . Pain assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology 2013;80(11 suppl 3):S49–S53.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Oliveira VC,
    2. Refshauge KM,
    3. Ferreira ML,
    4. et al
    . Communication that values patient autonomy is associated with satisfaction with care: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2012;58:215–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. ↵
    1. Pinto RZ,
    2. Ferreira ML,
    3. Oliveira VC,
    4. et al
    . Patient-centred communication is associated with positive therapeutic alliance: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2012;58:77–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Tait RC,
    2. Chibnall JT,
    3. Kalauokalani D
    . Provider judgments of patients in pain: seeking symptom certainty. Pain Med. 2009;10:11–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. ↵
    1. Joranson DE
    . Are health-care reimbursement policies a barrier to acute and cancer pain management? J Pain Symptom Manage. 1994;9:244–253.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    , ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2009.
  54. ↵
    Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9–746.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  55. ↵
    A Normative Model of Physical Therapist Professional Education, Version 2004. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2004.
  56. ↵
    Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Evaluative Criteria for Accreditation of Education Programs for the Preparation of Physical Therapists. 2013. Available at: http://www.calstate.edu/app/dpt/documents/CAPTE-criteria-2009.pdf. Accessed November 2013.
  57. ↵
    1. Van Oosterwijck J,
    2. Meeus M,
    3. Paul L,
    4. et al
    . Pain physiology education improves health status and endogenous pain inhibition in fibromyalgia: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:873–882.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    1. Moseley GL,
    2. Nicholas MK,
    3. Hodges PW
    . A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:324–330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Moseley GL
    . Evidence for a direct relationship between cognitive and physical change during an education intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:39–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Louw A,
    2. Diener I,
    3. Butler DS,
    4. Puentedura EJ
    . The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:2041–2056.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Sluka KA
    1. Bement MK
    . Exercise-induced hypoalgesia: an evidence-based review. In: Sluka KA, ed. Mechanisms and Management of Pain for the Physical Therapist. Seattle: IASP Press; 2009;143–166.
  62. ↵
    1. Busch AJ,
    2. Barber KA,
    3. Overend TJ,
    4. et al
    . Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD003786.
  63. ↵
    1. Fransen M,
    2. McConnell S,
    3. Bell M
    . Therapeutic exercise for people with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1737–1745.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Chou R,
    2. Huffman LH
    . Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:492–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. ↵
    1. Nielson WR,
    2. Jensen MP,
    3. Karsdorp PA,
    4. Vlaeyen JW
    . A content analysis of activity pacing in chronic pain: what are we measuring and why? Clin J Pain. 2013 Sep 21 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000024.
  66. ↵
    1. Nielson WR,
    2. Jensen MP,
    3. Karsdorp PA,
    4. Vlaeyen JW
    . Activity pacing in chronic pain: concepts, evidence, and future directions. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:461–468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Andrews NE,
    2. Strong J,
    3. Meredith PJ
    . Activity pacing, avoidance, endurance, and associations with patient functioning in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:2109–2121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Lorig KR,
    2. Ritter PL,
    3. Laurent DD,
    4. Plant K
    . The Internet-based arthritis self-management program: a one-year randomized trial for patients with arthritis or fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1009–1017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. ↵
    1. Sluka KA,
    2. Marchand S,
    3. Bjordal JM,
    4. Rakel BA
    . What makes TENS work? Making sense of the clinical literature. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1397–1402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Nijs J,
    2. van Wilgen PC,
    3. Van Oosterwijck J,
    4. et al
    . How to explain central sensitization to patients with “unexplained” chronic musculoskeletal pain: practice guidelines. Man Ther. 2011;16:413–418.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Bjordal JM,
    2. Johnson MI,
    3. Ljunggreen AE
    . Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) can reduce postoperative analgesic consumption: a meta-analysis with assessment of optimal treatment parameters for postoperative pain. Eur J Pain. 2003;7:181–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    1. Bjordal JM,
    2. Johnson MI,
    3. Lopes-Martins RA,
    4. et al
    . Short-term efficacy of physical interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Flor H,
    2. Fydrich T,
    3. Turk DC
    . Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review. Pain. 1992;49:221–230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. ↵
    1. Turk DC,
    2. Stanos SP,
    3. Palermo TM,
    4. et al
    . Interdisciplinary Pain Management. Glenview, IL: American Pain Society; 2010.
  75. ↵
    1. Herr K,
    2. Coyne PJ,
    3. McCaffery M,
    4. et al
    . Pain assessment in the patient unable to self-report: position statement with clinical practice recommendations. Pain Manag Nurs. 2011;12:230–250.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    1. Herr K
    . Pain assessment strategies in older patients. J Pain. 2011;12(3 suppl 1):S3–S13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  77. ↵
    1. Stevens BJ,
    2. Harrison D,
    3. Rashotte J,
    4. et al
    . Pain assessment and intensity in hospitalized children in Canada. J Pain. 2012;13:857–865.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Stapelkamp C,
    2. Carter B,
    3. Gordon J,
    4. Watts C
    . Assessment of acute pain in children: development of evidence-based guidelines. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2011;9:39–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Taylor J,
    2. Twome L
    1. Turk DC,
    2. Okifuji A,
    3. Sherman J
    . Behavioral aspects of low back pain. In: Taylor J, Twome L, eds. Physical Therapy of the Low Back. 3rd ed. New York, NY: WB Saunders Co; 2000:351–368.
  80. ↵
    1. Häuser W,
    2. Thieme K,
    3. Turk DC
    . Guidelines on the management of fibromyalgia syndrome: a systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2010;14:5–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  81. ↵
    1. Gruppen LD,
    2. Mangrulkar RS,
    3. Kolars JC
    . The promise of competency-based education in the health professions for improving global health. Hum Resour Health. 2012;10:43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Frenk J,
    2. Chen L,
    3. Bhutta ZA,
    4. et al
    . Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–1958.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. ↵
    International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
  84. ↵
    1. Edwards I,
    2. Jones MA,
    3. Carr J,
    4. et al
    . Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2004;84:312–330.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Higgs J,
    2. Jones MA,
    3. Loftus S,
    4. Christensen N
    1. Christensen N,
    2. Jones MA,
    3. Edwards I,
    4. Higgs J
    . Helping physiotherapy students develop clinical reasoning capability. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, Christensen N, eds. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. 3rd ed. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 2008:245–256.
  86. ↵
    1. Christensen N,
    2. Nordstrom T
    . Facilitating the teaching and learning of clinical reasoning. Handbook of Teaching and Learning for Physical Therapists. 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2013:183–199.
  87. ↵
    1. Watt-Watson J,
    2. Hunter J,
    3. Pennefather P,
    4. et al
    . An integrated undergraduate pain curriculum, based on IASP curricula, for six health science faculties. Pain. 2004;110:140–148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  88. ↵
    1. Erb D,
    2. Kaprielian V,
    3. Dieter P,
    4. et al
    . Improving Interprofessional Understanding via Interprofessional Case Conferences. MedEdPORTAL. 2011. Available at: https://www.mededportal.org/publication/8437. Accessed November 2013.
  89. ↵
    1. Dufault MA,
    2. Sullivan M
    . A collaborative research utilization approach to evaluate the effects of pain management standards on patient outcomes. J Prof Nurs. 2000;16:240–250.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Wamsley M,
    2. Staves J,
    3. Kroon L,
    4. et al
    . The impact of an interprofessional standardized patient exercise on attitudes toward working in interprofessional teams. J Interprof Care. 2012;26:28–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  91. ↵
    1. Bradley KM,
    2. Caramagno J,
    3. Waters S,
    4. Koch A
    . Analysis of Practice for the Physical Therapy Profession: Entry-Level Physical Therapists. Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. 2011. Available at: http://www.fsbpt.org/Portals/0/documents/free-resources/PA2011_PTFinalReport20111109.pdf. Accessed November 2013.
  92. ↵
    American Council of Academic Physical Therapy. 2013. Available at: http://www.acapt.org/. Accessed November 2013.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 94 Issue 4 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 94 (4)

