MAGNETIC THERAPY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SOMATIC PAIN By Dan E. Briggs, RN, BSN Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Nursing Degree Edinboro University of Pennsylvania Magnetic therapy for the management of somatic pain by Dan E. Briggs. Thesis Nurs. 2001 B854m c. 2 Approved by: Xidith Schilling, CRNP, PliDj/^ ^Committee Chairperson /&/ Alice Conway, CRNP, - Committee Member ate Pdul Kollut, DO Committee Member Date 0 o Abstract Magnetic Therapy for the Management of Somatic Pain Throughout history, humankind has experienced the unpleasant sensation of pain. Pursuant to this, relief from the discomfort of pain has been sought through whatever means conceivable including the use of magnets. This study was done to help provide a basis for the decision as to weather or not health care providers should advocate the use of static magnets in pain management. The theoretical framework of this study was the Four Conservation Principals by Myra Levine (1969), specifically the conservation of patient energy regarding the inflammatory process. This research studied the effects of commercially available medical magnets, of varying size, on a convenient sample of 10 patients from the northwestern Pennsylvania area having somatic pain for more than one month. The McGill Pain Questionnaire was used at baseline, 24 hours, and 7 days after beginning magnetic therapy. The Student t test revealed a statistically significant improvement after 24 hours, which continued at 1 week, as measured by the three parameters of the McGill Pain Questionnaire that were addressed. To be considered significant the t value had to be greater than 1.833. The three parameters were: The Number of Words Chosen which had a net improvement of t = 3.1058 (p - 0.0009), the Present Pain Index which had a net improvement of t = 6.5000 (p < 0.0001), and the Pain Rating Index which had a net improvement oft = 5.3930 (p < 0.0001). Magnetic therapy continues to be vigorously studied and shows promising results (Whitaker &Adderly, 1998). ii Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to those who, through their contributions and support, made this thesis possible. I would first like to thank my wife and children for their patience and understanding. I also wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Robert Melzack for allowing the use of his McGill Pain Questionnaire. Thanks to Dr. Janet Geisel, Dr. Judith Schilling, Dr. Alice Conway, and Dr. Paul Kohut for their input and guidance. My sincere appreciation to each and every participant of the study, and to Sandy Hearn for her invaluable assistance. iii Table of Contents Content Page Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables vii Chapter I: Introduction 1 Background of the Problem 1 Problem Statement 3 Theoretical Framework 3 Statement of Purpose 5 Definition of Terms 5 Assumptions 6 Limitations 7 Summary 7 8 Chapter II: Review of Literature 8 Pain Physiology Pharmacologic Interventions 11 Magnetic Theories 13 Magnetic Studies 14 Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields 14 Static Magnetic Fields 19 23 Summary iv Content Page Chapter III: Methodology ,25 Hypothesis 25 Operational Definitions 25 Setting, Sample, and Procedure 26 Informed Consent 27 Instrumentation 27 Data Analysis 28 Summary 28 Chapter IV: Results 29 Demographics 29 Number of Words Chosen (NWC) 29 Present Pain Index (PPI) 31 Pain Rating Index (PRI) 32 Summary, 33 34 Chapter V: Discussion Sample, 34 NWC, PPI, PRI 34 Conclusions 34 Recommendations 36 Summary 36 v Content Page References 38 Appendixes 42 A. Informed Consent 43 B. McGill Pain Questionnaire ,44 C. Permission to Use McGill Pain Questionnaire 48 vi List of Tables Table Page 1. Demographic Information 30 2. Number of Words Chosen 31 3. Present Pain Index 32 4. Pain Rating Index 33 vii 1 Chapter I Introduction This study is intended to help shed some light on the controversy over whether or not to suggest magnetic therapy for patients not responding well to conventional therapies. This chapter provides an overview of pain management involving the use of magnetic therapy. It also discusses the physiology of pain, thereby laying the groundwork for the more in-depth analysis of pain control by means of static magnetic fields. Also addressed in this chapter is the theoretical framework guiding the study, the assumptions and limitations of the study, and definitions of terms used. Background of the Problem “There is nothing in human experience more central than our capacity to feel, and no aspect of this so crucial as our capacity to suffer, perhaps more particularly to suffer from extremes of physical pain” (Petrie, 1967, p. 1). Throughout human history, the experience of physical pain, albeit in varying degrees, has been ubiquitous (Petrie). Pain is the experiencing of an unpleasant emotional or sensory stimulus arising from actual or potential tissue damage (Thomas, 1997). In the United States each year 155 million people experience a minimum of at least one episode of acute pain, one-third of which is reported as severe, causing an estimated 700 million workdays to be lost, at a cost of $60 billion annually (Thomas). The experience of pain is modified, or amplified, by a number of dynamic and ever-changing interactions of emotional, mental, biochemical, physiological, social, psychological, cultural, and physical factors. Thus, pain experienced at one time may be perceived as severe, and at another time perceived as minimal, though all outward parameters appear equal or unchanged. 2 Pain is one of the most common reasons patients consult a physician, yet it is often inadequately treated” (Fingerhood, 1999, p. 284). One reason that pain is not adequately treated is an alleged obsession by healthcare providers with the possibility of causing drug addiction, even though studies have reported that physical dependence on something such as an opioid requires routine therapeutic dosing, four to six times a day, for 6 weeks (Thomas, 1997). Fingerhood wrote that treatment of pain should be based on the clinician’s findings and evaluation of the causative agent. This treatment should include consideration of not only pharmacologic agents, but also nonpharmacologic therapies, and should be prescribed, as appropriate. There are many nonpharmacologic therapies for pain such as relaxation, meditation, and imagery. One such nonpharmacologic therapy may be the use and manipulation of magnetic fields. Scientists are still at a loss to define and quantify magnetism, but do agree that it is one of the primary forces in the universe (Whitaker & Adderly, 1998). Magnetic fields exist not only in magnets, both electromagnets and permanent magnates, but also within biologic organisms including human beings (Whitaker & Adderly). The existence of magnetic fields generated within the cells of our bodies is evidenced by the use of a major diagnostic tool known as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Rosenfeld, 1996). The MRI machine interprets the magnetic fields produced by the various tissues of our bodies to help guide diagnosis and treatment of disease. Historically, natural magnetic rocks known as lodestone where used by ancient cultures to treat everything from gout to baldness with varying degrees of success, much of which was later attributed to the placebo effect. However, in recent years an increasing 3 number of studies have shown that there may, indeed, be some truth to the supposition that magnets do exhibit healing properties (Whitaker & Adderly). Problem Statement Throughout history, ill or injured patients generally have tried to find ways of alleviating their discomfort by whatever means they deemed reasonable including not only allopathic treatment, but also treatments involving “alternative medicine.” Magnetic therapy is not currently a widely accepted and taught treatment for the management of pain, resulting in the potential for the patient to loose out on this form of possible pain relief. Nurse practitioners have a responsibility to help educate, guide, and advocate those treatments that may prove beneficial to the patient, while protecting patients from further harm or exacerbation of illness. To this end, the nurse practitioner needs to have a good working knowledge and understanding not only of standard medical management of various ailments, but also of many alternative medical practices and treatments. This kind of information is often not part of current nurse practitioner education on a regular basis. Gaining such knowledge will help nurse practitioners to remain open minded to their patients’ needs and desires to attain and maintain an optimal level of health and functioning. Theoretical Framework The energy field theory of Myra Levine (1969), known as the Four Conservation Principles, was selected as the theoretical framework for this study. This framework deals with the patient as a whole, and addresses the inflammatory response specifically as a subgroup in the conservation of patient energy principle. Levine’s theory directs the nurse, or in this case the nurse practitioner, to assist the patient in conservation of energy 4 and integrity through therapy or support (Meleis, 1997). The Four Conservation Principles are as follows: 1. The principle of the conservation of patient energy. 