Search

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including one by Denny Davis and colleagues on the team citizenship of engineering students and another by Jonathan Stolk and colleagues on students' perceptions of self-directed learning experiences in the classroom.

The concept of electric current is fundamental in the study of electrical engineering (EE). Students are often exposed to this concept in their daily lives and early in middle school education. Lower-division university courses are usually limited to the study of passive electronic devices and simple electric circuits. Semiconductor physics is an upper-division course that presents the physics behind semiconductor devices in depth and exposes the students to microscale explanations of different types of current, such as drift and diffusion currents. This paper investigates how third-year college students majoring in EE link microscale and macroscale concepts of current, and what misconceptions they reveal after one quarter of advanced instruction in semiconductor physics. The interviewees were posed a problem, based on a distracting device structure that exposed student difficulties in defining current, charges and doping, and the plotting of current–voltage (I–V) characteristics. For example, some students had the naïve idea that current is the flow of a particular type of charge (i.e., only electrons or only holes) or that there is a “spectrum of doping.” Almost all students drew a one-quadrant coordinate system for the I–V curves, which might imply that students think only about positive voltages. These findings can inform further studies to identify and address misconceptions in the important area of semiconductor device physics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A correction to the article "2008 IEEE Education Society Awards and Frontiers in Education Conference Awards" that was published in the May 2009 issue is presented.