Issue highlights

  • Competencies for Prelicensure Education in Pain Management
  • Treatment of Cervicogenic Dizziness
  • Modulating Pain Intensity and Muscle Pain Sensitivity in Chronic Low Back Pain
  • Knee Pain, Knee Osteoarthritis, and Widespread Pain
  • Proposed Guidelines for International Clinical Education in US-Based Physical Therapist Education Programs
  • Patient Global Ratings of Change Over Time
  • Peak Plantar-Flexor Force in Inclusion Body Myositis
  • Assessing Proprioceptive Function
  • Motor Learning in People With Stroke
  • Conservative Treatment of a Biceps Brachii Muscle Tear
  • Physical Activity and Sleep in Adults With Chronic Pain
  • Cognitive Task Performance in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome With and Without Fibromyalgia
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An Interprofessional Consensus of Core Competencies for Prelicensure Education in Pain Management: Curriculum Application for Physical Therapy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
An Interprofessional Consensus of Core Competencies for Prelicensure Education in Pain Management: Curriculum Application for Physical Therapy
Marie K. Hoeger Bement, Barbara J. St. Marie, Terry M. Nordstrom, Nicole Christensen, Jennifer M. Mongoven, Ian J. Koebner, Scott M. Fishman, Kathleen A. Sluka
Physical Therapy Apr 2014, 94 (4) 451-465; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130346

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Download Powerpoint
Save to my folders

Share
An Interprofessional Consensus of Core Competencies for Prelicensure Education in Pain Management: Curriculum Application for Physical Therapy
Marie K. Hoeger Bement, Barbara J. St. Marie, Terry M. Nordstrom, Nicole Christensen, Jennifer M. Mongoven, Ian J. Koebner, Scott M. Fishman, Kathleen A. Sluka
Physical Therapy Apr 2014, 94 (4) 451-465; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130346
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Background
    • Core Competencies in Pain Management
    • Description of Each Domain and Relation to Physical Therapy
    • Core Values and Physical Therapy
    • Integration of Competencies Into a Physical Therapist Curriculum
    • Conclusion
    • Appendix 1.
    • Appendix 2.
    • Appendix 3.
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Outcome Measure Recommendations From the Spinal Cord Injury EDGE Task Force
  • Physical Therapy as Treatment for Childhood Obesity in Primary Health Care: Clinical Recommendation From AXXON (Belgian Physical Therapy Association)
  • Interpreting Effectiveness Evidence in Pain: Short Tour of Contemporary Issues
Show more ProfessionWatch

Subjects

  • ProfessionWatch
  • Pain

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top