2. The principle of the conservation of structural integrity. 3. The principle of the conservation of personal integrity. 4. The principle of conservation of social integrity. One of the major concepts of the principle of conservation of patient energy is the organismic response, which is the individual’s ability to adapt to environmental changes, both internal and external (Marriner, 1986). Part of this organismic response is the inflammatory response that, if unchecked, can become a serious drain on an individual’s energy reserves. The inflammatory response is a defense mechanism to remove or keep out unwanted irritants or pathogens, and is a way of healing (Marriner, 1986). A goal of the nurse is to assist the patient in management of the balance between maintaining sufficient energy and processes, such as healing and aging, that drain energy (Levine, 1969). Conservation of structural integrity is another major concept in the theory, which states that healing is restorative to structural integrity and that the nurse should attempt to limit the amount of tissue involved in the disease process (Marriner, 1986). Respecting the patient’s wishes, supporting his or her defenses, and providing education fall under the principle of conservation of personal integrity (Marriner, 1986). Conservation of social integrity is the fourth and final principal which states that life and health in general are given meaning through the quality and quantity of social interactions with those around us (Levine, 1969). 5 W hen the patient is experiencing pain, either long-term or short-term, an impact is exerted on the four principles: (a) energy, (b) structural integrity, (c) personal integrity, and (d) social integrity. The nurse practitioner, treating the patient as a whole, can exert an effect on all four principles by assisting the patient with the management and control of the pain. This can be accomplished by several means including prescription of pharmacological agents, teaching of relaxation techniques, manipulation therapy, and the use of alternative medicine techniques such as magnetic therapy, which was the focus of this study. The nurse practitioner, therefore, is to draw on a knowledge base from the sciences to create an atmosphere within the patient’s environment favorable for healing and restoration of energy (Meleis, 1997). Statement of Purpose The study examined the results of magnetic therapy for the control and alleviation of pain. The information obtained through this study may be used to help determine if magnetic therapy should or should not be advocated by the nurse practitioner. Definition of Terms Several terms used in this study are defined in order to assure a proper frame of reference, and to avoid misconception. 1. Pain refers to the experience of unpleasant stimuli of either acute or chronic nature (Tortora & Anagnostakos, 1984). 2. Magnet is a physical object that exerts a constant or static magnetic field (Whitaker & Adderly, 1998). 3. Electromagnet is a device that creates a magnetic field while electricity flows through a coil of conducting wire (Whitaker & Adderly, 1998). 6 4. The nurse practitioner is a primary health care provider who provides health care and education to patients with common acute and stable chronic disease conditions (Sheehy & McCarthy, 1998). 5. A patient is a person who is seeking aid for the treatment of a health-related problem. 6. Alternative medicine is the approach to medical diagnosis and therapy that has not been developed by use of generally accepted scientific methods (Thomas, 1997). 7. Gauss is a unit of measure of magnetic force (Thomas, 1997). Assumptions This study was based on several assumptions: 1. Pain is whatever the patient says it is, and occurs whenever the patient says it does (McCaffery, 1968). 2. Patients experiencing pain find the experience unpleasant and wish to alleviate the pain. 3. Nurse practitioners are motivated to help patients address their medical needs, and help the patient to conserve energy and promote physical, emotional, and social well being. 4. Participants in the study were able to read and understand the survey tool. 5. Participants in the study answered questions honestly. 6. Study participants used the magnets as directed. 7 Limitations There were several limitations inherent in this study: 1. The McGill Pain Questionnaire, utilized in the study, is not individualized to the type and degree of pain experienced by each patient, but incorporates most common pain descriptors. 2. The sample group was small, which may affect the generalizability of the results. 3. The sample group \yas from a population located in northwestern Pennsylvania, which may also affect the generalizability of the results to the greater populous. 4. Pain was assessed via subjective data collection. 5. No scientific definition of the substance of the magnetic field is available by current science. 6. Magnetic therapy was individualized to each patient’s needs. 7. No placebo control group was used. 8. Participants had the foreknowledge that they would receive an active magnet. Summary This chapter has established the framework upon which this study of the effects of magnetic therapy on pain control was based. It addressed the subject of pain, how it is perceived, and the cost of pain in the United States. The Four Principles of Conservation by Myra Levine (1969) was the theoretical framework for this study. Terms used in the study have been defined, and assumptions and limitations acknowledged. 8 Chapter II Review of Literature This chapter reviews the body of knowledge relevant to the question: should magnetic therapy be advocated by the nurse practitioner for the treatment of somatic pain? This review of literature provides a brief description of the physiology of pain and current pharmacologic interventions, and theories as to how magnetic fields alter pain perception. Also presented is an overview of information obtained from studies done in recent years concerning both static and electromagnetic fields for the treatment of pain. Pain Physiology “Pain is whatever the experiencing person says it is, existing whenever he says it does” (McCaffery, 1968). Since each person is different, the perception and interpretation of pain is colored by pervious experiences in life. This gives rise to a constellation of descriptions and beliefs regarding pain as it impacts on the psychosocial and physical functioning of each person. The American Pain Society (APS) defines pain in this maimer: “Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage” (APS, 1992, p. 2). Although the emotional consequences of pain should not be ignored by the nurse practitioner, for the sake of this study only the physiologic aspects of pain were examined. Pain can be categorized into different forms: (a) somatic or visceral (Tortora & Anagnostakos, 1984), and (b) acute or chronic (Thomas, 1997). Somatic pain can arise from stimulation of receptors located 9 in the skin, fascia, tendons, skeletal muscles, and joints. Visceral pain arises from the internal organs, or viscera. Acute pain is considered to be pain of sudden or slow onset, of any intensity from mild to severe, with an anticipated or predictable duration of less than 6 months. Chronic pain is defined as pain of sudden or slow onset, of any intensity from mild to severe, constant or recurring without an anticipated or piedictable end and a duration greater than 6 months. Pain is the brain’s interpretation of neural impulses received from pain receptors, also known as nociceptors, which are the branched ends