This paper proposes the use of collaborative secondary data analysis (SDA) as a tool for building capacity in engineering education research. We first characterise the value of collaborative SDA as a tool to help emerging researchers develop skills in qualitative data analysis. We then describe an ongoing collaboration that involves a series of workshops as well as two pilot projects that seek to develop and test frameworks and practices for SDA in engineering education research. We identify emerging benefits and practical challenges associated with implementing SDA as a capacity building tool, and conclude with a discussion of future work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain in the cervical zygapophyseal joints is a common problem after whiplash injury, but treatment is difficult. Percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy can relieve the pain by denaturing the nerves innervating the painful joint, but the efficacy of this treatment has not been established. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared percutaneous radio-frequency neurotomy in which multiple lesions were made and the temperature of the electrode making the lesions was raised to 80°C with a control treatment using an identical procedure except that the radio-frequency current was not turned on. We studied 24 patients (9 men and 15 women; mean age, 43 years) who had pain in one or more cervical zygapophyseal joints after an automobile accident (median duration of pain, 34 months). The source of their pain had been identified with the use of double-blind, placebo-controlled local anesthesia. Twelve patients received each treatment. The patients were followed by telephone interviews and clinic visits until they reported that their pain had returned to 50 percent of the preoperative level. Results: The median time that elapsed before the pain returned to at least 50 percent of the preoperative level was 263 days in the active-treatment group and 8 days in the control group (P = 0.04). At 27 weeks, seven patients in the active-treatment group and one patient in the control group were free of pain. Five patients in the active-treatment group had numbness in the territory of the treated nerves, but none considered it troubling. Conclusions: In patients with chronic cervical zygapophyseal-joint pain confirmed with double-blind, placebo-controlled local anesthesia, percutaneous radio-frequency neurotomy with multiple lesions of target nerves can provide lasting relief. (N Engl J Med 1996;335:1721-6.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain in the cervical zygapophyseal joints is a common problem after a whiplash injury. Treatment with intraarticular injections of corticosteroid preparations has been advocated, but the value of this approach has not been established. We compared the efficacy of a depot injection of a corticosteroid preparation with the efficacy of an injection of a local anesthetic agent in patients with painful cervical zygapophyseal joints. Methods: Sixteen men and 25 women with pain in one or more cervical zygapophyseal joints after automobile accidents (mean age, 43 years; median duration of pain, 39 months) were randomly assigned to receive a 1-ml intraarticular injection of either bupivacaine (0.5 percent) or betamethasone (5.7 mg) under double-blind conditions. The patients were followed by means of regular telephone contact and clinic visits until they reported a return to a level of pain equivalent to 50 percent of the preinjection level. The time from treatment to a 50 percent return of pain was compared in the two groups with the use of a survival analysis. Results: Less than half the patients reported relief of pain for more than one week, and less than one in five patients reported relief for more than one month, irrespective of the treatment received. The median time to a return of 50 percent of the preinjection level of pain was 3 days in the 21 patients in the corticosteroid group and 3.5 days in the 20 patients in the local-anesthetic group (P = 0.42). Conclusions: Intraarticular injection of betamethasone is not effective therapy for pain in the cervical zygapophyseal joints after a whiplash injury. (N Engl J Med 1994;330:1047-50). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We know little about the safety or efficacy of pharmacological medicines for children and adolescents with chronic pain, despite their common use. Our aim was to conduct an overview review of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions that purport to reduce pain in children with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) or chronic cancer-related pain (CCRP). We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, EMBASE, and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to March 2018. We conducted reference and citation searches of included reviews. We included children (0-18 years of age) with CNCP or CCRP. We extracted the review characteristics and primary outcomes of ≥30% participant-reported pain relief and patient global impression of change. We sifted 704 abstracts and included 23 systematic reviews investigating children with CNCP or CCRP. Seven of those 23 reviews included 6 trials that involved children with CNCP. There were no randomised controlled trials in reviews relating to reducing pain in CCRP. We were unable to combine data in a meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low, and we have very little confidence in the effect estimates. The state of evidence of randomized controlled trials in this field is poor; we have no evidence from randomised controlled trials for pharmacological interventions in children with cancer-related pain, yet cannot deny individual children access to potential pain relief. Prospero ID: CRD42018086900. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigations of the relationships between contexts in which learning occurs and students’ behaviours, cognitions and motivations may further our understanding of how instruction is related to students’ development as self-regulated learners. In this study, student self-regulated learning strategies in problem-based learning and project-based learning environments were examined to determine whether student self-regulation outcomes differed depending on the instructional design. Quantitative results showed that student motivations and behaviours were not statistically different in the two settings. Differences in cognitions associated with self-regulated learning were, however, observed in the two settings, with students in the project-based environments reporting higher levels of elaboration, critical thinking and metacognition. In addition, students in the project-based courses reported higher perceived autonomy support, or the degree to which they perceived their instructors provided them with supportive opportunities to act and think independently compared to students in the problem-based courses. These findings indicate that different non-traditional student-centred learning environments may support different outcomes related to self-regulated learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Using the Australiasian electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration, a binational pain registry collecting standardized clinical data from paediatric ePPOC (PaedsePPOC) and adult pain services (AdultePPOC), we explored and characterized nationally representative chronic pain phenotypes and associations with clinical and sociodemographic factors, health care utilization, and medicine use of young people. Young people ≥15.0 and <25.0 years captured in PaedePPOC and AdultePPOC Australian data registry were included. Data from 68 adult and 12 paediatric pain services for a 5-year period January 2018 to December 2022 (first episode, including treatment information) were analysed. Unsupervised latent class analysis was applied to explore the existence of distinct pain phenotypes, with separate models for both services. A 3-phenotype model was selected from both paediatric and adult ePPOC data, with 693 and 3518 young people included, respectively (at least one valid indicator variable). Indicator variables for paediatric models were as follows: pain severity, functional disability (quasisurrogate "pain interference"), pain count, pain duration, pain-related worry (quasisurrogate "catastrophizing"), and emotional functioning; and, for adult models: pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, emotional functioning, and pain self-efficacy. From both services, 3 similar phenotypes emerged ("low," "moderate," "high"), characterized by an increasing symptom-severity gradient in multidimensional pain-related variables, showing meaningful differences across clinical and sociodemographic factors, health service utilization, and medicines use. Derived phenotypes point to the need for novel care models that differentially respond to the needs of distinct groups of young people, providing timely, targeted, age-appropriate care. To effectively scale such care, digital technologies can be leveraged to augment phenotype-informed clinical care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) and coexisting mental health conditions impact young people; however, little is known about their lived and care experiences. In a prospectively registered systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis (PROSPERO: CRD42022369914), we explored the following: (1) lived physical, psychological, and social experiences; and (2) care experiences/preferences of young people living with CMP and mental health conditions. Inclusion criteria: studies using qualitative methods; participants aged 16 to 24 years with CMP and coexisting mental health condition(s); phenomenon explored included lived and/or care experiences. Seven databases were searched (inception to 19-May-2024), study quality was assessed, data were extracted and analysed thematically, and GRADE-CERQual was used to assess confidence in findings. Twenty-two studies (23 reports) were included (>239 participants, 82% women). Lived experiences yielded 4 themes (9 findings): 2-way relationship between CMP and mental health (2 findings, low to moderate confidence); psychosocial implications of CMP (3 findings, very low-moderate confidence); uncertainty about future (2 findings, low-moderate confidence); coping with CMP and mental health conditions (2 findings, low-moderate confidence). Care experiences/preferences yielded 3 themes (8 findings): navigating healthcare systems (2 findings, moderate confidence); receiving appropriate care (3 findings, very low-moderate confidence); point-of-care experiences and care preferences (3 findings, very low-moderate confidence). Chronic musculoskeletal pain and mental health conditions are interconnected, significantly impacting young people's lives, identities, and socialisation, yet services for CMP and mental health are often inadequate and poorly integrated. The mechanisms and interplay of CMP and mental health require deeper exploration, including how young people may be better supported with personalised, holistic, developmentally and/or life-stage-appropriate integrated care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Chronic or persistent pain is a growing global health problem. Effective management of pain emerging in childhood may prevent long-term health and vocational consequences. Internationally, paediatric pain services are a limited resource and, as such, must strive to improve equity, outcomes, and value for money. The Paediatric electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration (PaedePPOC) is a binational paediatric outcome measurement centre that aims to measure, benchmark, and improve children's specialist pain services in Australasia. This study documents the establishment of PaedePPOC and presents baseline and initial outcome data. Binational consensus meetings determined the measures. Governance structures, collection protocols, information technology, site-specific logistics, and onsite training were achieved within 18 months. Children and parents complete baseline and progress questionnaires. Seven of 10 Australasian services provided data to PaedePPOC, with 1432 patients enrolled until June 2018. At baseline, patients were 12.4 ± (3.0) years, 68% female, 93% Australian-born, and 5% Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people. Most had moderate-severe functional disability and impaired quality of life, with pain affecting school attendance and employment. Opioid-containing medicines were used often or daily by 16%. Patients completing outcome measures at treatment end reported clinically significant improvement in pain intensity (49% of patients), functional ability (59%), and quality of life (69%). The PaedePPOC initiative has been successfully integrated into children's pain services, yielding timely point-of-care information to support clinicians and families, and valuable binational and service data to inform quality improvement and future sector planning.