of dendrites, found in nearly every tissue of the body (Tortora & Anagnostakos, 1984). For pain to occur, a signal must go through four stages: a) transduction, b) transmission, c) perception, and d) modulation (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). Noxious stimuli, be they chemical, mechanical, or thermal, cause damage to cells which in turn release substances at the point of contact such as histamine, bradykinin, prostaglandins, serotonin, and substance P. In sufficient quantity, these substances alter the permiability of the nociceptor’s cellular membrane to sodium ions. The sudden influx of sodium ions temporarily changes the polarity of the inside of the cell to a positive charge relative to the outside of the cell. This is called depolarization. Potassium ions are then exchanged with the sodium, returning the cell to its normal state, called repolarization. When depolarization and repolarization occur with sufficient regularity, an action potential is created and the stimulus is converted to an impulse. This occurrence is known as transduction, and transpires in a matter of milliseconds. Transmission now takes place from the point of contact to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord via nociceptor fibers. There are two types of nociceptor 10 fibers responsible for this first leg of transmission: C fib<ers and A delta (AS) fibers. The AS fibers quickly transmit well localized, sharp pain signals across large diameter neural fibers that have very little myelinization. The C fibers are smaller in size, have no myelinization, and conduct dull, aching, poorly localized pain signals more slowly than the AS. Both fibers are sensitive to mechanical and thermal stimuli, but the C fibers are also sensitive to chemical stimuli. Once at the end of the nociceptor tract of either C or Ab fibers, the pain impulse must be carried across the synaptic gap to the dorsal horn by neurotransmitters such as substance P, adenosine triphosphate, and glutamate. After being carried to the dorsal horn, the pain impulse then travels up the ascending fibers within the spinothalamic tract, which terminates in the brain stem and thalamic regions. The thalamus then directs the impulse to central structures of the brain where the impulse is processed and becomes a conscious experience and perception occurs. It is believed that many areas of the brain are involved in this perception of pain. The reticular system is thought to be responsible for the autonomic response to pain, the limbic system for the behavioral and emotional response, and the somatosensory cortex for the localization and characterization of the pain. Once pain is perceived, however, the final step of modulation takes place. Modulation involves the descending pain pathways originating at the brain stem and terminating in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. These descending fibers inhibit the transmission of the pain impulse and provide some analgesia by releasing substances such as neurotensin, norepinephrine, serotonin, y-aminobutyric acid, and endogenous opioids also known as enkephalins 11 and endorphins. These endogenous opioids are very effective but only for a short time. They degrade very quickly leaving the pain impulse unencumbered to deliver its message (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). Pharmacologic Interventions The path that a pain impulse must travel from contact with a noxious stimulus to the point of perception provides several targets of opportunity for intervention with medications. At the point of contact with the noxious stimuli, damaged cells release phospholipids which are broken down by phospholipase into arachidonic acid, which is in turn broken down by cyclooxygenase into prostaglandins (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase on arachidonic acid, thus preventing the formation of prostaglandins (Copstead, 1995). However, the use of NSAIDs can also precipitate unwanted and dangerous side effects. The predominant untoward result of NSAID therapy is the induction of gastric and intestinal ulcerations due to the lack of prostaglandins being produced in the digestive tract, which serve to protect the structures from damage from the irritants present in them. These ulcers can result in blood loss leading to anemia. Other side effects include increased bleeding time due to inhibition of platelet aggregation; in patients with hepatic or renal disease or congestive heart failure the rate of glomerular filtration and renel blood flow are decreased. Inhibition of uterine motility and hypersensitivity reactions also pose a concern (Insel, 1996). The use of corticosteroids is another means to inhibit the synthesis of prostaglandins. Corticosteroids block the action of phospholipase (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). 12 However, they are not without side effects also: immune suppression, need for the body to be slowly weaned off of them, and the fact that excessive amounts can impair muscle functioning (Schimmer & Parker, 1996). Another target for the inhibition of the pain impulse is the synaptic gap between the end of the nociceptor fibers and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. It is at this juncture that blocking the release of the neurotransmitters needed to bridge the gap can propagate interruption of pain transmission. This is accomplished to a degree during modulation by endogenous opioids, which quickly degrade, but to a greater and longer lasting degree by exogenous opioids: morphine, Demerol®, and codeine, for example. These medications bind with opioid receptors on the neural cell and block the release of the neurotransmitters (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). Though effective, they are not without inherent risk. Many side effects are related to the use of these medications including respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, dysphoria, hypotension, mental clouding, pruritus, constipation, urinary retention, and increased pressure within the biliary tract. Additionally, increased pain sensitivity may occur after the medication wears off (Reisine & Pasternak, 1996). Pharmacologic manipulation of the sodium ion channels has also proven to be effective in some cases for slowing or blocking the pain transmission. Some anticonvulsant medications are used for this purpose. The influx of sodium into the cell is mediated, thereby limiting or stopping transduction (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). These medications can have serious and even lethal cross-reactions with other medications the patient may be taking. Other undesired effects may include cardiac 13 dysrhythmias, CNS depression, behavioral changes, gastrointestinal symptoms, megaloblastic anemia, and hirsutism. These medications may also require careful monitoring of their blood plasma levels (McNamara, 1996), Magnetic Theories Whitaker and Adderly (1998) highlighted several key theories regarding the suspected action of magnets on biological tissues resulting in a decrease of pain. Since magnets themselves are not fully understood, research continues. Several theories have been proposed, with varying degrees of potential substantiation. 1. Ion-specific channel mediation suggests that sodium and calcium channels are effected by magnetic fields. When the flow of these ions is altered, distortion of cellular conductivity results. Therefore, the transmission of pain reception may be greatly altered or impeded. 2. Pineal gland stimulation theory suggests that the magnetic fields may directly effect the pineal gland. This effect would stimulate a cascade production of melatonin, serotonin, and various other enzymes. Such changes in various chemical levels could impact on the ability to sense pain. 3. Gate theory, widely used to explain why acupuncture is effective for pain mediation, revolves around stimulation of the large pain fibers of the central nervous system overriding the small pain fiber receptors. It is postulated that the magnetic field stimulates the large pain fibers descending from the brain, effectively overriding the transmission of pain perception carried by the small pain fibers (Melzack & Wall, 1965). 14 4. Vasodilatation theory suggests that blood flow is increased in the area affected by the magnetic field via vasodilatation. The increased flow of blood then carries away toxins, pathogens, and by-products of the inflammatory process. Included in this theory may be one of the principles of physics called the Hall effect. The Hall effect states that positively and negatively charged ions passing through a magnetic field produce heat. Hence, the positively and negatively charged ions contained in the blood produce heat within the blood vessel when passing through the static magnetic field which causes dilation of surrounding capillaries, resulting in increased flow of blood which brings nutrients and removes waste. Magnetic Studies The following studies reviewed the efficacy of magnetic fields for control of pain. These studies have tested both pulsed electromagnetic fields, as well as the use of static or permanent magnetic fields, with various types of somatic pain including chronic neck pain, postpolio pain, and the pain of osteoarthritis. Pulsed electromagnetic fields. Researchers Binder, Hazelman, Parr, and Fitten-Jackson (1984) studied the effect of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. The study participants consisted of 29 patients, in a double-blinded controlled study, whose symptoms of rotator cuff tendinitis had been refractory to steroid injection and other conventional conservative measures. During the first 4 weeks of the study the experimental group of 15 patients received an oval shaped coil of copper wire, attached to the shoulder with two Velcio® straps, and supplied with electromagnetic pulsed generators. The control group of 14 pa 15 received similar coils but with inactive generators. Patients were instructed to use the coils five to nine times a day for at least 1 hour at a time. At the end of 4 weeks the experimental group had significantly (g = 0.02) less pain than the control group as measured by physical mobility and subjective pain scoring. At this point the control group then received active electromagnetic pulsed generators, and both groups were studied for another 4 week period. At the end of the second 4 week period no further improvement was seen in the initial experimental group, but the control group had caught up to the experimental group in pain reduction. It was concluded, therefore, that the primary impact of the magnetic fields was experienced within the first 4 week timeframe. At 16 weeks post treatment, 66 % of the patients were symptomless. Ultimately, more than 70 % of the patients studied improved to varying degrees with pulsed electromagnetic field therapy as compared to their baseline. The researchers offered no explanation as to why the patients improved, but concluded that the improvement was a direct result of the magnetic therapy. Research by Foley-Nolan, Barry, Coughlan, O’Connor, and Roden (1990), studied the effects of pulsed high frequency (27MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. This was a double-blinded, placebo controlled study of 20 patients over 18 years old with neck pain for more than 8 weeks, and refractory to at least one course of NS AID medication. The study used miniaturized diathermy generators, incorporated into soft cervical collars, delivering short wave pulsed magnetic fields at 450 cycles per second. Patients were randomly assigned functio or nonfunctional units as they entered the study. The 6 week study was di 16 two 3 week cycles, and patients were assessed on a weekly basis. At the end of the first 3 week cycle the group with the active units reported a significant (p < 0.023) decrease in pain, the median pain score dropping from 7 to 4 on the visual analogue scale 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst pain. The inactive group reported only a median change from 6.75 initially to 5.5 at the end of the first cycle. Range-of-motion of the neck was also measured on a scale of 1 to 6, with 6 being full range-of-motion. The active group median score rose from 3.6 initially to 4.1 at 3 weeks (p < 0.008), and to 4.8 at 6 weeks (p = 0.018). The inactive group median range-of-motion score changed from the initial measure of 3.3 to 3.45 at 3 weeks (p = NS), but at 6 weeks had increased to 4.6 (p < 0.008) after receiving active units for the second half of the study. The pain experienced by the control group with inactive units also decreased in the second 3 week cycle with active units, from 5.5 to 3.0 (p < 0.012). It was speculated that the improvements in mobility and the reduction of pain were due to anti-inflammatory and prohealing effects produced by the magnetic fields, with the greatest benefit seen within the first 3 weeks of active unit use. Trock, et al. (1993) presented a double-blinded trial of the clinical effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the pain of osteoarthritis. The pilot study consisted of 27 patients, 18 years of age or older, with complaints of arthritic symptoms for at least 1 year, and refractory to anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and other analgesics. Twenty-one of the patients complained of knee pain, five patients complained of joint pain of the hand, and one patient had ankle pain. Experimental treatments consisted of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic f 17 averaging 10 to 20 gauss, with a pulse phase of 67 milliseconds. Treatments were given three to five times a week, for 30 minutes at a time, for a total of 18 treatments extending over more than 1 month. Fifteen patients were randomized to the active treatment group, and 12 patients were randomized to the placebo group. No significant differences existed between the two groups at baseline. Six different variables were addressed: overall severity of pain, difficulty score with most troublesome activity of daily living (ADL), pain with most troublesome ADL, worst discomfort in previous week, pain on joint motion by physician examination, and joint tenderness by physician examination. The active treatment group improved significantly in each variable (p = 0.0023, 0.0020, 0.0313, 0.0009, 0.0195, 0.0024, respectively) by the end of the 1 month treatment period, as compared to the placebo group. Assessments were done midway through the trial, at the conclusion of the trial, and 1 month post treatment. By the midpoint of the study the actively treated group averaged 34% improvement compared to 8% improvement in the placebo group. At the end of the treatment period the active group had improved an average of 36% and the placebo group only 10%. Interestingly, when both groups were reassessed 1 month after the conclusion of the treatment phase the actively treated group continued to improve to an average of 47%, and the placebo group only to an average of 14%. During the study, two of the actively treated patients reported such a degree of improvement that they no longer needed to take their pain medication. None of the placebo group patients reported being able to stop their pain me Furthermore, no evidence of toxicity was found secondary to the magnetic th py 18 The researchers suggested that the possible mechanism involved was that of mediation of ion-specific channels, but conceded that this explanation was speculation. With the statistically significant results of their pilot study (Track et al. 1993) of pulsed electromagnetic therapy on osteoarthritis, researchers Track, Bollet, and Markoll (1994) conducted a larger study of 167 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or cervical spine. Osteoarthritis of the knee was present in 86 of the patients and the remaining 81 study patients had osteoarthritis of the cervical spine. Patients were exposed to 30 minute treatments of pulsed electromagnetic fields, three to five times per week, for a total of 18 treatments over a 1 month period. The two groups were assessed separately, each with its own active treatment and placebo controlled groups. For this study, patients were required to be at least 35 years old with localized symptoms such as pain and stiffness that had persisted for a minimum of a 1 year period. The patients were instructed not to change any part of their current therapeutic regimen during the study. The actively treated groups averaged between 29% and 36% (p < 0.0001 to = 0.0009) improvement in all variables assessed, whereas the placebo groups averaged only between 11% and 19% (p — 0.002 to - 0.3) improvement. At the 1 month follow-up, the data again demonstrated a continued improvement for both actively treated groups beyond what had been achieved at the conclusion of the 18 treatments. The placebo groups showed little or no improvement, and in some cases