Background: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute. Secondary outcomesAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful., Authors' Conclusions: We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.

Background: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful., Authors' Conclusions: This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Aim: Prior to July 2013, a solo medical specialist provided a pain management service 1.5-2 days/week to children and young people aged 0-19 years, and their families at John Hunter Children's Hospital, Newcastle, NSW. A new multidisciplinary children's complex pain team now continues that service. This study aimed to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of children, young people and their families referred to a paediatric pain specialist in the 5.5 years prior to the establishment of a multidisciplinary service and to quantify anecdotal observations, determine service priorities and identify clinical improvement opportunities., Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of all new patients seen between January 2008 and June 2013 was conducted. Data sets for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, service outputs and disposition at discharge were determined prior to data extraction., Results: A total of 114 children and young people aged between 7 days and 18 years (mean ± SD = 12.54 ± 3.6 years) were consecutively referred to the service. Many demographics are consistent with those previously reported; however, the number of children who identified as being of Aboriginal origin (11%), with rare diseases (28%), new diagnoses made (47%), child protection reports submitted (14%) and psychological morbidity in children (58%) and caregivers (38%) are new findings in the context of pain management and serve as indicators of the complex service needs of these patients and their families., Conclusion: The complexities encountered in this small cohort provide an indication of the time investment needed to understand and manage complex paediatric pain, especially in the contexts of complex families, time-poor general practitioners and under-resourced communities., (© 2017 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Radiofrequency current is simply a tool used for creating discrete thermal lesions in neural pathways in order to interrupt transmission. In pain medicine, radiofrequency lesions have been used to interrupt nociceptive pathways at various sites. This is a palliative treatment not without complications, so its use should be limited to those patients with cancer pain or chronic non-cancer pain for whom conservative non-surgical therapies have been ineffective or intolerable. With the development of alternatives such as intrathecal opioid infusion and neuromodulation technologies, the number of patients considered for neuroablative therapy may dwindle. Nevertheless, there is evidence that radiofrequency neurotomy has an important role in the management of trigeminal neuralgia, nerve root avulsion and spinal pain. In this chapter the evidence for efficacy and safety is reviewed and interrogated with special emphasis on the available randomized controlled trails and systematic review.