continued degeneration at their I month fol P The researchers felt that this continued improvement was very noteworthy, p g 19 out that the effectiveness of NSAID medication stops when the patient discontinues use of the medication, whereas improvement continued after the use of magnetic therapy. Static Magnetic Fields. Like pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnetic fields are being used to treat somatic pain. Though much of the acclaim for static or permanent magnetic therapy is anecdotal, there are a few studies regarding the subject. One study involved the use of a magnetic bracelet worn about the wrist by test subjects (Harper & Wright, 1977). This study consisted of 16 volunteers, without physical ailment, involved in a double-blinded trial of the bracelet’s analgesic properties. Each subject, acting as their own control, wore a bracelet for 5 minutes, without knowing if it was active or placebo, prior to the test. Then each subject was exposed to a radiant heat source five times, both with and without the bracelet. The differences between pain thresholds of the groups were evaluated with a t test, and revealed no significant alteration of pain tolerance. The researchers concluded that there was no support for the claim of analgesic effect produced by the bracelet against the discomfort induced by radiant heat. Magnetic necklaces were investigated for their therapeutic effectiveness on neck and shoulder pain (Hong et al., 1982). One hundred and one volunteers with a mean age of 30 years, and a range from 18 to 62 years, were enrolled in the study. 46 male and 55 female. Forty-nine of the participants had no symptoms of chronic neck Pain, the remaining 52 participants had chronic neck and shoulder pain p ePisodic for more than 1 year. None of the participants were receiving y 20 of treatment for 6 months prior to, or during, the experimental study. The necklaces used incorporated between 7 and 11 magnetic elements measuring 8mm long by 2.2mm in diameter. The magnetic field density at the surface of the elements was 1300 gauss, which rapidly decreased to 0 gauss when 9mm away from the element surface. The nonmagnetic necklaces were visually indistinguishable from the active units. Each participant, with or without pain, was randomly assigned an active or placebo necklace. All participants were told that they were receiving treatment with a magnetic necklace and were to wear the necklace in contact with the skin 24 hours a day for a 3 week period. Excitation thresholds of the suprascapular nerve and conduction times of the ulnar nerve were measured at baseline prior to donning the necklace, and at weekly intervals. The analysis of variance of the excitation thresholds showed no significant change between active and placebo treated groups. However, ulnar nerve conduction time of the large pain fibers was significantly (no p reported) reduced in the actively treated group without pain, but showed no change in the groups with pain or placebo. Subjectively, 52% of the participants with pain, treated with active magnetic necklaces reported improvement, and 44% of the pain group with placebo necklaces also reported improvement (p < 0.001). The researchers (Hong et al., 1982) suggested that some portion of the gate theory, as well as the Hall effect, may have accounted for the changes in the ulnar nerve conduction to reduce pain, but speculated that the magnetic field produced by the tiny elements were to superficial and small. Furthermore, the subjective evaluation failed to she on the effectivieness of magnetic necklaces. y g 21 In the late 1990s, a double-blinded study on the response of pain to static magnetic fields was conducted in postpolio patients (Vallbona, Hazlewood, & Jurida 1997). Fifty patients complaining of arthritic-like or muscular pain, with a diagnosis of postpolio syndrome, were enlisted in the study. The patients met inclusion criteria of being less than 140% of ideal body weight as predicted by age and height, had had “significant” pain for the last 4 weeks, and had not ingested any form of pain medication for 3 hours prior to the test. These patients were fitted with either static magnetic devices, or placebo devices of exactly the same size and shape, in a double blinded manner. The active devices ranged from 300 to 500 gauss at the surface, and varied in size from a 90mm disc, to a credit card size, to a 175mm strip. Additionally, the devices had concentrically arranged circles of alternating magnetic polarity. After the appropriate sized device was attached to the area of greatest pain with adhesive tape, the patients remained in the clinic, or its immediate location, for 45 minutes. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (Melzack, 1975) was utilized before and after treatment to provide a subjective evaluation of the device’s effect on the patient s pain. The results showed a highly significant difference (p < 0.0001) between the active group’s pre- and post- evaluations. Of the patients with active devices, 76/o reported significantly decreased pain. In the placebo group, only 19 /o reported improvement but to a much lesser degree than the active group. Upon review of their results, the researchers felt that static magnetic fields were indeed an effecti help treat postpolio pain, and that the effect may be dependent on the penetration of the field. This penetration would be related to the intensity of the field 22 distance beneath the surface required to reach the fascial plane causing the pain. They concluded that: The delivery of static magnetic fields through a magnetized device directly applied to a pain trigger point or to a localized painful area results in significant relief of pain within a short period of time ... and with no apparent side effects. Based on the results of this study and reports in the literature of the effect on people with arthritis, it appears that magnetic field energy may be useful in the management of pain in individuals with other types of impairments that are commonly treated in primary care settings (Vallbona et al., pp. 1202 - 1203). More recently, published in March of 2000, a pilot study by Collacott, Zimmerman, White, and Rindone examined the use of static magnetic fields for their effect on chronic low back pain. The study was designed as a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study and consisted of 19 men and one woman with stable low back pain for a minimum of 6 months with a years. On radiographic exam of the low back region prior to beginning th y, patients were found to have spondylosis of the lumbar region. Comp randomization was used to assign each participant to either an active magnetic unit or a sham unit. The active magnetic unitwas in the shape of a trapez01d t0 back, with an average of 300 gauss at the surface that contacted the skin (rang , G to 330 G). The sham unit was of the same shape and material, b demagnetized rendering it at 0 G. Each participant w 23 days per week. After 1 week with the unit, a 1 week period was maintained without the use of any unit before changing to an opposite unit for the same time period; if the first unit was magnetized then the second unit was sham, and visa versa. The McGill Pain Questionnaire and a visual analog scale were utilized to measure pain before and after treatment on the first day with each unit, and at the end of each week. Range of motion (ROM) was also measured at these intervals. At the conclusion of the treatment periods the overall change from baseline on the visual analog scale for the sham portion was -0.40, and the magnetic portion changed -0.49 (p = 0.86). ROM increased by 0.85° for the sham and 2.8° for the magnet (p = 0.66). The pain rating index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire changed by -2.0 for the sham and -0.5 for the magnet (p = 0.55). It was the conclusion of the researchers that the magnet provided no statistically significant benefit over the sham unit. Summary Magnetic therapy for the control of somatic pain is increasingly becoming a subject of study. This chapter reviewed the physiology of pain and summarized some of the current medical treatments. Then a number of studies done in the last 2 decades on magnetic therapy were discussed. These studies provided valuable insight into the area of magnetic therapy: its positive results with pulsed electromagnetics as well as with static magnetics. In light of increasing public interest in alternative medicine, and the shortcomings of current allopathic treatment for many patients, magnetic therapy presents an intriguing possibility without side effects either sho 24 term. In order to guide and educate patients about this mcieM rem(!<iy knowledge is needed to indicate which methods are best 25 Chapter III Methodology The purpose of this study was to help determine if nurse practitioners should advocate the use of magnets for the control of somatic pain. This chapter presents the selection of the sample group, setting of the study, and the method of data collection. Also discussed are the study’s hypothesis, operational definitions, and the means of data analysis. Informed consent issues are also addressed. Hypothesis It was hypothesized that magnetic fields produced by permanent magnets would decrease somatic pain in adults. Operational Definitions 1. Somatic pain is that undesirable discomfort arising from stimulation of pain receptors of the skin, fascia, tendons, skeletal muscles, and joints. Somatic pain may also be interchangeably referred too simply as pain, and was be measured using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Melzack, 1975). 2. Magnet refers to a physical object that exerts a constant or static magnetic field (Whitaker & Adderly, 1998). 3. PPI is the present pain index, which is the intensity of discomfort related to a visual analog scale from 1/mild to 5/excruciating (Melzack, 1975). 4. PRI stands for the pain-rating index on the rank value of pain descriptors. Words in each subgroup have a predetermined value and were summed to obtain a total PRI score (Melzack, 1975). 26 5. NWC stands for the number of words chosen to describe the pain (Melzack, 1975). Setting, Sample, and Procedure The participants in this study were a small group of ten volunteers taken from a population located in northwestern Pennsylvania. They were referred to a family practice medical office, generally by word of mouth, while seeking resolution of somatic pain that had not been otherwise sufficiently relieved by pharmacologic or physical therapy interventions. The somatic pain had been present for longer than 1 month. A manufacturer’s representative instructed each participant on the use of a magnet, in each participant’s home. The magnets used varied in strength from 450 gauss to 700 gauss. Each participant was individually assessed and an appropriate magnet was selected by the manufacturer’s representative based on location and size of the area of pain. The McGill Pain Questionnaire was administered by voluntary completion of the survey and returned by mail at three points during the study: once at baseline, again 24 to 48 hours after application of the magnet, and again 1 week after initial magnet application. Each survey had a tracking code attached, but no names were ever used. The participants were permitted to remove the magnet as needed for such things as bathing and sleeping. Otherwise they were asked to keep the magnet in place. Participants received a copy of the study results by mail if so desired, by including a self-addressed stamped envelope with the submission of the final survey. 27 Informed Consent It was explained to each participant on an individual basis that they were agreeing to be part of a prospective study on the effects of static magnets (Appendix A). The information was not used for marketing purposes and they received no remuneration for their voluntary contribution to the study. Furthermore, all participants remained anonymous since no names were required on the survey. Confidentiality was maintained. The completion and return of the surveys constituted informed consent. Data is reported only in the aggregate. Instrumentation The survey instrument used in this study was the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Appendix B). This questionnaire has been used in numerous studies regarding pain, including at least two previous studies on magnetic therapy: Vallbona, Hazlewood, & Jurida, (1997) and Collacott, Zimmerman, White, & Rindone (2000). The nature and diversity of this survey lends itself to a wide variety of experimental as well as practical uses. In constructing the questionnaire more than 300 patients, physicians, and students were interviewed. The correlation between the measuring parameters was very good (p < 0.05). Permission to use the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Melzack, 1975) was obtained from Dr. Ronald Melzack, of the McGill University in Montreal Canada, first by telephone and then confirmed by faxed permission (Appendix C). The McGill Pain Questionnaire has four sections in addition to a section collecting biographical information. Part one gives an anatomical drawing of the human body with anterior and posterior views for the participant to mark the location 28 of his or her pain. Part two asks what that particular participant’s pain feels like, giving twenty groups of two to six descriptive words in each group. The participant is to circle all that apply. Part three inquires as to how the pain changes over time asking participants what relieves the pain, what exacerbates the pain, and to choose a pattern descriptive of the pain over time. Part four introduces a visual analogue scale for ranking intensity of pain as it relates to six different questions. Data Analysis Using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Melzack, 1975), several forms of data were retrieved and extrapolated. Each participant acted as his or her own control. The PRI was determined by adding the rank values of the descriptors in the survey at each measuring interval. The net change was calculated for statistical significance by means of the t test for correlated groups with a = 0.05. The NWC was measured at each interval, and again the net change was calculated. Any differences between PPI scores at each interval were also assessed for significance by means of the t test. Summary The goal of this study was to establish whether or not nurse practitioners should advocate the use of magnets for management of somatic pain. This chapter has presented the McGill Pain Questionnaire as a data collecting tool. Participant confidentiality and volunteer status were also discussed. Sample, setting, procedure, and data analysis have also been described. 29 Chapter IV Results This chapter presents the results of a three survey series administered to voluntary participants in the northwestern Pennsylvania area. Data is presented in the form of tables as well as didactic. Statistical analysis is also presented to establish any statistical significance in pain score changes between baseline and the experimental conditions. Demographics A total of twelve individuals responded to the survey series. Two participants were excluded from the study due to incomplete surveys. All participants had been dealing with their individual pain for longer than 1 month and in many cases for years. They also continued to use any medication regimen that may have been prescribed for them by their healthcare provider. The majority of participants were female. The ages of the participants ranged from 31 to 78 years and they had a variety of somatic complaints (Table 1). The mean age was 48.9 years old with a standard deviation of 17.2 years. None of the participants reported any untoward effects of the magnetic therapy. Number of Words Chosen (NWC) The raw scores were compiled and the student t test was applied for the statistical analysis. With a = 0.05, to be considered a statistically significant score, the t obtained had to be greater than 1.833. The t score was computed for the changes reflected at 24 hours, 1 week, and for any change between those two time frames. 30 A statistically significant improvement was reflected in the NWC at the 24 hour mark, t = 2.5180 (p = 0.0059). The NWC at one week indicated continued improvement t 3.1058 (p = 0.0009), which is an even more significant improvement from baseline but not a significant change from the 24 hour mark t = 0.6446 (p = 0.2611). The scores are shown in Table 2, and it can be seen that not every participant had the same level of improvement. Table 1 Demographic Information (N Gender 10) Age Somatic Complaint Male 75 Osteoarthritis Female 31 TMJ Female 31 Sciatic pain Female 34 TMJ Female 41 Sciatic pain Female 42 Low back pain Female 45 Low leg pain Female 51 Shoulder bursitis Female 61 Arthritis Female 78 Low back pain Note. TMJ refers to the medical condition temporomandibular joint dysfunction. 31 Table 2 Number of Words Chosen (N = 10) Base line 24 hours 10 4 5 11 9 8 6 6 6 20 17 18 8 4 1 6 4 2 6 6 5 20 0 0 8 1 0 11 13 8 10.6 mean- 6.4 One week ■mean 5.3 Present Pain Index (PPI) The PPI is a measure of the participants' pain as it is at the time they are filling out the each of the surveys. The index is an analogue scale from one to five with the number one indicating mild pain, increasing to the number five, indicating excruciating pain. Table 3 shows the compilation of the survey results. The results 32 indicated a very significant improvement at 24 hours, t 6.000 (p < 0.0001) with continued improvement to one week, t = 6.500 (p < 0.0001). Like the NWC, the greatest change in scores appeared at the 24 hour mark. The change from the 24 hour mark to the one week mark was not statistically significant with t = 1.500 (p = 0.0668). Table 3 Present Pain Index (N = 10) Raw Scores Mean Baseline: 1 5 1 5 1 5 2 1 1 3 2.5 24 hours: 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1.5 One week: 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1.2 Pain Rating; Index (PRI) The PRI contains the greatest number of variables with scores potentially ranging from 0 to 78. In this study the scores ranged from 55 at baseline to 0 at one week of treatment. At 24 hours, a significant improvement was indicated with t = j.7109 (p 0-0001). At one week the t 5.3930 (p < 0.0001) indicating continued improvement and still a significant change over baseline. The change from the 24 hour mark to 1 week was t = 1.1605 (p = 0.1230), not indicating a statistically significant change. Table 4 shows the raw scores gathered. 33 Table 4 Pain Rating Index (N = 10) Raw Scores Mean Baseline: 22 32 20 49 20 18 12 55 11 24 26.3 24 hours: 7 24 19 29 9 10 12 0 1 28 13.9 One week: 10 18 20 26 1 3 14 0 0 13 10.5 Summary This chapter has presented the results of a magnetic therapy regimen, compiled from a three survey series completed by 10 participants in northwestern Pennsylvania. The results were then subjected to statistical analysis via the Student t test to determine if any statistically significant benefits occurred. The results of each subset of data reflected similar levels of improvement which met criteria to be considered statistically significant. 34 Chapter V Discussion This chapter provides a summary of the results of the three survey series investigating the effectiveness of magnetic therapy for the management of somatic pain. A sample of 10 participants with somatic pain volunteered to complete the three survey series. The conclusions of this study are discussed in this chapter as well as recommendations for individual healthcare providers and future researchers. Sample The sample size for this study was comparatively small. In statistical analysis, a sample size of at least 30 participants is recommended to be able to apply the results to the population at large. Also, with nine females and only one male responding, the results cannot be assumed to reflect the potential outcomes for both genders. NWC, PPL PRI All three sections of the McGill Pain Questionnaire showed similar results. The critical level for statistical significance was greatly exceeded in each section, and continued to progress through the 1 week treatment period. Again, each section showed the greatest benefit gains within the first 24 hours. Conclusions This researcher feels that the data obtained support several conclusions. The first conclusion being that static magnetic therapy does, indeed, provide relief of somatic discomfort. However, to what degree this is true was not fully revealed in the data of this study. All participants knew that the magnets were being used in an 35 attempt to mitigate the pain they were experiencing. Therefore, the amount of improvement due to psychological expectation on the part of the participant cannot be separated from the physiologic response of the body’s pain mechanisms. Secondly, placement of the magnet on the skin over the area of the greatest pain appeared effective. All participants were able to successfully place the magnet where it was needed most, as determined by the participants. Since this means of placement was the only one used in this study, an effective comparison to other methods, such as over acupuncture points, cannot be made. Thirdly, magnetic therapy posed no harm to the participants of this study. None of the participants reported any untoward effects from the magnetic therapy. None of the individuals in this study were using any form of pacemaker, internal or external. The potential benefits of magnetic therapy for individuals who do have pacemakers has not been explored to the knowledge of this researcher, probably due to the fact that magnets are used to turn off most pacemakers and could lead to some unhealthy results. Finally, the theoretical framework of the Four Conservation Principles by Myra Levine (1969) chosen for this study, functioned well. Because the magnetic therapy helped decrease the level of pain for the participants, the energy that was being used by the body to deal with the pain could be focussed elsewhere. Many of the participants expressed emotional relief with the reduction or abolition of their pain, and were subsequently able to perform their activities of daily living at an 36 improved level. In so doing, their overall sense of wellbeing and productivity improved in direct proportion. Recommendations Based upon the lesults of this study, this researcher does recommend the use of magnetic therapy by practitioners for their patients in pain of somatic origin. This does not exclude, however, the use of currently accepted pharmacologic and physical therapies but may serve as an adjunct to these. In the case of individual patients seeking alternatives to pharmacologic interventions, magnetic therapy may be a viable option, and should be strongly considered. This researcher whole-heartedly supports continued research in the field of magnetic therapy. Until a definitive means to clinically measure pain of a physiologic level is devised, the ‘human’ factor still weighs heavily on the interpretation of current results. Some individuals will continue to minimize the degree of their pain, while others will continue to amplify their perception of pain (Petrie, 1967). For now, studies of the double blind design on much larger groups need to continue. Also to be considered should be studies comparing magnetic therapy to conventional mild pharmacologic interventions such as how ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and static magnets compare for the pain relief of an ankle strain. Summary This chapter presented the summary of the study results. The conclusion that magnetic therapy does have beneficial effects was based on the results obtained. Continued investigation into this phenomena is strongly encouraged. These data 37 not lend support to any one theory concerning the mechanism behind the efficacious results. 38 References American Pain Society (1992). Principles of analgesic use in the treatment of acute and cancer pain (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: American Pain Society. Binder, A., Hazleman, B., Parr, G., & Fitto-Jackson, S. (1984). Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. Lancet, 1, 695 - 698. Collacot, E., Zimmerman, J., White, D., & Rindone, J. (2000). Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Journal of the American Medical Association. 283, 1322 - 1325. Copstead, L. (1995). Perspectives on pathophysiology. Philadelphia; W.B. Saunders Company. Fingerhood, M. I. (1999). Illicit and therapeutic use of drugs with abuse liability. In L. R. Barker, J. R. Burton, P. D. Zieve, & T. E. Finucane (Eds.), Principles of ambulatory medicine (5th ed.)(pp. 264-285). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Foley-Nolan, D., Barry, C., Coughlan, R. J., O’Connor, P., & Roden, D. (1990). Pulsed high frequency (27MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. Orthopedics, 13, 445 -451. Harper, D. W., & Wright, E. F. (1977). Magnets as analgesics. LancetJL 47. Hong, C. Z., Lin, J. C., Bender, L. F., Schaeffer, J. N., Meltzer, R. J., & Causin, P. (1982). Magnetic necklace: Its therapeutic effectiveness on neck and shoulder pain. Archives of Physical Medical Rehabilitation, 63, 462 - 466. 39 Insel, P. (1996). Analgesic-antipyretic and anti-inflammatory agents and drugs employed in the treatment of gout. In J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, & A. G. Gilman (Eds.), Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. (9th ed.)(pp. 617 - 657). New York: McGraw-Hill. Levine, M. E. (1969). Introduction to clinical nursing. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company. Marriner, A. (1986). Nursing theorists and their work. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company. McCaffery, M. (1968). Nursing practice theories related to cognition, bodily pain. and man-environment interactions. Los Angeles: UCLA Students’ Store. McCaffery, M., & Pasero, C. (1999). Pain clinical manual (2nd ed.). St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company. McNamara, J. O. (1996). Drugs effective in the therapy of the epilepsies. In J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, & A. G. Gilman (Eds.), Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. (9lh ed.)(pp. 461 - 486). New York: McGraw - Hill. Meleis, A. (1997). Theoretical nursing development and progress (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Melzack, R., & Wall P. D. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory. Science, 150, 971 -979. Melzack, R. (1975). The McGill pain questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain, 1, 277 - 299. 40 Petrie, A. (1967). Individuality in pain and suffering. London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd. Reisine, T., & Pasternak, G. (1996). Opioid analgesics and antagonists. In J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, & A. G. Gilman (Eds.), Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. (9th ed.)(pp. 521 - 555). New York: McGraw - Hill. Rosenfeld, I. (1996). Dr. Rosenfeld’s guide to alternative medicine. New York: Random House. Schimmer, B. P., & Parker, K. L. (1996). Adrenocorticotropic hormone; adrenocortical steroids and their synthetic analogs; inhibitors of the synthesis and actions of adrenocortical hormones. In J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, & A. G. Gilman (Eds.), Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. (9th ed.)(pp. 1459 - 1485). New York: McGraw - Hill. Sheehy, C. M., & McCarthy, M. C. (1998). Advanced practice nursing emphasizing common roles. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company. Thomas, C. L. (Ed.) (1997). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary (18th ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company. Tortora, G. J., & Anagnostakos N. P. (1984). Principles of anatomy and physiology (4th ed.). New York: Biological Sciences Textbooks, Inc. Trock, D. H., Bollet, A. J., Dyer, R. H., Jr., Fielding, L. P., Miner, W. K., & Markoil, R. (1993). A double blind trial of the clinical effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 20, 456 - 460. 41 Trock, D. H., Bollet, A. J., & Markoil, R. (1994). The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and cervical spine: Report of randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials. The Journal of Rheumatology. 21, 1903 - 1911. Vallbona, C., Hazlewood, C., & Jurida, G. (1997). Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: A double blind pilot study. Archives of Physical Medical Rehabilitation, 78, 1200 - 1203. Whitaker, J., & Adderly, B. (1998). The pain relief breakthrough. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 42 Appendixes 43 Appendix A Informed Consent Dear Participant: The information gathered by this study will help fulfill a requirement for my master degree in nursing from Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, and is intended to increase knowledge for those participating in the healing arts. This study will not be used for marketing purposes and will in no way change your current medical treatment. I would like to extend my sincere thanks for your willing participation in this small prospective study on magnetic therapy, as well as my condolences for your pain and suffering. Unfortunately, we are not able to provide remuneration for your voluntary contribution to the study. All participants will remain strictly anonymous and no names are required on the survey: please do not place your name anywhere on the survey. Your information will be correlated by use of a tracking code with a master copy of participants kept under lock and key by the manufacturer’s representative and myself only. The completion of the surveys and return to the researcher constitutes your consent to be a part of this study. You can receive a copy of the study results, if so desired, by including a self-addressed stamped envelope with the submission of the final survey. Again, thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions or comments you may contact me at 398- 4270, or Dr. J. Schilling at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Department of Nursing 732-2900. Sincerely, Dan E. Briggs, RN, BSN, SFNP 44 Appendix B McGill Pain Questionnaire Tracking Code: Age: Date: Gender: male / female Medical Diagnosis: Analgesic Medications ( such as anti-inflammatories or narcotics: This questionnaire has been designed to tell us more about your pain. Four major questions we ask are: 1. Where is your pain? 2. What does it feel like? 3. How does it change with time? 4. How strong is it? It is important that you tell us how your pain feels now. Please follow the instructions at the beginning of each part. © R. Melzack, Oct. 1970 45 Part 1. Where is your pain? Please mark on the drawings below, the areas where you feel pain. Put E if external, or I if internal, near the areas which you mark. Put El if both external and internal. 46 Part 2. What does your pain feel like? Some of the words below describe your present pain. Circle ONLY those words that best describe it. Leave out any category that is not suitable. Use only a single word in each appropriate category - the one that applies best. 1 Flickering Quivering Pulsing Throbbing Beating Pounding 2 Jumping Flashing Shooting 3 Pricking Boring Drilling Stabbing Lancinating 4 Sharp Cutting Lacerating 5 Pinching Pressing Gnawing Cramping Crushing 6 Tugging Pulling Wrenching 7 Hot Burning Scalding Searing 8 Tingling Itchy Smarting Stinging 9 Dull Sore Hurting Aching Heavy 10 Tender Taut Rasping Splitting 11 Tiring Exhausting 12 Sickening Suffocating 13 Fearful Frightful Terrifying 14 Punishing Grueling Cruel Vicious Killing 15 Wretched Blinding 16 Annoying Troublesome Miserable Intense Unbearable 17 Spreading Radiating Penetrating Piercing 18 Tight Numb Drawing Squeezing Tearing 19 Cool Cold Freezing 20 Nagging Nauseating Agonizing Dreadful Torturing 47 Part 3. How does your pain change with time? 1. Which word or words would you use to describe the pattern of your pain? 1 2 3 Continuous Rhythmic Brief Steady Periodic Momentary Constant Intermittent Transient 2. What kind of things relieve your pain? 3. What kind of things increase your pain? Part 4. How strong is your pain? People agree that the following 5 words represent pain of increasing intensity. They are: 1 Mild 2 Discomforting Distressing 4 Horrible 5 Excruciating To answer each question below, write the number of the most appropriate word in the space beside the question. 1. Which word describes your pain right now? 2. Which word describes it at its worst? 3. Which word describes it when it is least? 4. Which word describes the worst toothache you ever had? 5. Which word describes the worst headache you ever had? 6. Which word describes the worst stomach ache you ever had? 48 Appendix C Permission to Use McGill Pain Questionnaire Ha/.;- . fecsimile transmittal To: Dr. Ronald Melzack Fax; 1 (514)398-4896 From: Dan E. Brisks Date: 1IZ30/99 Re: McGill Pain Qucstionaire Pages: 1 CC: □ Urgant □ FerRgvrew □ Please Comment '—Vr’feaso R*pry □ Please Recycle Dear Dr. Melzack: Hello. Pursuant to our telephone conversation. I am faxing you the request for permission to use your McGill Pain Questionnaire to interview patients involved in my thesis study. I am doing my masters thesis for Nurse Practitioner on the subject of magnetic therapy for the control of somatic pain and learned of your questionnaire white doing my literature search. I am very impressed with the questionnaire, and would very much like to use it If you have any questions or reservations ptease contact me at the above address or phone. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I wish you a joyful holiday season. Please return fax your permission to me at (814) 868^396. Th; . ----- • - you.